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."

10 of 1,101 comments (clear)

  1. As a reaction to 9/11? by cybermage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. Re:most surprising thing about this... by NumberSyx · · 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.

    --

    "Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
    -Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development

  3. Anyone else? by quantaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  4. Step back 20 years by Tazzy531 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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..."
  5. No it's not. by himi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  6. Re:Didn't you ever see Dr. Strangelove? by FFFish · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Contigency nuke plans for Canada?!?

    Sheezus, with friends like the USA, who needs enemies? :-(

    --

    --
    Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
  7. Insanity. by aussersterne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  8. Re:No first use by rsidd · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The other replies have made the points I planned to make, but there's a larger issue.

    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.

  9. Watch the birdie by linklater · · Score: 5, Insightful
    So now the Anglo American military machine is threatening nuclear warfare. Not against one potential enemy, but seven. Now the cold war with Russia is over, the new enemy of the people, terrorism, is used as an excuse for escalation of military armament and government surveillance. The truth is that the real enemy of the military/industrial complex will never be defeated. The real enemy of those in power are the general population. Only through fear and propaganda can their reign of terror and oppression continue. An educated and organised public would not tolerate this lunacy.

    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.

  10. Machiavelli by Squeeze+Truck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hold it to be of great prudence for men to abstain from threats and insulting words towards any one, for neither the one nor the other in any way diminishes the strength of the enemy; but the one makes him more cautious, and the other increases his hatred of you, and makes him more persevering in his efforts to injure you
    - Machiavelli
    --

    "Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao