Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Works Up Plans for Using Nuclear Arms
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 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.
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?
... is NOT that it existed, but rather that it was published. Anyone have any insights why it wasn't kept secret?
Obviously the US has a lot of nuclear weapons sitting around, ready to be fired at any time. I, for one, am glad they are making these plans. If all of a sudden we're attacked I'd rather a large group of people spend time now planning what would be done than a few people make a quick irrational decision which could lead to global problems.
Go Kart Parts - Got to love driving with the ground an in
Read the article. I love this line for a general catch all excuse for when the Pres. wants to vape a country.
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?
Personaly I think it's a good thing. In fact it concerns me that the military wasn't ready to do that earlier. Personaly I think it's all a big PR move that means absolutely nothing. During operation Dessert Storm Bush made it quite clear to Saddam that if he used any WMD weapons against him we'd reciprocate with the kind of weapons that would wipe Iraq off the face of the Earth. I don't think it was a bluff and certainly such things require planning.
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!
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?
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
If, as the article suggests, this is a reaction to the vulnerability felt after the attacks of 9/11, then it is a poorly thought-out one.
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.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
We need to have the capacity to use nukes against any country who has weapons of mass destruction or the capability to make them.
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.
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...
:wq
Okay, is anyone else VERY disturbed by the article.
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?
I stole this Sig
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?
Everyone who makes generalizations should be shot.
The problem with this is that ever since the cold war era and afterwards, the greatest deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons is the fact of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Knowing this and the idiocy behinds the huge arms race, there was a feeling of peace in that your enemy would not use nuclear weapons against use and you wouldn't use it against them. It was at an equilibrium (maybe not an ideal one, but still maintain stability in the world)
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 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)
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
They had just begun negotiating when they dropped the bombs. The drops were more for show of force and scientific testing (ever wonder why they weren't dropped on an industrustrial target?). The allies have been made out to be the good guys in the war but no one can deny dresden and the like were cold blooded massacres.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Strange how people seem to believe that a superior force using bigger weapons is going to help against the inferior force that doesn't fight in a way where the size of weapons matter.
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.
1) Japanese negotiation was not especially serious. Certain hardline elements in the military would never have even considered surrender. And even if they were starting to be serious, there was no way for America to know it.
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.
I'm 26 years old, and I don't think there has been anything in my life that has been more directly shocking to me and what I perceive my future to be than this announcement. Not even the Sept. 11 attacks compare to this demonstration of *intent* to use nuclear weapons in battle if necessary. Sorry, but the loss of 5000 people on that day is not enough to justify unleasing the nuclear floodgates on the world. How dare we.
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".
Would tactical nukes deterr terrorists? Hardly.
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
My very own DeCSS mirror.
From the article:
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.
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
Contigency nuke plans for Canada?!?
:-(
Sheezus, with friends like the USA, who needs enemies?
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
You're an idiot. If the US dropped a nuke on anybody it would instantly lose every ally it has in Europe and NATO with the exception of the UK. China, North Korea and Russia would become loose cannons in a new, unbalanced (3-to-1) cold war which could quickly turn hot, possibly even as a matter of course. US embassies in every part of the globe would be shut down in response and US citizens anywhere around the world would be in immediate danger.
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.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
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.
The Japanese military alone murdered *far* more civilians (predominantly in China and south-east Asia), in ways that are at least as gruesome and calculated as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. To say the bombing was one of the worst single acts in human history, is only to say that WWII itself was one of the worst times in human history (hardly an arguable statement).
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.
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
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.
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
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.
Superior firepower only purchases peace from those afraid to die.
Don't forget that either.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
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).
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
...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.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao