U.S. Works Up Plans for Using Nuclear Arms 1253
rjrjr writes: "The L.A. Times reports on the DoD's new stance on the use of nukes, including such comforting notions as nuclear bunker busters. What it all means is well explored in this cogent commentary."
The NY Times also has... (Score:3, Informative)
The BBC is on it, not surprisingly (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The NY Times also has... (Score:5, Informative)
So, am I going to correct that massive information deficit with just one post?
Ha!
You gotta be kidding!
Ok, random facts:
Why are the 'Occupied Territories'/'Disputed Territories' known as the 'Occupied Territories'/'Disputed Territories'?
Because the UN has been saying since 1967 that Israel should withdraw from them.
http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1967/s67r242e.
Why do many Palestinines dislike the US?
You could just read this:
http://www.merip.org/media_outreach/CT-Harm-done-
Basically, the US is funding Israels occupation:
- Israel gets about a third of US foreign aid
even though
- Israel's GNP is higher than Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza combined.
http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm [wrmea.com]
(actually, most of the US's aid goes to military uses
http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/jul98/23_13_097.html [oneworld.org] )
What is one of the reasons Palestinians dislike Ariel Sharon?
He was Minister of Defence during a 1982 Palestinian massacre... gah, just look here:
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/palestine
About 3 times more Palestinians have died in this conflict than Israelis. About a quarter of them, children.
The Palestinians have vastly less land available to them, they are poorer - many are living in refugee camps, after all.
And blah, here's more.
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/palestine
And "Will somebody please think of the Children!?"
http://playgroundsforpalestine.org/ [playground...estine.org]
Ok, so that's not actually funny...
:(
I could say that it's kinda atrocious how one group of people are treating another, considering they know how it is to be treated that way, and worse.
But I'd be living in Lah-lah land. People are not that nice, fair, or decent.
And yay, there's probably some people who will have gotten to this bit, and already decided I'm "a bad guy" so they can ignore me.
But it's not that simple.
It's a war, with all the nasties of a civil war.
It's in the best interests of Fundamentalists on both sides to continue the conflict, as it works helluva good in the popularity ratings.
Each side is gonna say the other side is THE BAD GUYS, because that's how wars work.
If you don't believe it, people don't want to fight them.
Currently, the Palestinians are getting the worse end of the stick, but Israelis are not "THE BAD GUYS" either.
It's just people - working, eating, caring for their children, getting on with life - on both sides, but until you realise that, there won't be peace.
A completely non-revolutionary idea, but still true.
CNN has Pentagon article removing the scare factor (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:CNN has Pentagon article removing the scare fac (Score:2, Insightful)
several years after WWII and the use of The Bomb people began to lack in their attitudes towards the threat of nuclear war. Along came Castro and Kruschev and bam again the "scare" returned. It was quickly quelled by anti-nuclear weapons treaties, end of the Cuban Missile Crisis, etc.
Now we are in the "next millenium" and what the fuck are we doing. Promoting the threat of the use to return and we're not scared of that?
Just b/c it isn't US policy right now does NOT mean it doesn't increase the risk. Empty at this time or not, that statement moves us more towards fucking midnight than we want.
Trust me.
Thanks, I feel so much better now (Score:3, Funny)
So you mean that we're moving away from weapons that we could never possibly use, to weapons that we can?
*whew*
I know that I'm going to sleep better tonight.
Anyone want to get together and watch "Duck and Cover"?
Ugh (Score:4, Insightful)
I've got a lovely bunch of nuclears...
there they are all standing in a row...
big ones, small ones, ones the size of your head
Give em a twist, a flick of the wrist, that's what that monkey said.
I have to ask... what has North Korea and Russia been doing lately to deserve this?
Re:Ugh (Score:2, Insightful)
I have to ask, what makes you think you know everything that goes on in Russia, Korea or anywhere else behind closed doors?
Maybe people aren't as nice as you think.
Knunov
Re:Ugh (Score:2)
How would "surprising military developments" that did NOT involve nuclear attacks WARRANT nuclear attacks?
Re:Ugh-Simply. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ugh (Score:2, Insightful)
Right, as we all know, all nations other than the US and the UK are populated by fundamentally evil people with fundamentally diabolical master plans. They're not worrying about their incomes or their children like we are because they receive large block grants directly from Satan in order to allow them to concentrate on the destruction of white Christians.
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Funny)
I have to ask... what has North Korea and Russia been doing lately to deserve this?
And why isn't France on the list?...
(That was a joke, son.)
-M
Re:Ugh (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, it's the wine and the food that has spared France.....this time.
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
North Korea, on the other hand, would love to destroy America if they could, but they can't. Should they develop that ability, then these plans might be necessary.
So, basically these plans specifically target those nations that either hate the US, or have the ability to attack us with nukes, but not necessarily both.
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't it a lovely contradiction that America (the fisrt to develop, and only to use atomic/nuclear weapons) goes around talking about how these "rogue regimes" are developing weapons of mass destruction. We've proven our willingness to use them, so how do we get off saying that countries with similar strategies are terrorists?
If we simply go around threatening any country developing "WOMD", it will just encourage them to work harder so that the 800Lb gorilla will get off their backs.
Yesterday's News (Score:5, Informative)
It's just a congressionally mandated review.
See also (Score:3, Informative)
Hmm.. (Score:5, Funny)
Guess I've been playing too much CIV ][...
Japan (Score:2, Troll)
There is something to be said for an adequate use of force.
Knunov
Re:Japan (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Japan (Score:5, Interesting)
Japan and the US are allies because one nuked the other???
Japan is our ally only because it is in their (our) political interest, because it is treated with relative respect by the US, and becuse it still believes that the US is a force for peace and stability in the world.
But the Japanese have never forgotten or forgiven the use of the atomic bomb. People are still dying from the aftereffects, and these people (the bakugaisha) are still major news items here.
If Bush is looking to scuttle the US-Japan relationship, use of ANY KIND of nukes is a perfect way to accomplish this. Don't get any illusions that Japan is the US's permanent ally.
Re:Japan (Score:2, Redundant)
Japan had already surrendered when the bomb was dropped?
Ha Ha Ha Ha. As the troll says, your ideas intrigue me, how can I subscribe to your newsletter?
Re:Japan (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Japan (Score:3, Insightful)
2) The bombs were dropped as a show of force (that ended the war), but the idea that it was some form of scientific testing (other than incidental) is laughable. America had plenty of places to test nukes, and it used them.
2) A large number of Americans, who didn't happen to have started the war, would have died during the time the negotiation took.
3) The bombs worked to end a war that had killed millions, with only a couple hundred thousand casualities.
Re:Japan (Score:3, Insightful)
The vast majority of deaths in that war were non-combatants... Nearly 100,000,000 total deaths by some estimates. If anything, the bombs took attention from the horrific attrocities which the Japanese military and government perpetrated, and which they have never even had to officially acknowledge.
Why the Yanks really dropped the bomb (Score:4, Interesting)
What happened was that when the Germans invaded Poland, the Russians moved in & took the Eastern half - Mad Adulf & Uncle Joe had got Ribbentrop & Molotov to work this senario out, when they were together signing their little non-agression pact, earlier on. After the invasion the Poles formed a 'Goverment in Exile' in France, which later moved to the UK. The Western allies recognised them as the official Polish goverment. Meanwhile the Russians had made their own Polish Communist cronies form their own Polish Goverment in Eastern Poland, which they had intergrated into USSR as another Soviet Republic (well what was left of Eastern Poland after they gave a bit to the Belarus SSR, & another bit to the Ukrainian SSR). Well after Operation Barbarossa (the German invasion of Russia), these Polish communists were forced to run back to Uncle Joe in Moscow, & form their own Polish 'Goverment in Exile' in Russia proper. So now we had 2 Polish Goverments in exile.
Well any way, during their many pow-wows together, FDR, Winnie & Uncle Joe finally agreed that the post war Polish Goverment should include representitives from both Polish pretenders, in London & Lublin. By arround the Summer of '44 Hitler's panzers were in full retreat & there were already Soviet T34s' rolling into the suburbs of Warsaw, across the Vistula from Warsaw proper. The Russian radio stations were beaming across the frontier telling the Poles to revolt, to speed up their liberation from the Nasis'. The Polish exiles in London saw their chance & ordered the Home Army in Poland to revolt against the German occupiers. A funny thing then happen, the Red Army all of a sudden ground to a halt at the Vistula, thereby giving the Germans a free hand to crush the Warsaw Uprising. Once the Uprising was over the Russian T34 tanks then moved forward again & 'liberated' Warsaw. Stalin then 'forgot' about his agreament, & had his Lublin exiles form a goverment on their own. When some of the London exiles flew over to join them, having no Home Army to protect them, they promptly dissappeared. Winnie & FDR (& later Truman) were enraged.
Meanwhile in the Pacific, things weren't going well for the Japanese, & by the early Summer of '45 & the German defeat, they knew there time was up. So the Imperial Goverment started to send out surrender feelers to the allies, via the Russian & Swiss Embassies (Russian did not enter the war with Japan till August) - this was 3 months before Hiroshima. They included only one condition amongst their surrender terms - that they be aloud to keep their Emporer. These were rejected, even though (as the secret war ministry documents show) the US had already decided that the Japanese could keep their Emporer after the war; as it would then be less likely for a communist Goverment to form there. Seeing as Stalin had agreed years earlier, that he would enter the war against Japan, 3 months after Germany surrended, you can see why Truman & Churchill were so concern. Especially when you considered what happened with Poland.
Well any way beacause of what Stalin did to Poland, Churchill & Truman decided to show that they had 'Mojo' to equal Stalins red Army 'Mojo' (you got to remember that the Western Armies were nothing compared to the Red Army then - to every German Soldier fighting the Western allies, there were another 10 fighting on the Eastern front - there was no way even D-Day would have been successful if the Russians werent tying down so many German men. Plus the allies had nothing to compare with the 1000s' of Russian T34, KV & JS tanks, other than almost obsolete Shermans, & much smaller numbers too.). So Churchill obliterated Dresden with his 'Mojo' - RAF's Bomber Command, & Truman was advised by Stimson or paterson (I forget which) to reject Japans surrender feelers, so he could demenstrate his 'Mojo', through nuking Hiroshima & Nagasaki.
The War Ministry papers also show that the nukes, were not even the main reason for their unconditional surrender to the US, but just a face saving way out, as the Russians had by now entered the war against Japan & Marshal Zukhov's Red armies had just Blitzkreiged the whole of Manchuria & Korea, & also crossed over & taken Sakhalin & the Kuril Islands, so were now within sight of Japan itself. After taking 2 million Japanese prisoners, including over 150 generals & 'liberating' more land from Japanese occupation than the Americans, Australians & British had in the previous 4 years of war. There was one thing the Japanese top brass feared more than unconditional surrender to the Americans, & that was an invasion by the Red Army.
Another swaying facter in the droping of the bomb was that it cost 2 billion to develop, & Truman was worried what the publics reaction would be if the secret of the bomb (& its cost) ever came out, without him actually using it. Afterall news of the Baatam death march, etc, had just filtered through to the American public in the preceeding months.
War is war, & the reality is there's no rules in war but the rules of the victors. Afterall Dresden, Hiroshima & Nagasaki was just as bad as any of the 'war crimes' of the Nasis or the Nips - mind you, revenge is sweet.
Thats why I dont beleive Japan should have to pay compensation for war crimes (such as what the British veterans & the Korean woman want), otherwise the US should have to pay compensation for the nukes, & the Brits for Dresden etc. Also it was up to the goverments of the day to set reparation claims when Japans signed formal peace traeties with the 48 allied nations in '52. In other words the Korean Women & the British veterans etc should really be now sueing their own goverments now & not Japan, as those govts signed over those rights in 52.
BTW, this is not revisionist history as I'm not trying to put todays slant on past events, using modern attitudes. As I said before this all came out when the British war ministry released many documents that were classified under the 50 year rule.
most surprising thing about this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Didn't you ever see Dr. Strangelove? (Score:3, Interesting)
Same principle here. The message is being sent through an orchestrated leak.
-Isaac
Re:Didn't you ever see Dr. Strangelove? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, it's common knowledge amongst policymakers worldwide that US policy is "You use a WMD (weapon of mass destruction) on us, we use one on you - and all we have are nukes. So to us a nuke is a radiological weapon is nerve gas is a biological. Remember that." We've only been saying it for _40 years_.
This was intentionally leaked. To make clear to SH that the same rules still apply, and that use of chem/bio weapons on US troops really _will_ be met with nuclear weapons.
Go read the background before you make statements like the above, please. You really don't know what you're talking about.
Re:Didn't you ever see Dr. Strangelove? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sheezus, with friends like the USA, who needs enemies?
Re:Didn't you ever see Dr. Strangelove? (Score:5, Funny)
-
Re:Didn't you ever see Dr. Strangelove? (Score:3, Funny)
Contigency nuke plans for Canada?!?
Well, it always pays to cover your ass. In the 1920s, the Canadian government prepared a secret plan for invading the United States, should the need ever arise. Canadian army officers posing as tourists scouted out several cities for possible attack; the plan called for quick occupation of large cities close to the border, such as Seattle and Detroit, in the hope that they could be fortified before reinforcements arrived.
Re:Didn't you ever see Dr. Strangelove? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Didn't you ever see Dr. Strangelove? (Score:3, Funny)
In case of terrorist acts, such as violating the DMCA.
Re:most surprising thing about this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple. It's an intentional leak.
This is absolutly correct. Iraq is our next target in the "War on Terrorism" and GW wants to make it clear to Hussien that use of Chemical/Biological weapons against US Troops will be meant with a nuclear strike, or at the very least the possiblity of a nuclear strike. It seems to me, we are turning back the clock, returning to the Cold War era. Suggested reading to see where this MIGHT be going, read "Russian Spring" by Norman Spinrad.
Re:most surprising thing about this... (Score:2, Insightful)
That's an entirely different matter. I'm referring to American troops invading Iraq to get rid of Saddam.
If he uses biological or chemical agents against American troops, then America turns him into so much glowing dust. That's a more powerful deterrant then some may think.
The 9/11 issue was entirely different. If we went around and started blowing very large holes in Afghanistan, we not only would have had next to no idea who we were nuking, and would have destroyed all of the resulting evidence and information that was found. Nukes were not needed in that case, as the ground troops and airforce blew the hell out of them in short order. There was also nothing to deter-- they had already done what they had intended to do.
Besides, the point here is not that the US will use Nuclear Weapons. The point is that it CAN use them and that it WILL use them if chemical/bio/etc agents are used against its people.
The threat of force is not something to be taken lightly, least of all from the USA.
Re:most surprising thing about this... (Score:4, Insightful)
In a somewhat related story... (Score:2, Offtopic)
W
We need to plan ahead (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We need to plan ahead (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm what can be done: Nuke them, nuke us.
Lets see.... outcome.... We dead, they dead.
Yes, thats just great, and those who survive get to live in a radiated world.
Time for you to watch a movie called "War Games" again
Re:We need to plan ahead (Score:2, Interesting)
Second, other states have now a new argument for developing their own nuclear weapons. Before, having nuclear weapons was not very smart, as then the USA could use their own nuclear weapons against this nation. Now, the USA says it could use nuclear weapons against all other nations, no mattter if they have nuclear weapons or not. So developing own nucelar weapons can now somwhat be a defensiv tactic ("So they will see we can defend ourselves")
Third, which nation is going to attack the USA with nuclear weapons??? Sorry, only terrorist groups could do that, even Saddam is smart enough to not do that. And nuclear weapons will only help the terrorist in their try to present themselves as VICTIMS. They are not, of course, but if suddenly the USA uses nuclear weapons against, let's say the Iran, maybe some million people will then think phrases like "the USA are devil and they kill innocent people" aren't that wrong, and the terrorist have won new supporters.
- WSK
Re:We need to plan ahead (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:uh huh, (Score:2)
And you honestly don't think they have already?
"in the event of surprising military developments" (Score:3, Insightful)
On a more serious note such a reason is very dangerous as it could apply to anything.If your going to define a policy on when to use nukes then you should have the obligation to make crystal clear the situations where the nuclear option would be considered.
For any programmer out there could you imagine writing a functional spec using such loose and ambigious language?
Re:"in the event of surprising military developmen (Score:3, Insightful)
On a more serious note such a reason is very dangerous as it could apply to anything.If your going to define a policy on when to use nukes then you should have the obligation to make crystal clear the situations where the nuclear option would be considered.
What's the point of that? If you follow that logic strictly then you simply give the enemy a road-map around the obstacle of nuclear retaliation. That catch-all phrase simply says "if you threaten our vital interests in a way we haven't anticipated, you are taking a huge risk." Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
For any programmer out there could you imagine writing a functional spec using such loose and ambigious language?
Or, even more shocking, can you imagine someone comparing national nuclear policy-making to writing the functional spec for a computer program?
Good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
It takes 2,200 warheads to cover what planners call "a full target list" (nice fluffy way of saying that we need 2200 little containers to end humanity). I'm hoping that we got those targets slected!
Re:Good thing (Score:2)
Dessert Storm?
Re:Good thing (Score:2)
Re:Good thing (Score:2)
Yeah, when we fed Iraq a giant pastry. But it wasn't just any normal pastry, we pumped it with butter, poison, and antidote...oh, wait...DOH.
11:53 (Score:5, Funny)
On the otherhand I'd kind of like to see a 1 megaton burst from 30 miles away just once. Aside from being the last thing I'd ever see if I didn't wear goggles, it's probably spectacular.
Please don't think I'm a war mongerer. I don't mean we should use it on anyone. It's just that I'm part of a generation which grew up expecting a nuclear war. Imagine my surprise when we never had one. A little grotesque disapointment that I have to actually get a day job instead of wander the desert looking for canned dog food and gasoline.
And I bet you thought that Reganite Nihilism was a thing of the 80's. Well After reading the above I realize it's alive and well living inside my subconcious. Just waiting to rear it's ugly little head. Does this mean I get to do cocaine again?
sheriff (Score:2)
Well, DUH (Score:2)
You didn't think all those sexy nuke explosion simulations [slashdot.org] were just to stress-test some graphics cards, did you?
The bunker-buster B61-11 bomb (Score:2)
Essentially, is a B61 gravity-dropped nuclear bomb in the 45-50 kT yield variant that is designed to explode after it penetrates deep into the ground. Such a weapon will easily destroy most bunker complexes, even those built deept into mountainsides. We do know that Saddam Hussein has built a whole bunch of such bunkers, and Osama bin Laden--who was trained as a construction engineer himself--has probably built similar bunkers in the mountains of Afghanistan.
Time to go? (Score:2, Funny)
Not very surprising: (Score:2, Informative)
Soon after Sept 11, senior people in the military were quoted as saying that they wanted the entire Afghanistan/Middle East region to "glow with radiation." [reason.com]
So, no, I'm not surprised that the US wants to use nukes. Particularly against that axis of evil -- if you can't nuke them, who can you nuke? And if you can't nuke anyone, what are those nukes for?
Re:No first use (Score:5, Insightful)
If you decide to nuke the nut's city to get the nut, how does that make you different from the nut?
Since George W Bush has repeatedly shown his contempt for the rest of the world, international law, the environment, the future of the planet, why aren't other governments justified in nuking Washington to get that nut who's threatening the rest of the world with nukes?
Simply because America happens to be the self-proclaimed "leader of the free world"?
Real leadership can only come if you build respect. The US has dissipated its goodwill in Europe astonishingly quickly -- all the sympathy after Sept 11 took just a few months to evaporate. If the US is to be different from the USSR and other "evil empires", it has to learn to be responsible.
First off.. (Score:2)
Second, this is not new stuff. Even our tank shells are depleted with uranium. Our newer missiles...all of them are what they called nuclear tipped...for some lovely explosive effects.
Someone will always dominate the world militarily...unless men all around the world suddenly change their DNA patterns spontaneously. If you've got to pick from China, the U.S. and Pakistan, who would you rather it be?
Re:First off.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Me neither, but concentrating solely on our defense ignores the larger and important issue of why do they hate us? Sure, some of their reasons aren't justified, but others are. So instead of spending billions on helping our neighbors and making the world a better place, we think only of our own short-term interests, piss everyone off with our exploitation, and then end up spending trillions on self defense. Everybody loses in the end.... they end up destitute, miserable, and hate-filled, we end up poorer and insecure despite our massive military spending, and the world ends up polluted, unfriendly, and in constant danger of terrorism and nuclear destruction.
The US's refusal to see beyond its own commercial/political interests and become a true citizen of the world comes back to haunt it in a thousand different ways. Maintaining a huge nuclear arsenal and pretending that it will make us 'safe' is a dangerous distraction that keeps us from focussing on the real solution -- helping the rest of the world solve its problems and improve its lot, so that we are no longer hated, and thus we no longer need vast mililtary capabilities. Every dollar we spend helping the world improves our security more than a thousand dollars spent on weaponry.
Economic Recovery (Score:2)
I think that it is interesting that since 9-11 the economy has kept on starting and halting, not totally going into recession, but not pulling out either. Alan Greenspan says that the nation is out of recession, but it remains to be seen whether we are on the way to recovery.
I don't think that the nation is on the way to recovery, simply because the international situation remains so jittery. Businesses may be able to act normally, but how can they expand with such factors as escalting violence in Israel, clashes between Palestine and India, a war that has an uncertain course and end; and now this talk of plans for nuclear attacks?
Of course we have nuclear weapons for the purpose of attacking certain nations, and these countries shouldn't be surprised to see themselves on the list. But do we have to go around announcing to everyone that we are planning on nuking them? That seems a little extreme to me. Or just plain rude.
The bottom line is, as long as we have this free floating international violence, the economy will probably not be able to recover very much.
On the other hand, this may be Bush's roundabout plan to improve the economy by helping get consumer dollars back into the economy, I can imagine all the people thinking: "Ah well, if there is going to be a nuclear war, I might as well spend my retirement fund on a Mercedes, and enjoy it while I can!"
As a reaction to 9/11? (Score:5, Insightful)
Stopping one person who is willing to die in an effort to do damage is a job for intelligence, not nukes.
Nuclear deterrence may not be at all effective against rogue nations and terrorist organizations. Do you think Hussien would actually give a crap if tens of thousands of Iraqis die simply because we bomb a place we think he's hiding. If Iraq sets off some kind of non-nuclear attack against the US, would we seriously nuke Baghdad in response? Would he care?
As for the likes of bin Laden, I would bet that if we promised to nuke him, he'd tell us where he is and setup a live television feed. This war would become US v Islam in the blink of an eye.
While we cannot put the nuclear genie back in the bottle, accepting this fact should not make the use of nuclear weapons desireable. We've had a solution for hardened fortifications for a couple millenia. While nukes might bust an unbustable bunker, so will a good old-fasioned siege.
Re:As a reaction to 9/11? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think so. It's the inevitable response, given the tack we took.
A lot of people in the world hate the USA, and not all of them are insane. A lot of them quite rationally detest US foreign policy, because every time the USA steps in to a third party conflict, it makes a friend and an enemy (remember, in any conflict, both sides view themselves as the Good Guys, or the justified victims, or the Chosen of God). Making enemies is the cost of getting involved. Before this once again gets interpreted as justifying September 11th, take a clue check. The murderers who did that were stone cold evil motherfuckers. But just because they're Bad Guys doesn't automatically make us the Good Guys. That's kiddie matinee morality.
After September 11th, we had two choices. We could have said "Sorry for taking lives to save lives, we won't get involved again,", or we could have done what we did and said (effectively) "No more Mr Nice Guy. You will fear us more than you hate us."
When your foreign policies kill (or are perceived to have killed) all of someone's family, you have very little leverage left over them. You can't personally threaten a suicide attacker, nor can you enter a rational dialogue and explain why their family had to die to preserve Freedom. You can either humble yourself and say sorry, again and again and again, or you can escalate and say "Rain of fire on your entire nation, buddy. Just try us." and you have to keep escalating, in word and deed until it is quite clear what the consequences of fucking with you are.
Personally, I think we've taken the easy way, and the wrong way. Spending trillions of dollars on defence means never having to say you're sorry. Is saying sorry that high a price to pay?
Insanity. (Score:5, Insightful)
Worse, if the US were to drop "the" bomb on Baghdad specifically, it would also have every last Arab state aligned specifically against it as well; worldwide terrorism would increase 1000% and would be supported by all of the eastern nations either covertly or even explicitly. "The west" would suddenly find itself reduced to "US, Canada, UK" and positioned vs. The Entire East including most of Europe, as well as in a full-scale Protestant vs. Islam war which could last for centuries.
The fact that there are people out there who actually think that the US could *improve* international relations and world peace by using nuclear weapons demonstrates just how disconnected Americans are from reality.
Re:Insanity. (Score:3, Interesting)
You honestly think that Canada would back the US use of nuclear weapons? NO FREAKING WAY. We are currently undecided about ANY attack on Iraq, and we are FAR more liberal up here than either the US or Britain.
What the world wants (Score:2)
Preventitive healthcare is a common concept. So why isn't preventitive warfare?
Justified Usage (Score:3, Interesting)
But, I'm not sorry. In fact, I'm quite happy about this. Let's say we find a small pox lab in Iraq. We know they have it. They know we know. What's to stop them from using it?
A 50-megaton nuke pointed at Baghdad, that's what.
For fuck's sake wake up and smell the truth. The world is not , has never been, nor probably ever will be a nice place. Peace is purchased with superior firepower.
NEVER forget that.
Knunov
B.S. in Comp. Sci from UNC@Chapel Hill [unc.edu] - Oracle DBA, Novell CNE, and UNIX/Linux/BSD administrator/user/enthusiast. I was also a Captain in the U.S.M.C. [usmc.mil], MOS - Infantry - Force Recon, 1st Battalion [forcerecon.com].
So, unlike the vocal majority of computer geeks here, this geek actually has a clue about warfare.
Re:Justified Usage (Score:3, Insightful)
For fuck's sake wake up and smell the truth. The world is not , has never been, nor probably ever will be a nice place. Peace is purchased with superior firepower.
How about using firepower that does not contaminate the target area for a large time, nor rise up radioactive dust that does not honor country boundaries much and so on? That's what I hate about nuclear, chemical and biological weapons ; these will cause longer and more widespread suffering and damage than just to a certain spot for much smaller time. Isn't the point of military operations to harm the opposite military, not their descendants and people tens or hundreds of kilometers away?
Radiation not that bad (Score:3, Interesting)
It would be nice if there was a conventional explosive without any long-term residuals, but unfortunately there isn't (yet).
Check this [rerf.or.jp] out for a study done by the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare on the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Basically, people in the initial blast zone are (obviously) fucked. Survivor's offspring will show a huge spike in cases of leukemia, and small spikes in other cancer types. The grandchildren of survivors show close to baseline birth defects, meaning nothing statistically significant.
And these are people living on the actual ground that is contaminated.
This study could be bullshit, but it's done by a Japanese organization, along with the U.S.
Knunov
Re:Justified Usage (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't forget that either.
Advice (Score:3, Funny)
Bcc: leader@china.com, leader@russia.com, leader@iraq.com, leader@iran.com, leader@northkorea.com, leader@libya.com, leader@syria.com
Subject:I send you this file in order to have your advice...
It is a good plan (Score:3, Insightful)
It is called deterence.
World peace is a pipe dream. There are bad people in the world, and they don't always get nicer if we ignore them.
Appeasement is a failure. 1939 taught us that in a way that no one should ever forget.
Re:It is a good plan (Score:3)
>>World peace is a pipe dream. There are bad people in the world, and they don't always get nicer if we ignore them.
Nobody said anything about World Peace. I agree, it's a pipe dream because of the fact that people want more than their share of the world. But what we had before this is a somewhat stable situation. The fear of MAD (mutually assured destruction) prevented people from actually using their weapons of mass destruction. In the last couple years, Israel/Palestine and North and South Korea were at the table discussing. (It may or may not have actually developed a peace plan, but the important part was the ability to discuss).. now since the 9/11 and the "Axis of Evil" both of these situations are on edge.
Re:It is a good plan (Score:3, Insightful)
You say that:
In the last couple years, Israel/Palestine and North and South Korea were at the table discussing. (It may or may not have actually developed a peace plan, but the important part was the ability to discuss)..
One popular view in conflict resolution is all that is required to end conflicts is to get both sides to talk until they recognize the humanity of each other, gain trust in their enemy, and moderate their own positions. This is the left-wing position - everyone has shared humanity, and if we just talk enough we can resolve our problems. There's an older, more conservative position, which disagrees. That position says that people stop fighting when one side beats the shit out of the other, or at least when there is enough violence that both sides gets tired of fighting.
Now, I admit that the left-wing position is nicer. But I am not convinced that it is always correct. The Palestinians for years did not just want their own state, but wanted to destroy Israel as well. It was Israel's military strength that made them change their goal - not frank discussions with Israelis that made them recognize shared humanity. Similarly, Israelis don't want to keep the territories any more because they know it will cost them too many lives.
Meanwhile, both Israelis and Palestinians hate the idea of a peace "process" now, because they see it as all "process" and no "peace." In other words, too much talking.
No it's not. (Score:5, Insightful)
All this does is up the stakes in any conflict that the US gets involved in, and encourages people who don't like the US to develop their own nukes, and to deploy them in ways that will make deterrence irrelevant.
himi
Re:It is a good plan (Score:4, Insightful)
i read a quote from Donald Rumsfeld in the paper today: "The terrorists who struck us on September 11 were clearly not deterred from doing so by the massive US nuclear arsenal."
honestly, i sometimes think that Donald Rumsfeld is overshadowed in stupidity only by George W. Bush himself. of course the terrorists weren't deterred by a Nuclear Arsenal, they were about to fly jet planes into skyscrapers and kill themselves in the process!
i'm fairly sure they weren't thinking "oh, i'd better not, otherwise i might get killed by a future US nuclear strike." Also, given their apparent religious fanatacism, i doubt they would have let a nuclear strike on their home country affect them either, that would have been brushed off simply as countrymen and family dying for the cause.
How can any number of any kind of devastating weapons of mass destruction be of any use whatsoever against people with that kind of mindset?
omtimes i wonder at how some people think, and i'm not just thinking of the terrorists here!
besides, having nuclear weapons and using them are two very different things.
imagine the global outcry if the USA detonated nuclear devices in combat. and given that as far as i'm aware, no-one has done that since 1945, it's also a possiblity that terrorists/bad people might think that america is all talk and no trousers in this regard. and personally i hope they're right.
Not that big a deal... (Score:4, Insightful)
As to the specific recommendations, the only really worrying thing would be the insinuation that the DoD is investigating ways to utilize nuclear weapons in conventional tactical scenarios, but there's a hell of a lot of hurdles to clear before that can even be seriously considered, much less implemented. The nations listed in the LA Times report, the US' usual rogue's gallery of nations, were for the most part already included in the SIOP (Single Integrated Operational Plan, which is highly-classified even God needs SIOP-ESI clearance to see it) as smaller attack options (Selected/Limited), going back through the Clinton Administration, so that isn't really some kind of groundbreaking new policy.
Furthermore, an understated policy of the US since the Gulf War has been to keep the nuclear option open in the event of some other mass attack (biological/chemical) as deterrence, so again, this isn't terribly new. I do find interesting that the DoD is looking more closely at new ways of neutralizing agents besides blowing up the factories and spreading them to the four winds though...
Anyone else? (Score:5, Insightful)
The secret report, which was provided to Congress on Jan. 8, says the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. It says the weapons could be used in three types of situations: against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or "in the event of surprising military developments."
They are already on thin ice with 3/4 of the planet because of Bush's idiotic "axis of evil" statements and now they are threatening to start nuking people!?! Russia is going through enough trouble as it is. They're fighting internal difficulties and are still hot at the US over the olympics. A statement like this is just the excuse that hard line factions in any one of these countries (along with half the arab world) need to take power.
At a time when the US should be questioning, even for just a second, what they could have done that have convinced who knows how many terrorists that it is worth commiting SUICIDE as long as you die taking a shot at the US. When they should be thinking about why half the planet hates their guts and considers them pure evil? Maybe, just maybe they might have some legitimate beef to grind with the US. Now instead of trying to figure out what they've done wrong and trying to do better they invade and take over a nation. Remember that Afgahnistan, however repressive and unjust WAS a soveign nation who was attacked because they harboured an accussed terrorist who was never actually proven to be guilty, however obvious it seemed.
But now the US has bettered that, instead of just blowing the crap out of a third world nation (hey where have we heard that before) the US has just said that they're willing to nuke ~1.5 (a little on the low side) out of the 6 billion people on the planet!! At least two of the countries (China and Russia) are two of the most powerful countries on the planet and are supposedly on somewhat nice terms with the US. Now we all know Bush is a gun tolling, nuke happy, big buisness loving, illiterate moron but has his arrogance over the US as the worlds nice police man watching all the evil little bullies truly gotten this great?
Re:Anyone else? (Score:3)
If you have a complaint with the actions of a government, you take appropriate diplomatic measures or you declare war.
The fact is that I don't believe many of the people, or even the governments for that matter who have a problem with the US have the economic and political clout to have their concerns acknowledged. For them to effectivly leverage their concerns on the US in my mind would be the rough equivalent of a mom and pop software company effectivly suing Microsoft (and yes M$ owns the courts). Don't believe in the benevolance of the US, look at what Bush has done in the year or so since he was elected. First he got in WITHOUT popular support (there's democracy for ya), then the peace agreements in Israel collapsed, he pulled out of the AMB treaties, the Kyoto protocol, kept using land mines, and with this most recent engagement he ignored the geneva convention, I'm sure there are other things I've forgotten (he better pace himself). The fact is that if I was in a country who wasn't freinds with the US right now I'd be VERY worried, heck I'm in Canada and right now one of the provinces who's major industry is lumber is in a MASSIVE recession because of tariffs levied by the US that are in opposition of NAFTA! I strongly suspect that the now terrorists have probably tried many more peaceful alternatives. After all, despite popular belief the entire US-hating world isn't completely nuts. People are never going to go to the levels of extremism that Al-Queda (I'm sure I missplelt that) did without first trying easier alternatives. Wether it was right or not is beside the point, commiting an atrocity was the ONLY way that the world was going to care what was happening to them and might hopefully listen to some of their concerns.
By the way, on an interesting side note someone told me today that the civilian casualties in Afghanastan have reached (or surpassed) the 3000-3500 of the WTC. I wonder if this includes killed Al-Queda fighters, after all since they're suposedly not soldiers when they're captured does that make them civilians when they're killed?
Re:Anyone else? (Score:3)
Only a truly sick and deeply disturbed mind would think that this is an appropriate way to initiate constructive dialog.
I don't disagree with you I'm just asking just how did that mind get so sick and deeply disturbed?
Nobody should be surprised... (Score:5, Interesting)
From my time studying with them, it was evident that they were desperate for a nuclear policy shift. Some of their reasoning behind this was sound, other elements are not well conceived. Some key elements of their philosophy include:
Nuclear weapons are weapons/tools, just like any other. Just because nuclear weapons are "nuclear", does not mean that they are qualitatively different from other weapons. Fuel Air Explosives can lead to nasty metal poisoning incidents in their target areas - often more environmentally unfriendly than a low-yield nuclear airburst. A modern reduced-blast warhead (aka the neutron bomb, a wholly inaccurate name) produces an immense quantity of prompt radiation that tends not to stick around, and next to no residual/secondary radiation, and almost no fallout (assuming you use it carefully - fallout is a result of the fireball touching dirt sucked up from the ground, and can be avoided). There are some targets that are inaccessible to anything but nuclear weapons; during my time in SMSU, this included some structures in Libya and North Korea.
Deterrent theory relies upon the belief that you will use the weapons, and for that belief to be credibly instilled, you must be prepared to use them should whatever line-in-the-sand you create be crossed. I was personally surprised not to see a tac-nuke strike on Tora Bora for this reason; a tenet of deterrent policy had been that a large-scale assault on mainland America would result in maximum retribution. In the Gulf War, when Bush Snr. Administration officials spoke of "maximum retallation" to chemical use, everyone assumed that meant "nuclear" (as it happens, Bush Snr. had removed that option from the table - see below) - otherwise, the question remains "what are you going to bomb that you wouldn't have bombed anyway?" [hint: the answer is "nothing". Iraq actually thought that they were under nuclear assault at one point, and that didn't change anything from their perspective].
Arms Control Is Always Bad. A particularly strongly held viewpoint (ironic, given that Van Cleave negotiated parts of the ABM Treaty, and Dr. Crouch worked on Start) is that arms control will always fail. Prof. Colin Gray has written some texts explaining this idea (in particular, "why arms control must fail"), and these make informative (if scary) reading. The argument may be summarized as "arms control cannot work when you need it" - that is, in order to agree on meaningful (and enforced) arms control, both countries must be starting to like one another anyway - so it doesn't help; if they come up with something without making real progress, violations become major relationship sticking points (see Krasnoyarsk...)
American Hegemony. Most of the people with whom I worked at DSS are believers that moving towards a unipolar world-model is a good idea (I disagree strongly, but thats because I'm a whiny European...). They tend to frame this argument in two ways. The first is entirely domestic in nature: if the US doesn't rule the world, it will turn to isolationism. This argument is not strong, since it assumes a total lack of sophistication among US policymakers, most of whom were able to handle selective engagement without becoming overly confused. The second is much more terrifying, and can be seen as an extension of Manifest Destiny theory. Basically, they see the US as being a paragon of virtue and believe that the US should "help" the rest of the world live within a mutually prosperous (read: US exploited) Pax Americana. This is no different from the colonial eras of any other nation, but I don't recommend telling them that. :-|
Readiness. Americans, and the American military, are not prepared for the horrors that could accompany a nuclear war. Indeed, most brances of the US military tend to regard the idea of nuclear use as being so "out there" that they refuse to even plan for it. The Navy's nuclear policy used to consist of stating that "in the event of nuclear war, all bets are off". It is important to persuade planners that nuclear use is possible (even likely, as more and more groups gain access to basic fission weapons), and at least come up with some form of credible, planned response. 9/11 was bad, but it does not even approximate the devastation that a 220kT warhead would have inflicted if detonated above the WTC; likewise, the Navy needs to recognize that it doesn't take many nukes to stop an entire Carrier Battle Group.
There will also be some interesting in-Pentagon dynamics associated with this. There are some very strong anti-nuclear movements within the Pentagon, and a policy review of this type represents early shots in what can be expected to be a protracted political conflict. During the Gulf War, Dr. Crouch was instrumental in persuading the Pentagon to perform a feasability study regarding the use of Tactical Nuclear Weapons against Iraqi forces; the report that came back was drafted by anti-nuclear elements, and claimed that more than 2,000 nuclear weapons would be needed to soften up the Republican Guard, with unspeakable consequences. The report itself was badly written, but it did the trick: Bush Snr. removed the nuclear option from the table.
Expect similar infighting on this issue. In particular, remember that the services don't like nuclear weapons. Navy ships with nukes on board are a fast-track to fewer cushy officer jobs (because one slip-up means end of career). Likewise, the Navy hate the fact that their big ships in blue water policy is very vulnerable to nuclear attack. The Air Force don't like nukes because a recognition of possible attack requires strip alerts for bombers (or extreme vulnerability - take your pick). Additionally, the Air Force dislike ballistic missiles because it means fewer pilots. The Army and Marines would be expected to run through the immediate results of nuclear strikes in some cases, so its easy to see why they don't like it very much!
Re:Nobody should be surprised... (Score:3, Informative)
I was personally surprised not to see a tac-nuke strike on Tora Bora for this reason; a tenet of deterrent policy had been that a large-scale assault on mainland America would result in maximum retribution.
First, the nuclear deterent was aimed at countries with nuclear weapons. Second, the 9/11 attack was not large scale in any usual sense of the term. Third, the Al Qaeda troops at Tora Bora was not the sort of concentration for which tactical nuclear weapons are effective. Fourth, there are several villages in the area that would have been destroyed by a nuclear explosion. Fifth, Tora Bora [washingtonpost.com] is within 10 miles of the Pakistani border, which would certainly have received some of the fallout.
More important, the wider implications of using a nuclear bomb would have enormous and would certainly have alienated the America's allies. I can't believe that most world leaders wouldn't have been very surprised if the the U.S. had used a nuclear weapon in Afghanistan.
The Army and Marines would be expected to run through the immediate results of nuclear strikes in some cases, so its easy to see why they don't like it very much!
...which is another reason to be surprised if a nuclear weapon had been used in Afghanistan.
Re:Nobody should be surprised... (Score:3, Informative)
Almost correct. The nuclear deterrent was initially intended to deter nuclear attack, but in recent years (read post mid-1980s), successive Administrations have expanded the implied threat; massive chemical or biological attacks (arguably worse than a small nuclear strike) would be included, as would direct attacks on the homeland. Deterrence as a concept benefits from clarity; however, if you can convince people that you are sufficiently serious, lesser deterence threats may also work. The risk of that strategy is that you appear to "cry wolf", and after the first time that you don't use a nuclear weapon in response to an apparent breach, you lose considerable credibility.
Second, the 9/11 attack was not large scale in any usual sense of the term.
Agreed; I wish more people would figure this out. On the other hand, I know for a fact (from discussions with government employees) that the nuclear option was considered in the aftermath of 9/11. I also know that many of my former colleagues desperately wish to move towards a policy that permits nuclear use in difficult conventional circumstances; Tora Bora would have qualified if conventional bombing had proved less effective.
Third, the Al Qaeda troops at Tora Bora was not the sort of concentration for which tactical nuclear weapons are effective.
That may be true, but I very much doubt it. The fact that FAEs and other large conventional munitions were used (repeatedly) argues against you here: the USAF wanted to bring as much explosive yield as they could to the region. It is likely that careful use of nuclear munitions could have made collapsing many of the tunnels much easier - and a sudden, sharp shock as opposed to gradual erosion might have made it considerably harder for the Tora Bora defenders to escape en masse.
Fourth, there are several villages in the area that would have been destroyed by a nuclear explosion. Fifth, Tora Bora [washingtonpost.com] is within 10 miles of the Pakistani border, which would certainly have received some of the fallout.
I've lumped these two together, because they are basically restatements of the same argument. Your argument assumes that air-burst tactical nuclear weapons are any worse than the fallout from an FAE. They aren't - in fact, you are much more likely to want to live downwind/downriver of a TNW airburst than an FAE airburst. Modern TNW minimize the size of their fireballs, while maximizing blast overpressure. This has the effect of placing immense pressure against the target while leaving almost no fallout. If you are in direct line of sight of the explosion, you may be irradiated by prompt radiation - but this generally doesn't stick around. Except when dealing with neutron bombs (and then only against armoured vehicles), prompt radiation is not the primary killer: blast overpressure is. Residual radiation is always a problem, which is why you try and ensure that the fireball doesn't touch the ground. I strongly recommend that you read The Effects of Nuclear Weapons(*), a publically available text explaining how nukes really work; most of the fallout scare comes from fearmongering by antinuclear lobbies. Even the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - very dirty designs by modern standards - didn't render those areas uninhabitable for long (rail service resumed in Hiroshima a few hours after the nuclear attack, for example).
The point about the Army/Marines having to pass through an area that recently received a nuclear weapon is well received, although the truth is that they would not have much to worry about.
Your other point - that world leaders would be further alienated from the United States in the event of a nuclear use - is somewhat valid. That said, the current Administration seems to derive pleasure from eroding international norms (in fact, many refuse to accept the existence of such concepts - the realism school gone mad, if you will). Yes, some world leaders would have been surprised by US nuclear use - but not as surprised as you might think. Speculation was rife in the international press that the US would go nuclear shortly after 9/11, and I think a lot of world leaders were resigned to the US doing "whatever it takes" in Afghanistan. In fact, a nuclear use might have sent an important message with regard to US policy in regard to the "war on terrorism". I personally wouldn't support using nukes to send a message, but it would not surprise me, either.
(*) - Citation: The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, Ed. Samual Glasstone, US Department of Defense, published by the US Atomic Energy Commission, 1962. Additionally, I would recommend looking up the various translated (declassified) former Soviet papers on TNW doctrine. You find them in university libraries. The Soviets were quite advanced in their studies of TNW, mainly because they were less squeamish about them than the West, so its good reading - equivalant NATO documents are harder to find, but they do exist. If you are really interested, check out back-issues of Proceedings (Navy), and the works of the Institute for Strategic Studies. These will lead to many more texts, but I don't really have time to type in the entire bibliography from my Master's thesis. :-)
Step back 20 years (Score:5, Insightful)
Now with this new release, other countries are not so sure that the US will be holding back on the use of nuclear weapons. The only smart thing that they can do knowing this news is to build up their current stockpile and for those that don't have it, acquire it. The result of this is that it leads to greater instability in the world
Let's think about it this way. Let's just say for example if "Australia" comes out tomorrow and announce that the US is a great terrorist nation and a part of the "Axis of Badpeople" and that at some point later on, the US has to be dealt accordingly. Do you think the US is going to sit back and wait until "Australia" attacks? No, the US will attack "Australia" preemptively because you pretty much know a battle is coming, why wait for the enemy to attack you.
In my personal opinion, the current administration has done a great amount of damage to the world in terms of lodging it off of the fragile stability that it once was. Just to name a few events, the refusal to sign the Kyoto Pact, the refusal of signing the ban on Biological Weapons and Chemical Warfare, the withdrawal from the ARMS Control treaty with Russia, etc. I mean, how can the US morally attack countries like Iraq for producing Chemical weapons if the US is also producing (or "researching") Biological warfare. [Again, I'm in no way defending Iraq or any other nation..but it's just something to think about]
Yes, September 11th was an horrible event. I live only 5 miles away from the WTC and unfortunately watched it happen. But what I find even more horrendous is the fact that the administration is using this as a scapegoat to attack people that were not directly involved, and along the way kill innocent civilians [time.com] and/or detain the thousands of innocent people in this country
Again, I am in no way condoning what was done on September 11th. But it is times like this that we have to step back and make sure that the people that are leading the nation are doing the right thing, and not just blindly follow like sheeps. That is what the core part of democracy is: the power of the people. Throughout history, we have seen situation where entire nations blindly followed the policies of its leaders (take WWII or Communism for example)
Re:Step back 20 years (Score:3)
Actually, yes we would wait for them to attack. That's what the US always does. Australia could scream and shout and pass pamphlets on the "Evils of the US" to their hearts content. But as soon as they start killing our people and blowing up our stuff, they get taken down.
We wouldn't be dumb about it; we'd be watching them for any sign of hostility. But to think we'd nuke a country, or even kill many of their people (military or civilian) by their mere posturing is lunacy.
I beg to differ (Score:3)
Where's the logic ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Face it - the U.S. is a superior military force today. Using bigger or smaller bombs is not going to make one bit of difference.
The way that other forces fight back, is naturally not by putting up their largest army, only to see it squashed by the bigger army. That would be silly. No, the way to conquor a larger state with your inferior army, is to strike them where they do not expect it. That is why someone used civil aircraft as bombs on Sept. 11th. Whether we like it or not, it's the rational choice (if you can talk about "rational" and "warfare" in the same sentence...).
Now before you condemn what I say here - think about it. If you were at war with a superior force, would you line up in rows and columns to be slaughtered by the superior force, or would you rather be smart and make a difference ?
One thing's certain; using bigger bombs is not going to make fewer people strike back. I fail to see the logic behind this escalation, should it pass.
And no, I do not applaud what's been happening in the world lately. If you think I do, read this post again. Re-iterate as you must.
appalling. (Score:3, Insightful)
Even India and Pakistan testing their nuclear stuff was of less concern to me than this situation. They're developing countries, trying to posture against each other, and at least with them, you figure they're just using the weapons to compete and deter each other.
But in this case, we've got the world's superpower, announcing that it's ready (yes, what do you think a contingency plan means? it means they're ready to do it) to use nuclear weapons of all sizes against whomever they believe to be the enemy. On its own, without giving a damn about the rest of the world.
I know that the military is not directly linked to the administration in the White House, but you'd better believe that GW Bush made this attitude possible. This is unbelievable, and endangers all of our lives, seriously. How dare we say that we have the right to go around the world and root out our enemies, bombing the shit out of lands just because we believe that they're hiding somewhere.
This administration has destroyed our credibility and leverage among our neighbors and I'm not sure how big the repercussions will be in the long run for all of us. It's time to stop the childish attitudes and understand what our role in the world is. It's not just "whatever we want because they're the bad guys, and because we can".
Re:appalling. (Score:5, Informative)
You are actually rather ignorant and an totally naive. I served with the nuclear forces (B-52s) for the 4 years leading up to their final removal from nuclear alert in '91. We were not there playing pretend. We were there to USE the nukes when called to do so.
It wasn't some abstract idea, it was real. Very real. There IS call to use nukes in more than simply a situation following a ballistic nuke attack on the USA or its allies. It WOULD be appropriate and utterly defensible to use nukes against a country that hit us with chemical or biologicals. Any such country foreits it right to exist.
The Soviets/Russians have always had a pragmatic view on the use of nukes. It is about time WE did too. Nukes are just weapons.
How is using a single nuke different than dropping hundreds of HE bombs? Both can lead to the same level of destruction. It matters not if a target was destroyed by a nuke or HE, it is destroyed and there is no distinction. Destroyed in destroyed - unless you go with overkill. Of course it would be different if you used a multikiloton weapon against a small target that could have easily been handled by a load of precision conventionals. If, on the other hand, true deep devestation of a target is called for, then it IS valid to use the right tool for the job, and if that means nuke, so be it. You don't allow an enemy to get away with something simply because you think there should be some mystical, unpassable wall barring the use of a nuke.
If you can produce a nice, "clean", little nuke then fine. It may be the ONLY way to properly destroy a deep bunker with the LEAST amount of risk to our troops AND with reduced collateral effect.
Would you be against use of Fuel-air explosives against massed troops? They are conventional weapons yet they have the same localized thermal and pressure effects as a small nuke. Somehow a nuke with the SAME effects would magically be a no-no? Logically...WHY!? There is no logic nor rationality to your knee-jerk response. No doubt, you didn't actually read any of the articles, just the headlines or excerpts from which you automagically develop a Pavlovian reaction against it without thought. In any case, the DETAILS of the plans are unknown to you. None of these articles are THE actual plans - the DETAILS and actual facts remain unknown to you. But no doubt, even if they were known to you, you wouldn't actually SEE them and would maintain your Pavlovian response to anything with the nuke-word in it.
You, sir, are appalling (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it wouldn't. If nukes were the only way to ensure no further attacks occurred, sure. But to wipe out an entire people, most of whom weren't responsible, purely for revenge? That's unworthy of a civilized human being, and were you the person that ordered such a thing (or carried out such an order knowing you were deliberately mass-murdering civilians) you would be the worst war criminal since Hitler (and, yes, the analogy is relevant for once).
Cyber warfare (Score:4, Insightful)
It calls for improvements in the ability to "exploit" enemy computer networks, and the integration of cyber-warfare into the overall nuclear war database "to enable more effective targeting, weaponeering, and combat assessment essential to the New Triad."
No wonder why the germans are looking at open source from a national security perspective!
I know that U.S.A. is not an enemy of EU, but looking at the fascist direction things are taking in the U.S.A. (Bush said: you are with me or against me) and the fact that computer software comes from U.S.A., Europe should be careful.
Watch the birdie (Score:5, Insightful)
America does not passively sit back and defend itself against enemies when they pop up, they spend billions not in defence, but in offence, creating a world where military might controls less powerful countries by force. The lapdog of the UK is no better - sent in where 'diplomacy' and 'peace keeping' would be more effective than direct action - loyal to the last, and the largest aircraft carrier on earth. They cannot be stopped - they are out of control.
America will never be safe as long as the current tyranny is in power.
Terror is defined as illegal use of force to effect foreign powers. In this technique, America reigns supreme.
Look beyond the details and the supposed motives. Look at how the world is controlled. Look at how the gap between rich and poor is getting wider. Look at why humanity is not moving forward. Read some Chomsky.
We are at a pivotal point in history. We now have the ability to clothe, house, feed and educate every human on the planet, bar none, yet we waste our energies bickering over who owns what and killing innocents. Instead of watching the birdie, look at how the puppetmasters are raping the world.
This wasn't a leak - it was a controlled threat made public to keep the people feeling scared and insecure. To keep the inertia of new oppressive laws going. To guarantee the flow of taxes from patriotic Americans to the backpockets of those in power. If Bush was really serious about dropping nukes on those who threaten world peace, he'd drop one on the whitehouse.
What's the ONLY Country To Have Nuked In Anger? (Score:3, Informative)
Besides, who needs nukes when you have thermobarics? All the terror of mini-nukes, none of the fall-out, and you get a chemical poison-gas weapon as a pleasant, non-Hague Convention side-effect...
The [blast] kill mechanism against living targets is unique--and unpleasant.... What kills is the pressure wave, and more importantly, the subsequent rarefaction [vacuum], which ruptures the lungs.. If the fuel deflagrates but does not detonate, victims will be severely burned and will probably also inhale the burning fuel. Since the most common FAE fuels, ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, are highly toxic, undetonated FAE should prove as lethal to personnel caught within the cloud as most chemical agents.The [blast] kill mechanism against living targets is unique--and unpleasant.... What kills is the pressure wave, and more importantly, the subsequent rarefaction [vacuum], which ruptures the lungs.. If the fuel deflagrates but does not detonate, victims will be severely burned and will probably also inhale the burning fuel. Since the most common FAE fuels, ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, are highly toxic, undetonated FAE should prove as lethal to personnel caught within the cloud as most chemical agents.
Defense Intelligence Agency, "Fuel-Air and Enhanced-Blast Explosive Technology--Foreign," April 1993. Obtained by Human Rights Watch under the US FOIA
The effect of an FAE explosion within confined spaces is immense. Those near the ignition point are obliterated. Those at the fringe are likely to suffer many internal, and thus invisible injuries, including burst eardrums and crushed inner ear organs, severe concussions, ruptured lungs and internal organs,and possibly blindness.
Central Intelligence Agency, "Conventional Weapons Producing Chemical-Warfare-Agent-Like Injuries," February 1990. Unclassified document.
Because the "shock and pressure waves cause minimal damage to brain tissue.it is possible that victims of FAEs are not rendered unconscious by the blast, but instead suffer for several seconds or minutes while they suffocate."
Defense Intelligence Agency, "Future Threat to the Soldier System, Volume I; Dismounted Soldier--Middle East Threat," September 1993, p. 73. Obtained by Human Rights Watch under the US FOIA
Source [hrw.org] for these quotes.
The return of battlefield nuclear artillery (Score:3, Interesting)
The Soviet have 150-mm nuclear tactical warhead to be fired from a regular 150-mm artillery gun. These warheads are supposed to have a yield of less than a kiloton. The Soviet forces also have nuclear landmines, presumably to blow up large infrastructures.
The US have 155-mm nuclear artillery, such as the W-48 warhead [brook.edu], with a very low yield (less than 0.1 kiloton).
So I fail to see what's so new, exciting and dangerous about deployment of tactical, low yield nukes. Such dangerous gadget have been deployed since the fifties. Just because the poster did not know about it does not make it new.
To be exhaustive, NATO claims that all nuclear artillery shells and tactical surface warheads (anti-ship and anti-submarines) were eliminated between 1991 and 1993 [nato.int]. So this article merely suggest that these weapons are returning to the Western arsenal.
From Now On... (Score:3, Insightful)
...everybody in government should have to put a little disclaimer on their policy statements, something like this:
The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of my employer
In this case, the "employer" is We The People of the United States.
I wager that most of us have no desire to nuke Russia, which is making remarkable progress towards becoming a free society. Come to think of it, most of us have no desire to nuke anybody unless they nuke us first.
Machiavelli (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bush-domination (Score:2)
While there is a lot of truth in that statement, war resources are generally controlled by nations, not classes. (I know - begs the question of whether and which classes control nations).
Re:Bush-domination (Score:2)
Your childish red-baiting aside, I'm essentially a capitalist.
NEWS FLASH: There are social and economic classes! I KNOW it's hard to believe, but it's true! Really!
Re:News for nerds! Stuff that matters! (Score:2)
National policy is always best made after a long session with the SpaceBong 4000, dude!
Re:War (Score:2)
The Entire Report (Score:3, Informative)
Flawed Logic (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately your logic is flawed. When the US dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, it was to end a war begun by the Japanese government. Their goverment had the power to cease hostilities. Unfortunately, doing the same thing to an Afghan city will not cause the al Qaeda terrorists to end their violence against the West. If anything, this will only encourage them, as it will be perceived by the Islamic world that the US is fighting the Muslims. Thus, dropping nuclear bombs on Afghanistan will be counter-productive to American goals.