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."
...this article with a bit more detail.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/10/nuclear.weapons/i ndex.html
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
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?
Don't they know that nukes generate 8 squares of pollution, and make the entire world hate you?
Guess I've been playing too much CIV ][...
Make even shorter URLs - 8LN.org
... is NOT that it existed, but rather that it was published. Anyone have any insights why it wasn't kept secret?
The LA Times also ran a story today about the erosion of civil liberties following the Sept 11 attacks.
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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!
And they aren't thrilled...try looking an non-American press too. the article
You mean like Japan, who after having 2 Made in the U.S.A. nukes dropped on their heads, are one of our best business partners as well as political allies?
There is something to be said for an adequate use of force.
Knunov
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
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?
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
And you honestly don't think they have already?
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
This just inhances my view that Bush is becoming the little too trigger happy sheriff putting up wanted dead and alive posters
Look a monkey!
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.
You didn't think all those sexy nuke explosion simulations were just to stress-test some graphics cards, did you?
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
I think the reason why this report was drawn up is this: the existance of the B61-11 bunker buster bomb.
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.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
So what countries are there out there that accept expatriot Americans fleeing the madness of thier government? Preferably island countries.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
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."
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?
Remember almost everyone else has them too. Do you like the idea of people who HATE us and our allies having nukes and us (and our allies) not? I sure don't.
:-)
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?
Derek Greene
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).
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
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!"
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
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.
what the world really wants
Preventitive healthcare is a common concept. So why isn't preventitive warfare?
"scare factor". Interesting.
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.
The Russians built a "doomsday device" as a deterrent to nuclear aggression - but they kept it secret. Dr. Strangelove points out (as it becomes apparent that the world is, well, f*cked) that "the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost if you keep it a secret!"
Same principle here. The message is being sent through an orchestrated leak.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
I suppose this is where I'm supposed to be apologetic for my desire to live and distrust of nations that have shown time and time and time again that they aren't really very nice people.
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 - Oracle DBA, Novell CNE, and UNIX/Linux/BSD administrator/user/enthusiast. I was also a Captain in the U.S.M.C., MOS - Infantry - Force Recon, 1st Battalion.
So, unlike the vocal majority of computer geeks here, this geek actually has a clue about warfare.
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
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.
National policy is always best made after a long session with the SpaceBong 4000, dude!
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
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
It is an unfortunate fact that not only does that attitude still prevail, it's looked upon with something like reverence.
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
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
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!
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
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!
Lead developer, http://wisptools.net
Before we have all out GWB bashing:
The article makes it clear this is a draft of a report rather than a full blown plan. It also is a Pentagon study rather than administration policy.
I think the fact that this has become public is no accident. As Dr. Strangelove once asked "what's the point of a doomsday weapon if you don't tell anyone it exists?". Like it or not, this administration seems to be developing a Mutually Assured Destruction policy towards states that support terrorism. It is important at some point to broadcast this intention. A leaked internal report serves this function while allowing the State Dept. and diplomatic channels deniability.
The posts I have seen so far are completely rediculous to me. They contain catch-phrases such as "Bush Domination." A lot of these posters fail to face reality. The nations listed have a vested interest in destroying the USA. China wants Taiwan and the others are self-evident. The second part of the article just explains that Bush wants to develop SMALLER nuclear weapons to use in tactical situations (i.e. to use on cave conplexes akin to those found in Afghanistan). These tactical nuclear weapons are far less destructive and can be used in smaller areas to reduce the amount of unintended deaths. I see this as a good thing personally. I think the slashdot community is going to take an anti-defense/anti-american stance on any controversial issue without even thinking about the ramifications of said issue. Please think this out rationally without resorting to the typical anti-american knee-jerk reactions.
The only problem I have with this list is that Saudi Arabia is not on it.
Individual terrorists may be suicidal -- although leaders generally are not. Osama bin Laden, for instance, apparently chose to save his own hide rather than stay and fight.
Governments, however, rarely are suicidal in the least, and they tend to be far more easy to locate. For instance, military bases tend to be immobile.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
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..."
The long-term effects of radiation aren't as bad as some people would have you think. It doesn't take thousands of years to make the area liveable.
It would be nice if there was a conventional explosive without any long-term residuals, but unfortunately there isn't (yet).
Check this 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
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
No, it would take more than just "losing a war." It requires a threat to vital national interests that can't be countered by other means.
Now, if we were losing a war on our soil and our very existence was at risk - well, yeah, bombs away.
In most cases, the threat is enough to deter. But in order to deter, you have to be willing to follow through if deterrence fails. Otherwise there is no deterrent. [arm stiffens involuntarily into a nazi salute as I reposition my wheelchair].
Sick and convoluted, but there you have it. There is no other way.
Has anyone seen my precious bodily fluids?
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
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.
This sort of thing is just wrong on so many levels.
To start, telling China and Russia that they "made the short list" is not a way to help smooth out diplomatic relations. The only way to deal with such nations is to convince them that they can satisfy their own best intrests by working with the US rather then against them.
Also, though it is my own completely uninformed opinion, but destroying massive amounts of property is not a great way to win a war. This is especially true when your enemy has the same capability. If Japan had been able to drop some Atomic Bombs on California, does anyone doubt what their response would have been to Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Modern warfare will most likely take place in Cities and other urban environments. We would all be better off if military personal were all trained and used for such operations.
The only real bonus for Nukes is that using them does not endanger US soldiers who would otherwise need to go be put in harms way. If a nation is not willing to sacrifice the lives of its soldiers for a cause, then perhaps it should not be involved in the first place.
END C0OMMUNICATION
How I wish I had moderation points! This is the most insightful post I've read for weeks. Someone please moderate the parent up.
The problem is the US is too big and powerful, and it knows it. Add in the mix the fact that a lot of George W Bush's advisors are "Cold War Enthusiasts" and you can understand statements like these.
Very sad, very worrying, and if the USA is the best example of a free loving democratic nation, then God help us all.
Were you alive during the Cold War?
If you were in Europe, you should be thankful for the existence of nuclear weapons. The Warsaw Pact's conventional forces were of highly nontrivial strength, and they had the advantage of not having to cross an ocean if push came to shove.
Of course, it helped that the Soviets appreciated the power of nuclear weapons, and did not relish being annihilated; neither did the United States, hence the success of MAD doctrine. But most governments share a healthy regard for their own well-being, if not necessarily for that of their subjects.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
The report can be found in its entirety at: http://cryptome.org/dod-npr.htm This site is a good resource for classified documents.
Maybe those poor folks in Afghanistan should have thougt about all these bad things Americans might do to their country before they helped Bin Laden knock over our little sky scrapers.
I'm willing to bet that most of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan killed by US military action had nothing to do with Bin Laden.
A single nuclear attack would destabilize his regime by ruining his public support. It's one thing for him to say, "look they're starving you," but it is another for him to try to explain "we didn't do anything to justify a NUCLEAR attack on our country" to his people. Nuke strikes aren't a small matter. To push a nation to launch a nuclear strike against another means that chances are, the nuked country's government did something ****VERY**** bad to bring that on. Anyone with >=80 IQ and possessing even a degree of sanity knows that. He'd be left with a nation full of people seeking revenge not against us, but him for bringing that on them
Clinton, come backkkk please
Quite simply the US has had a standing policy that any attack on the US with weapons of mass destruction, be it chemical, biological, nuclear or otherwise, will be responded to with a nuclear strike. So if a rouge nation used chemical weapons on a US city or interest, we would respond, most likely, with nuclear weapons. This is OLD doctrine.
You've got to love political discussions on a computer message board. Yes, your ten leading questions are all valid and true - but they all tell only one part of the story. You introduce no context.
1. Which is the only country on the planet that's used a nuclear weapon on civilians?
Ignoring the context of a war in which the aggressors (Japan and Germany) committed the most horrible atrocities ever witnessed, ignoring the fact that both sides had already attacked civilian populations, ignoring the fact that the firebombing of Dresden caused more deaths than those nuclear weapons, ignoring the fact that it was believed (and justifiably) that ending the war with two massive bombs would cause fewer deaths than a ground invasion.
2. Have more Americans been killed at the hands of Iraqis, or have more Iraqis been killed at the hands of Americans?
Ignoring the context of why there are sanctions, who is really responsible for those Iraqi deaths (in the northern region of Iraq, governed by the UN since the end of the war, infant mortality rates and so forth have gone down, not up, even though they are under the same sanctions regime), why other nations oppose the US removing Saddam Hussein and thereby removing a threat to other nations and allowing us to end the sanctions and return weapon inspectors.
3. Who's killed more innocent civilians? Al Quaeda in the United States, or the United States military in Afghanistan?
Ignoring the fact that the one study showing that the US has killed 4,000 in Afghanistan has been called into heavy question (Human Rights Watch and Reuters both came up with much lower number of casualties), ignoring the fact that Al Qaeda purposely targetted civilians and the US did not, ignoring the fact that Al Qaeda wants to create Islamic fundamentalist rule and the US has removed the Taliban and organized aid to Afghanistan, etc.
I could go into more detail on all these points, and also cover your other points, but I think you get the idea. The point is, don't accept bon mots or witticisms as replacements for actually thinking through the whole issue.
Russia "made" the 'short-list' because the Wolfowitz doctrine is the Bush doctrine as outlined in this fancy article.
judging by all recent events, things are in fact falling in to place, as outlined. These latest reports are all just part of the 'game'.
We are in fact gaining a strong military presence in the exact area the Wolf Doc details, strategically we have placed ourselves in the center of the cyclone so to speak.
1. Which is the only country on the planet that's used a nuclear weapon on civilians?
United States of America. Not the only country that has used Weapons of Mass Destruction against civilians though.
3. Who's killed more innocent civilians? Al Quaeda in the United States, or the United States military in Afghanistan?
I don't think anyone really knows the answer to this question. One of the problems is that many of the "documented" civilian deaths in the early days of the bombing capaign were propaganda by the Taliban, and no independant sources have verified their claims. I don't believe that you can trust either side for accurate numbers on this issue.
5. Who recently said that getting Bin Laden, the architect of the Sept 11th attacks, was no longer a primary military objective in Afghanistan?
Maybe he's no longer in Afghanistan. That would mean that he could no longer be a primary military objective there, right?
7. List the number of Americans being held in captivity by enemy forces even though they've had nothing to do with American foreign policy. Now, list the number of people of Arabic descent being held by American forces even though they've had nothing to do with the Sept 11th terrorist attacks.
The State Department figures that around 2,500 Americans are arrested every year in Foreign nations. I haven't found a single documented case of someone of Arabic descent being held without them also being charged with a legitimate crime (usually immigration violations). I disagree with bringing in Arabs for questioning, which has been done without evidence linking them to crimes.
8. Any feasible pipeline built from the oil fields just off the Caspian Sea is going to need to go through Afghanistan. True or False?
False. It could also go through Iran.
9. Define the word "Terrorism" in absolute terms. Now, in 50 words or less, state whether or not the School of the Americas trains terrorists and why.
I don't believe that the School of the Americas trains soldiers to be terrorists. I believe that a few of it's graduates have committed terrorists acts, and probably would have with or without the training they received at SOA.
10. Afghanistan's Taliban regime was notorious in its poor treatment of women. Now, list all the countries that have a similar record of such treatment, but are still allies of the United States.
We didn't go in there with the intention to liberate women. Even though, I agree with you, I don't think that we should ally ourselves with foreign powers that don't provide their citizens with the same freedoms and protections that we provide ours with.
Neville Chamberlain.
it is painfully obvious that the US of A is being attacked from all sides. Russia and China have finally showed their true face - they are clear targets in the war against terrorism. And are Germans really our friends now? Make no mistake - they could go Nazi on us any second. And what about the French? Don't even get me started on the French.
Our plan of action is clear. We have to preemptively nuke the entire world (except US, of course). It is the only way to be safe from the terrorist menace. All we need is a National "Defense" Shield. We will also need some kind of a National Fallout Shield. A giant glass dome will do.
With God's help fellow citizens,Mr. Chimp
Why did so many German soldiers go to war for Hitler?
Umm, it might have had something to do with their oath to their country.
Almost all soldiers anywhere in the world take an oath stating they will obey orders and protect and serve their country. It's not like an oath means much these days. ("I didn't have sex with that woman Monica Lewinsky") However, sixty years ago, people actually kept their word and their oaths.
In the U.S., the oath is to "support and defend the Constitution" and "to obey the orders of the President." Thus, if the government is overthrown, the military is under no obligation to obey orders from the new government, consequently, if congress threw out the Constitutuon and gave absolute power to anyone, they wouldn't have an automatic loyal, sworn in military. Unlike when Hitler got absolute power in Germany, because their oath was to their physical country, not the specific government.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
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".
I couldn't help but think of Tom Daschle's complaints that he wasn't informed about the 175-200 officials who are kept in bunkers in the event of a disasterous attack on Washington.
When classified documents end up in the hands of the New York Times, the administration has a ready-made answer any time a legislator whines about not getting information that he or she isn't legally guaranteed.
The real question, it seems, is this:
Knowing what patriots we have in the press and throughout Congress, does that document relate more to our actual strategies, or more to what we want certain other parties to believe our strategies to be?
Have you ever studied this issue?
Let's say that the US makes a "no first use" pledge. Then some nut releases militarized smallpox or some other viriluent agent. But since they didn't use a nuke, the 50 million survivors are left with nothing more than wagging their fingers at him since we can't use nukes and we can't afford conventional military action with 5 out of 6 people dead. Where's the downside for that nut?
Now let's take one step back - we know that this nut has militarized smallpox prepared and almost ready for release. We have two days, and there's simply not enough time for a conventional strike. (And if we tried, the smallpox could be immediately released.) If we don't act, 250 million Americans (and a billion or two people in the rest of the world) will die. Or we can nuke the bastard. Maybe a few million will die if the nut has it in the middle of his capital city, but you will have a very hard time finding anyone who says that a few billion innocent deaths is preferable one-tenth of one percent of that number dying in a preemptive strike intended to save those lives.
It's easy to create strawmen arguments where the first use of nukes isn't necessary... but the scary scenarios are the ones where a first use prevents the use of other weapons of mass destruction.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
You are, in fact, the one engaging in a knee-jerk reaction. You instinctively feel the need to defend (apologize for) your president when anyone questions his actions.
Why don't you just come out with it and tell us all we're supporting terrosists here? Ask yourself: What Would Dubya Do? He'd roast us alive, wouldn't he? So get rid of the timid apologies, ok?
Edith Keeler Must Die
Take a look at the byline at the bottom of the commentary.
William M. Arkin is a senior fellow at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in Washington and an adjunct professor at the U.S. Air Force School of Advanced Airpower Studies. He is also a consultant to a number of nongovernmental organizations and a regular contributor to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Officials are looking for nuclear weapons that could help against a foe like Al Qaeda.
No, I don't understand the last sentence either...
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.
The report says the Pentagon should be prepared to use nuclear weapons in an Arab-Israeli conflict, in a war between China and Taiwan, or in an attack from North Korea on the south. They might also become necessary in an attack by Iraq on Israel or another neighbor, it said.
the united states coming to intervene on the side of israel, how kind. maybe we should just give the nukes to israel with the other weapons we supply them, so we dont feel as bad when they use them on the arabs, terrorist to you..freedom fighters to others, only trying to get back their homeland?
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 do not believe that the united states would ever really drop nukes on russia, or china. but listing them out like that only fules the belief that the united states targets muslim countries...
Yet it acknowledges that the huge Russian arsenal, which includes about 6,000 deployed warheads and perhaps 10,000 smaller "theater" nuclear weapons, remains of concern.
The administration has proposed cutting the offensive nuclear arsenal by about two-thirds, to between 1,700 and 2,200 missiles, within 10 years.
does this baffle anyone else? why do we need several thousand?? why does anyone need several thousand... so after the first wave.. we'll keep bombing so we can try and kill the roaches too??
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."
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
Large scale weapons of mass destruction don't grow on trees. They require R&D efforts and some industrial capacity to manufacture, even so-called "cheap" biologicals. A biological intended to reliably take out a city no doubt takes more than a whack-job and a private garage to create. Will nukes deter whack-jobs that have been promised a harem of 30 virgins in heaven for "destroying the infidel"? Nope, nothing will. Will they give pause to those that would arm, train, and house said whack-jobs? Very likely.
All that said, one does not even so much as bandy about that he may use nukes. It makes people scared and scared people don't think rationally. Middle Eastern nations and even some in Europe think we're capable of doing anything right now. The timing is incredibly bad to announce "nuclear contingency plans".
I love cryptome, I read it every day. That said, the report John Young has put up is the unclassified version; although he's trolling for the classified version.
Hey Taco, any idea when the results of the John Young questions will be posted? It's been six months or so...
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
The weapons that are being proposed, sub-kiloton, are not the same "Bomb" as those developed in those heady days of MAD and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
These weapons are cleaner than anything used in World War Two, smaller than anything used in World War Two and very capable of being a good deterant to people that might use Biological or Chemical weapons against a nuclear armed foe.
The reason I say they might be deter a foe is, the weapons that the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Russia and China have now are too big and thus unusable from a political point of view. A smaller weapon that is actually usable from a tactical standpoint would actually be more humane than many of the systems in use now.
Had the Allies used a few small nuclear devices during the Gulf War in 1991 or Desert Fox in 1998 against hardened Iraqi facilites would have ended Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological dreams and allowed the United Nations to end the sanctions.
Small tactical nuclear devices DO NOT move the world closer to "midnight". SS-25 Satan's with 20 megaton warheads and Trident D-5s with 10 225 kiloton warheads do.
We have always had plans. Or in other words, control.
Get a free ipod.
Look, I think what we need to be thinking about here is why we have nuclear weapons in the first place.
Nuclear weapons came out of WW2. They were created because we had two implacable enemies who had indicated their willingness to fight us to the death of their last man, and our leaders were concerned that we were going to have to send hundreds of thousands of our finest young men to their deaths for no good reason other than that there wasn't any other way.
When Germany surrendered, they had complete plans for a jet bomber that could have reached New York. When Japan surrendered, they not only were within months of completing actual bombers that could have reached California, they also had biological weapons ready to be deployed that could have killed millions, and plans to use them on San Diego. They also were planning that every man, woman, and child in Japan was going to fight to the death to prevent a US invasion.
The decision to drop nukes on Japan was made because it was believed that dropping nukes would kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese people, but invading would kill millions from both sides.
Nuclear weapons are a terrible thing and I sincerely hope we never have to use them again. Yet, I think it's entirely reasonable for the United States to openly make a statement such as "if you attack the united states or our territories, we will nuke you no questions asked," I rather doubt any nation would want to mess around with us. It may not deter terrorists, but it may deter nations from harboring them.
Nuclear bombs were created to scare the beejabbers out of our enemies so they might think twice about attacking us, or moreover so that if we are at war they will be cowed into submission. If we act like we're afraid to use these weapons, we have made these weapons worthless. If we indicate our willingness to use them without hesitation in limited, correct circumstances, we could be a safer people. Consequently, while I think this report is a bad way for this message to get out, I think it's a correct message for us to be expressing.
You do both. I'm positive, without actually knowing anything about it, that we are on their "short lists" too. They'd be fools if we weren't. You think China has the nukes its does but its official policy is "We really don't know what we'd do with them?"
We're on China's list. Japan is on their list. India is on their list. South Korea is on their list. Russia is on their list.
Russia's "list" probably looks similar.
Also, though it is my own completely uninformed opinion, but destroying massive amounts of property is not a great way to win a war.
And as many others have pointed out, the reason for the existence of strategic nukes, the kind that do the enormous amounts of damage, is to deter, not to win wars.
Maybe America should find a couple of cities that al'qaeda recognize as sacred, and then nuke them killing millions of civilians. Then they could say "give up now, or we bomb 2 more cities". I mean, it worked in Japan, and we all know the American government has the PR capability to turn it all around and make it seem like they are the good guys. :)
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Iraq was happily developing various forms of bio and chemical weapons, despite near-direct threats of nuclear attack.
/real/ nuclear deterrent: lots of little wars, all over the place, lots of countries doing their own research into weapons, and bying things from the Soviets, or being given them by the US, or whatever. The lesson to be learnt from that is that a large scale nuclear deterrent does not work against most things, and most states. Not at all.
They're the most obvious example, but there are sure to be others - if nothing else, ex-Soviet scientists selling things to people indiscriminately.
Take a look at the history of warfare during the cold war, when there was a
Bush is fucking up seriously in his handling of the post WTO world.
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
If this society has truly reached the point that the "best" option appears to be "nuke 'em till they glow and shoot 'em in the dark", then I think it is already screwed up and doesn't need more work along those lines...
Fortunately, mainstream American society is nowhere as bloodthirsty as this post would make it seem.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Will someone please mod this post up? The poster is obviously well versed in the area, and makes several comments worth reading.
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
--The Sphinx
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.
First, I find it hard to believe what explains away starvation can not explain away nuclear strikes. That is, The US (or West) is attacking Islam. If the Iraqi people are actually supportive of Saddam, they'll continue to be despite whatever attack comes their way.
But Iraqi public support is likely an almost moot point. Saddam does not stay in power due to public support. He has seized and maintains support through ruthless politics. He has gassed disident populations of Iraqi citizens. He has executed groups of Iraqi military officers critical of his policies on multiple occassions. He has executed family members - two sons-in-law who fled Iraq and talked publically about Iraqi rebellion. In short, Saddam and his regime kills its opposition, eliminating dissent, and isolating anybody else who may harbor dissent for that regime.
Public support is not an issue.
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.
The *intent* to use nuclear weapons if pushed to that point was always there. It never left.
:)
The primary purpose of a nuclear weapon is as a deterrant. It's a weapon so horrible, so nasty, that *anything* is better than being faced with it.
A deterrant is only credible if the bad guys believe that you will *actually use the damn thing* if the right conditions are met. A weapon that you have, but are too afraid to use, is of no use as a deterring factor.
In my 11 years of military service opinion, it is good to, every once and a while, spell it out to the bad guys that we have these weapons, and that we are very much determined to use them if the right conditions are met.
Note that as bad as nukes are, they PALE in comparison to chemical and biological weapons. A nuke can be aimed at military targets, and the majority of its effects (not all, but most) can be contained to legitimate targets. As for the side effects, they are relatively minor.
We can argue the morality of the bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and both sides have good points) but both cities were rendered habitable again in short order. A persistant chemical attack can render an area uninhabitable for _decades_ (not to mention the effects on watersheds and whatnot)
A chemical or biological attack is an indiscriminate attack on noncombatants; it's the modern equivelent of salting the fields and slaughtering the firstborn. The use of nukes on people who deploy chemicals is, in my opinion, showing restraint and mercy.
Now, the Russians.
I have to admit, I found the inclusion of the Russians on the target list to be, at first, a little disturbing. But with some reflection, I have to grudgingly admit that it makes sense.
There are a LOT of extant former-Soviet missiles out there, and there is no promise that they won't fall into the hands of someone inclined to use them. The current Russian government seems decent enough, but there's no guarentee that some future Russian/Former Soviet government might not start thinking about their possible use. Keeping the ability to deliver warheads to Former Soviet territory is good insurence against future use.
And, incidently, the reverse is true. There's nothing at all wrong with the Russians keeping the Americans honest too.
I don't think we need the massive nuclear arsenals that we did in the past, but given that the genie is out of the bottle, it seems that we'll always have a few in the background, just in case.
Governments and policies change, but the weapons will always still be there.
While I'm on the topic of the Russians....
As more and more documents come out of the former Soviet Union, people like myself get to see more and more of the truth - and that truth paints a picture of a far less 'evil' Evil Empire than we were lead to believe in at the time of the Cold War. And furthermore, we get to see things that bring new truths to light - truths like it was the _Russians_ who did all the heavy lifting when it came to defeating the Nazis in WW2, not the West.
Truth be told, I think the Russians get short shrift in Western history books.
So if any Russians are reading this... please don't think that the West still hate, fear, and distrust you. We're learning too.
And if any Russian out there used to command a BRDM recce unit... I'd love to link up with you and compare notes.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
As much as you tried to dance around it, no one objects to deterrence.
The principle of no questions asked nuclear retaliation is a good one. This NPR advocates far more creative uses for nukes than this.
The only other sensical argument that's made which you mostly hinted at, is that if we try to simply appear to be the deranged lunatic nuclear cowboy caricature that is made of us, we dominate our opponents because they will cower to our presumptively depraved tyranny.
The downside to this is that it legitimizes all attacks on us, because we officially endorse the pricinple that "if there is no conventional means, our policy is to use extreme ones."
So first strike nuclear attacks against us, and using civilian aircraft as bombs, are according to our principles, entirely valid within our war morality. Plus, now there is a new justification of pre-emptive retaliation. A first strike against us as a retaliation for our supposedly impending first strike.
I believe you're mistaking two seperate issues. Would Saddam care if the Iraqi population were killed? No. Would he care if his country was attacked with nukes? Yes. There is a difference.
The Gulf War is a great example of Saddam's strategic thinking. But what we saw was only Act 1. Saddam sent his air force to Iran for safe keeping. He created a buffer zone of expendable ground troops kept in place by his valued Republican Guard who took positions behind the lines. He put on a flashy, but largely ineffective AAA lightshow (even though the US Air Force guys did get to practice some battledamage repair from it). He then waited for huge civilian casualties to roll in from US bombing. Then he could show large-scale genocide against Islam, rally Arab nations to his banner (getting his air force back from Iraq by the way), and become the biggest military leader ever known in the Arab world. The mother of all battles, indeed.
But US technology performed beyond anyone's expectations. Saddam was forced to try to support his genocide-stage plans with footage of errent missiles, casualties from populations seeking shelter in valid military targets, and "baby milk factory" footage. He failed to rally support. The curtain came down and did not go up after Act 1.
What do we get out of this? Saddam uses his civilian poplulation as pawns and has no concern for their welfare. But he does care about his military resources (remember his air force, republican guard, etc - Saddam's military is also his political power base). You can bet if the US began to nuke military resources and infrastructure, he would care. In fact, it is very likely that threat of nuclear strike detured Saddam from wide scale deployment of biological and chemical munitions (assuming the Gulf War Syndrome comes from munitions that were being destroyed by US forces).
No where in my statement did I say a nuclear strike would be good or bad, I was simply stating my opinion as to why supposed secret information may have been leaked to the press. My personal politics was not important to the statement.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
Reminds me of the oddly prophetic lyrics of Randy Newman's "Political Science"
No one likes us, don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
All around, even our good friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens
We give them money, but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us, so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them
Asia's crowded, Europe's too old
Africa's far too hot and Canada's too cold
South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one, there'll be no one left to blame us
We'll save Australia... Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All-American amusement park there
They got surfin' too.
Boom goes London, Boom Paree.
More room for you and more room for me
And every city, the whole world 'round
Will just be another American town
Oh how peaceful it'll be, we'll set everybody free
You wear a Japanese kimono, babe it'll be Italian shoes for me
They all hate us anyhow, so let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now
Of course with the "Shadow Government" and spaces in an atomic bunker for all the "important folks" I guess us plebes have nothing to worry about.... Our government will survive..... as for the REST of the planet, well.....
MAB
You know, that's a very short sighted way of thinking . . . You might consider that the WTC attacks
Making war is only rarely going to
Please don't go there.
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
You know, my great granduncle was General Heinz Guderian.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
I don't think you're doing justice to the situation as it existed. From reading your description, I get the analogy that I've got a gun and you've got a gun. I don't shoot at you because I know you'll shoot back. Close. But not quite right. The situation was more dire.
I have a gun at your head, you have one at mine. We're both intently watching each other's trigger finger. If I begin to squeeze, you'll squeeze and we'll both be dead. But I'm watching closely just in case you get some idea that you can be just quick enough to get me before I can react. And I'm kinda shaking and wobbling. So are you. Or is that you tensing your finger ready for the squeeze?
Again - you must have missed the whole Cold War. Remember the Soviet Union was "the evil empire"? There was no first strike. But we did have guns at each other's heads.
Of course, the world is not a stable place. Governments want nukes not just because the US has them, but because nuclear powers get different treatment. There are areas of the world in constant state of near-war. Any US servicemember stationed in South Korea can tell you that.
Sure - US policy and statements will impact world events and stability. And I'm not sure if current statements have helped world stability. But I'm even less convinced that they are pushing the world in to an unstable tailspin. Look around. The world wasn't that stable to begin with.
"If a nation is not willing to sacrifice the lives of its soldiers for a cause, then perhaps it should not be involved in the first place."
Perhaps true, however, a nations soldiers are valuable. If a war can be won without sacrificing them, then we should try to do so.
With that said, nuclear weapons should be a last resort. The one time they were used in warfare, the casualties caused by those two bombs were far less than even optimistic casualty estimates... In a situation like that, their use is acceptable if not desirable.
I honestly think the US should leave first strike as an option, and develop nuclear weapons for everythign from erasing cities to taking out bunkers. The more willing we appear to use them and the more variety we have in our arsenal to deal with specific situations, the less likely someone will do something to piss us off. We might not win friends among our target list, but we will likely not have to worry about large scale attacks as much. Noone gos to war if they don't think they at least have a chance of winning. Even Al-Quaeda would not have attacked if destruction of the cause was seen as a possible outcome. They like martyrdom only if there is someone left to inspire. Apparent or actual greater willingness to use nukes will deter more wars.
When the final strategy is done, a firm line needs to be drawn as to when to deploy. I would personally like to see these situations as nuclear responses:
1) Use of WMD against the US. A few anthrax letters in the mail are one thing, justifying a severe though non nuclear response, but if someone cropdusts NYC with large amounts of anthrax, enough to severely stress or overwhelm emergency response and health care... Nuke them.
2) Survival of the United States. Unlikely to come into play, but if the survival of the United States(I mean the 50 states and various territories, not our embassies and overseas military bases) is threatened or another nation is close to conquering parts of our territory, repel them by all means necesary, including nuclear weapons.
3) Attacks such as the WTC attack. I'm sorry... That justified a nuclear detonation right above wherever Bin Ladens most likely hideout was at the time.
4) To counter new weapons that do not exist currently, and the US has no capability to otherwise counter. If, say, China develops an orbital bombardment laser and the only thing we have to deter its use is nuclear weapons, then nuke them if they use it.
5) Killing annoying actors while saving the world:)(Armageddon if you didn't catch my reference)
And, what I meant to say along with that was, he was in the German military long before Hitler was in power. They may have sworn loyalty to Hitler, but it was only because they were sworn already to the physical country and whatever government happens to be in power.
People who joined after Hitler came to power did have a choice, true, but many of them were looking for a paying job when they became soldiers. This was in the Great Depression, you know.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Maybe we need you and people like you to stay...
There is a difference: it's a lot harder to completely control the access of the citizenry to information. I don't know if this will amount to a significant difference. Looks like we're going to find out.
The real war is not whether Bush will bomb Afganistan with nukes- in a sense the real war is whether Bush's people can persuade the majority of US citizens that USA ruling the world and remaking it in its image is the best thing for everybody. Whether this can be spun as a benevolent empire isn't really the point...
USA.
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 for these quotes.
Da Blog
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?)
The US has been using Echelon to conduct economic warfare against the EU, and the Swedish government weren't too happy when Novell sold them a 'secure encryption' system for confidential use within their government only to find 40-bits out of each 80-bit key escrowed with the NSA. We all know about Microsoft collaboration. The attacks on the EU haven't just hit home in Germany and Sweden but also many other EU countries. France, upon the evidence presented to them on Echelon, did a 180-degree turn on their encryption policy and went from a ban on all encryption to an immediate allowance of strong encryption for anyone for any use. I think we may well see a government push towards open source in the EU except for the UK. The UK hosts many of the spy stations used against our EU neighbours, and in return the USA throws us a few intelligence scraps when they feel like it.
Back on topic, it's interesting to see Bush throwing up the threat of foriegn nuclear weapons as the next excuse to distract attention from his domestic failure. Does he think his pathetic scare stories will drag us back to our Cold War paranoia? Will we then give him a free hand to attack the first on his long list of peeves, Iraq?
And finally can people please stop referring to Pakinstan as a "nuclear superpower" unless they provide evidence the rest of us don't know about. The last report on Pakistan nuclear testing I saw said that their "nuclear bomb" test was the equivalent destructive power of a large lump of TNT and seismologist have shown their tests yielded nothing like their government claims.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
Is that Bush wants smaller nuclear weapons developed. Remember when Bush promised to reduce the total ICBM arsenal to 2000 warheads or so (:sarcasm:only enough to destroy the world three times over:sarcasm:)? Now we know why: it's probably cheaper to pull apart the old nukes for spare parts rather than trying to mine all the extra uranium et al. What a magnanimous gesture that was.
BlackGriffen
Notice I said "only rarely" - yes, I /do/ realise that WWII was necessary, and some other instances where war was justified, but in general, all that wars do is give countries good reason to hate one another.
/all/ like that. Consider all the little wars fought in sub-saharan Africa - they do nothing to change the situations that caused the wars in the first place, and simply perpetuate the hatred. If the US stuck it's oar in on one side or the other, with adequate force to stop a particular conflict, it wouldn't change a thing - they'd be at each other's throats as soon as the US pulled out. On top of that, one side would hate the US for it's interference, and if the climate was right, you'd have a new group of anti-US terrorists.
Vietnam was probably also justified - the country was unstable, artificially divided after the French colonial withdrawl, and the division was propped up by a foriegn power: the war fought by the North Vietnamese was probably quite reasonable, and would have been fairly trivial if the US hadn't gotten involved.
However, most wars aren't at
Most of the wars fought in the world are the second type, and the only way to deal with them is general social changes in the affected nations. 'adequate' force does nothing positive beyond the immediate term, and often makes the long term worse.
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
Kim, Jung-Il is not a religious fanatic like others.
For that matter, neither are Hussein or Khatemi. Hussein is a Baathist (== secular, bordering on socialist), and Khatemi is a medical doctor trained in England who is trying to democratize Iran.
Really, are there any religious fanatics on the list?
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
how do you make sure that the other guys are really destroying their nukes?
the weapons that the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Russia and China have now are too big and thus unusable from a political point of view. A smaller weapon that is actually usable from a tactical standpoint would actually be more humane than many of the systems in use now.
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"?
Is this just one more bit of spin to start a new arms race? Anyone with 1/2 clue will see that the arms race with the great evil Russia resulted in lots of new cool stuff and put the US in the lead with technology. Now most of that stuff is made in third world countries and imported. The US has a nasty unemployment problem with its technical sector and an arms race would get enough of the American public behind it to justify the expenses.
Whenever life get you down, Mrs. Brown
And things seem hard or tough
And people are stupid, obnoxious or daft
And you feel that you've had quite enu-hu-hu-huuuuff
Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at 900 miles an hour
It's orbiting at 19 miles a second, so it's reckoned
The sun that is the source of all our power
The sun and you and me, and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In the outer spiral arm, at 40,000 miles an hour
Of the Galaxy we call the Milky Way
Our Galaxy itself contains 100 billion stars
It's 100,000 light-years side-to-side
It bulges in the middle, 16,000 light-years thick
But out by us it's just 3000 light-years wide
We're 30,000 light-years from galactic central point
We go round every 200 million years
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe
The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whiz
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light you know
Twelve million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure
How amazingly unlikely is your birth
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space
Because there's bugger all down here on Earth
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
If the allies weren't so hell bent on unconditional surrender (for political reasons) its pretty well considered by many experts the the Japanese would have met surrender terms not long after Saipam.
Actually the Japs knew they were beat by Midway, but even then the Japs were still hoping for surrender terms that recognised their conquests in China. Japan Actually had no intention of ever invading Australia, India or the US - they went to war hoping they could quickly force the allies to accept their terms for peace - recognise the Japanese conquests in China & accept Japanese puppet regimes in the Philipines, Indochina, Malaya & the East Indies. By Midway they had given up on the allies accepting terms on the puppet states & just wanted the China conquests recognised, which was still quite rightly unacceptable to the allies. By Saipan their hoped for terms were that the allies would refrain from using the term 'unconditional surrender' (the Japanese obsession with 'face' is obvious here), that their monarchy was untouchable & that they were willing to negotiate in regards to Japanese rule in Manchuria & Korea. By the fall of Germany the Japanese only had one condition left - the monarchy must remain.
The Japs knew they well 'n truelly beat by Saipan (just read any of the Japanese War ministry papers that were released about 5 years ago), gez by then their war production wasn't even replacing loses by 15% or something, let alone matching war loses, or matching the allies. Even the Aussies alone were almost matching the Japanese in war production (exluding capital ships 'n subs) by then. The Japanese only kept fighting because unconditional surrender was unacceptable (actually unconditional surrender's quite rare in war) as they saw it as a risk to their monarchy.
This shows the allies were putting politics before ending the war quickly.
So if they weren't worried about what the voters thought they could have had the Japanese meeting surrender terms not long after Saipan.
Actually the whole 'unconditional surrender' thing started as a policy of faith by Roosevelt & Churchill to Stalin. It became policy in regards to the Nazi regime as an attempt to relieve Stalin's concern/worries/paranoia about the West unilaterally negotiating terms with Hitler. The unconditional surrender policy was only extended to include the Japanese to satisfy American voters, who would otherwise ask 'why are the Germans expected to surrender unconditionally & not the Japs when it was the Japs that attacked us'.
Arround August '95, the British Home Office & Foreign office, released many 1000s' of documents (classified under the official secrets act),pertaining to the war, as their 50 year status had expired - There maybe many other secrets about the war, we have yet to find out about, as apparently there are many other documents that were classified for 100 years.
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.
Actually, nothing has changed except someone at the LA Times decided to get overheated about it. One of those things that people forget (repeatedly) is that there's this whole great big five-sided building in the DC area full of people asking "what if this happens?" and working out the answers. Undoubtedly, there are also plans for using nuclear weapons against Israel and even France, if you just check the right file drawer.
There /is/ a valid point somewhere in the middle of all that invective . . .
/did/ stop Iraq from using their biological and chemical weapons against US troops. Great. Pity it didn't stop them from gassing the Kurds, or Iran, or anyone else who lacked such a deterrent. And, most importantly, it didn't stop them from /developing/ the weapons in the first place. And once they've been developed, what's to stop them from being sold to the highest bidder? Like, say, a nicely funded terrorist organisation?
/real/ danger point: terrorists. They couldn't give a flying fuck about nuclear attacks - they /want/ to die gloriously.
/your/ head out of your arse and realise that your country is fighting a different kind of war now, one that doesn't follow the old rules. Not realising that will get lots of you killed. Unfortunately, it'll also kill lots of people who had nothing to do with either side of it.
Apparently the nuclear deterrent
My original point was that none of this large scale deterrent stuff has any effect on the
You should get
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
That's not news. America's political parties have been controlled by shifting sectors of the business community since the Civil War.
What's alarming now, is that both parties are in the control of the oil interests, who have a geopolitical agenda.
I mean, I don't really mind that much if America is in the iron grip of the Diamond Matches corporation, Apple Computer, or the YKK zipperhead monopoly. But oil companies? Run for your lives!
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
these words may be more appropos than ever right now...
--| The Distress of Arjuna |---
ARJUNA'S HEART melted with pity,
while he uttered this:
Arjuna.
Krishna! as I behold, come here to shed Their common blood,
yon concourse of our kin, My members fail, my tongue dries in my mouth,
A shudder thrills my body, and my hair Bristles with horror;
from my weak hand slips Gandiv, the goodly bow; a fever burns
My skin to parching; hardly may I stand; The life within me seems
to swim and faint; Nothing do I foresee save woe and wail!
It is not good, O Keshav! nought of good Can spring from mutual slaughter!
Lo, I hate Triumph and domination, wealth and ease, Thus sadly won!
Aho! what victory Can bring delight, Govinda! what rich spoils Could profit;
what rule recompense; what span Of life itself seem sweet, bought
with such blood?
Seeing that these stand here, ready to die, For whose sake life was fair,
and pleasure pleased, And power grew precious:- grandsires, sires, and sons,
Brothers, and fathers-in-law, and sons-in-law, Elders and friends!
Shall I deal death on these Even though they seek to slay us?
Not one blow, O Madhusudan! will I strike to gain The rule of
all Three Worlds; then, how much less To seize an earthly kingdom!
Killing these Must breed but anguish, Krishna! If they be Guilty,
we shall grow guilty by their deaths; Their sins will light on us,
if we shall slay Those sons of Dhritirashtra, and our kin;
What peace could come of that, O Madhava? For if indeed,
blinded by lust and wrath, These cannot see, or will not see,
the sin Of kingly lines o'erthrown and kinsmen slain,
How should not we, who see, shun such a crime-- We who perceive
the guilt and feel the shame- O thou Delight of Men, Janardana?
By overthrow of houses perisheth Their sweet continuous household piety,
And- rites neglected, piety extinct-- Enters impiety upon that home;
Its women grow unwomaned, whence there spring Mad passions,
and the mingling-up of castes, Sending a Hell-ward road that family,
And whoso wrought its doom by wicked wrath.
Nay, and the souls of honoured ancestors Fall from their place of peace,
being bereft Of funeral-cakes and the wan death-water.
So teach our holy hymns. Thus, if we slay Kinsfolk and friends for
love of earthly power, Ahovat! what an evil fault it were!
Better I deem it, if my kinsmen strike, To face them weaponless,
and bare my breast To shaft and spear, than answer blow with blow.
(The BHAGAVAD-GITA, translated by Sir Edwin Arnold,
Chapter 1 - Of the Distress of Arjuna)
Storm's Nest
--
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, 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. So this article merely suggest that these weapons are returning to the Western arsenal.
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
You know, the one we WON because nobody in their freaking mind would attack the US military?
Except the North Koreans and the Viet Cong.
Unless you mean attack the US itself, but in that case, what would they gain?
...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"?
Quite simply the US has had a standing policy that any attack on the US with weapons of mass destruction, be it chemical, biological, nuclear or otherwise, will be responded to with a nuclear strike. So if a rouge nation used chemical weapons on a US city or interest, we would respond, most likely, with nuclear weapons. This is OLD doctrine.
Read the BBC article. There were three options that they explored in using them. One was for retaliation. Another was for countries who could defend themselves adequately against conventional weapons. The third is a "catch-all" clause -- it's worded so vague that any reason you can think of can be crammed into option #3.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
"With proper tactics, nuclear war need not be as destructive as it appears." -- Henry Kissinger
(Note: This quote is meant to illustrate that policy makers in the 1960's were farking nuts.)
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
To cut a long story short.. Kuwait asked Iraq to fight on its behalf against Iran, resulting in the 80s Iraq-Iran war. In return, Kuwait promised a number of oil fields in payment.
War ended, Iraq came to collect. Kuwait said 'No.' So Hussein invaded to take back what he thought was rightfully his. Of course, he just ended up setting them on fire instead so that no-one could have them.
mogorific carpentry experiments
"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds." -Vishnu in the Bhagavad Gita, as quoted by J. Robert Oppenheimer after the test of the first atomic bomb
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Pray tell.
WHY THE HOLY FUCKING HELL are we still even CONSIDERING using nukes?
Neutron bombs are SOOOO much sweeter.
Hell I said long ago that we should have lobbed a few in ol' ben'ies cave complexs.
Problem would've been solved rather quickly.
But noooo.
Aaaanyways.
Why use that old tech when Neutron bombs just rock so much more? Ok so SOME Nukes would be required, they do destory buildings and all, but hell, Neutron bombs are MUCH scarier, if just for the sake that you can use as many as you need without worry about all of that icky fallout!
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
They proposed the CTBT as an instrument to prevent nuclear have nots from becoming haves. For, in world populated with nuclear weapons, superiority in conventional weapons means nothing. Having a nuke does not constitute an advantage unless the other guy does not have it.
And they berated India & Pakistan for seeing throught this strategem and not signing the treaty. Abd you know what? they themselves haven't signed it.
US posseses the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, and is the only country to have dropped one. Unless the US can drop nukes on others, and escape retaliation, they are of no use. Hence the missile defense program.
When in doubt, use brute force. -- Ken Thompson
Quite simply the US has had a standing policy that any attack on the US with weapons of mass destruction, be it chemical, biological, nuclear or otherwise, will be responded to with a nuclear strike.
Wonder what standing policy the nations mentioned have in the case of being attacked. No doubt these would include "terrorism" when facing a foe such as the US.
are you at war with eurasia or oceania?
it's becoming ever more obvious that warfare is domestic rather than foreign politics. being a european I just hope that you make another revolution before this time we have to come over to your site of the atlantic to get rid of the fascists.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Now the U.S.'s policy is to reply in kind, but to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties (e.g., we didn't send a fleet of 747s to Afghanistan in late September).
There were plenty of civilian casualties in Afganistan. That they generally wern't US citizens does not make them any less civilians. Anyway even if the US had sent fleets of comandeered civilian aircraft to the area they would have been carrying (and quite probably crewed by) soldiers.The U.S., however, doesn't have chemical or biological weapons,
The US has vast stockpiles of these agents and counteragents. Also there are plenty of chemical weapons which don't need to be stockpiled since they can easily be manufactured.
Well said. The fruit cakes around here may not mod you up but I strongly agree. There are domestic political issues which caused this turd to float onto the cover of the Times but to anyone with a clue the hysterical rantings of the girls blouses in the media merely serve to show how underqualified and incapacitated they are outside their fabricated media reality warp field. This is not news.
so while you're sniffing daisies and wizzing on the flag people are eating bark in north korea, nevermind dog. their backs are against the wall, the best thing they could do right now is to invade south korea.
Then why havn't they? Don't you think that if South Korea though this was a serious threat the would publically ask for help.
just like the USSR, communism is inherently flawed, the only way it can survive is to rape new lands.
The USSR is long gone. However hijacking other people's nations was never something exclusive to the USSR. e.g. Hawaii...
Because they want to drive planes into buildings killing thousands to get out attention. Because they have irrational world views which paint America as the villain in everything and they want to kill us for it. Because they cannot be reasoned with and are not content to live their lives in a progressive way, instead they insist on a backward culture which blames us for their troubles and they want to kill us for it. Because they are not rational secular humanists like you and they would stone you for promoting the views you just have in their country and they want to kill us for it.
It's not about who started what or where or when, it's just unfortunately that there is no reasonable meeting of minds, every time the USA gives an inch it is taken without concession and the claims get wilder, weakness is read into the US position and all manner of evil accusations are leveled. Heck, drop food aid and these folks accuse the US of dropping poison and the dim bulbs in the media ask if we might injure someone on the ground by hitting them with a food parcel, then the US is accused of dropping food aid on mine fields, then it's accused of dropping food aid the same color as cluster bomb submunitions. The sad part is none of this shit is made up. Our enemies have a truly deep seated irrational hatred of us which does not listen to the kind of reason you espouse. We need to cut through the crap and stop pretending that all sides are equal here. There's only so many times you can draw the line half way between your position and the other guys before you have to push back. You SHOULD only do this once, but we've been doing this in debates for too long. In the mean time these cave men have gotten used to the view that their arcane world view is more valid than a secular democracy... and they want to kill us... well, you get the idea.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Not to mention the fact that the US used chemical weapons against another state (Agent Orange:Vietnam). By Bomber Harris' logic, the US has _already_ forfited it's right to exist.
Survival of the United States. Unlikely to come into play, but if the survival of the United States(I mean the 50 states and various territories, not our embassies and overseas military bases) is threatened or another nation is close to conquering parts of our territory, repel them by all means necesary, including nuclear weapons.
Under this principle then, Iraq would be morally entitled to WMD US troops if US attempted an invasion?
Furthermore, if Iraq cannot counter the US military through any other means, it should resort to whatever is effective?
I'm curious as to what moral principle justifies only one of these positions.
Survival of the United States. Unlikely to come into play, but if the survival of the United States(I mean the 50 states and various territories, not our embassies and overseas military bases) is threatened
So you want to nuke the Hawaiian nationalists who simply want their country back? That sounds a little extreme. The plebsites for both Hawaii and Alaska both have enough irregulatities to be considered void. I'm not sure off hand about the various US held territories... Quite a bit of what is considered US territory may actually be more correctly considered "disputed".
So if a rouge nation used chemical weapons
A rouge nation, huh? A country made up of beauticians and hairdressers, perhaps?
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
A terrible newspaper, with an even worse article. This link is an insult to our intelligence.
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
I don't know about the Pinochet bit, but we are not starving Cuba to death. We decline to do business with them, yes. That no doubt hurts them financially. However, as you are probably aware, there's a world outside of the US. They can all do business with Cuba if they so choose. We are not running a military blockade of the island, we aren't shooting down airliners going into the country, we're just saying "no thanks, we'll take our business elsewhere." If Cuba is starving, it's because their leader chooses to spend his country's limited budget on military hardware (Cuba has a very respectable air force, given the size of the nation) instead of on feeding the people. It's the old "guns-vs.-butter" debate, and Castro seems to have chosen guns. Is it our responsibility to bail him out of that mess? I think not.
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
If our goal was just, we would be willing to sacrifice as many lives as necessary to achieve it.
Apparently, you've never heard of the idea of "combat effectiveness." Sending a bunch of people to die to achieve the goal, when there is an alternative that will keep them alive, is not the most efficient use of resources. It
Taking your argument to its illogical extreme, we should return to unarmed, hand-to-hand combat, because every weapon seeks to improve combat effectiveness--every weapon seeks to help the attacker live, while killing the target. Actually, that's another purpose of a weapon: to outclass the target such that he declines to be a target. It is estimated that in 99% of self-defense cases involving a firearm, the gun is never fired. Why? Because the attacker knows he is outclassed, so he yields before the weapon is used. By making the target feel as though there's no possible way for him to win the battle, the battle can often be avoided. "You don't need to be holding four aces if they think you're holding four aces." As to your calling the poster a coward, well, I don't see you volunteering for unarmed combat. Correct me if I'm wrong.
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
My great uncle went to war for Hitler. He was Austrian - and was conscripted. Had he not gone, he would have been shot. He has photos of himself in uniform, his unit and drinking buddies, and the wreckage of a British plane he shot down, (along with it's dead pilot). When the Allies captured him, he says he was happy and relieved. His unit surrendered without any fight at all. Though his mind was changed after two years of inhumane treatment as a POW in France.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
What's totally scary is that this is the guy who kept Nixon's leash so short (according to the recently released tapes where Nixon was practically begging to nuke VietNam, and Kissinger said that it probably wasn't such a good idea).
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
That's news but it's also wrong. The Russians have twice as many warheads as the US.
It is one of the few countries that have a habit of nosing into others affairs, and has shown the tendency to use force at the slighest pretext. It funded the mujahedeen in Afganistan, then funded the taliban, it masscared the vietnamese, it has put a stranglehold on Iraq, leading to shortage of food and medicines.
I'm an isolationist and would rather let the rest of the world beat itself to death, so your view is a little odd to me. The mujahdeen were grateful for the funding when the Soviet Union was busy killing the Afgans like rats and leaving their children explosive toys. Without US funding, they would be with their makers or athiests by now as are the Vietnamese. Our abandoment of the Vietnamese and their fate, I'm sure, did much for the Mujadene's self reliance and fanaticism. The US never funded the Taliban, unless you count drug purchases, perhaps it should have. Oh yeah, perhapse that idiot Bill Clinton should have forced the Palestinian/Israeli treaties to a conclusion and we'de have two stable friendly states instead of Israeli "occupation".
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.