How Nuclear Weapon Modernization Undercuts Disarmament

Lasrick writes: John Mecklin details exactly how nuclear weapons modernization is kick-starting a new arms race, and how modernizing these weapons to make them more accurate and stealthy puts the world at even greater risk of nuclear war: "[T]his is precisely why the U.S. Congress rejected the Air Force’s requests for low-yield, precision-guided nuclear weapons in the 1990s: Their very accuracy increases the temptation to use them." The issue is not getting very much attention, but the patience of the non-nuclear states is wearing thin, and a breakthrough in public awareness may be on the horizon: "The disarmament debate is likely to make this spring's NPT conference a contentious one and just might be loud enough to make the public aware that a new type of nuclear arms race is unfolding around the world."

Comments

Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Xenkar]

Often by the United States of America or other western powers. When nations see that having a nuke prevents other nations from toppling them, nukes become vital for stability.

Perhaps we should stop driving them towards nuclear weapons by invading them for oil and minerals.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

... or slaughtering their own citizens.

I think you mean "holding back their oil". Because slaughtering their citizens never really registered on any country's radar, except as an excuse to accomplish something else.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[aliquis]

Perhaps we should stop driving them towards nuclear weapons by invading them for oil and minerals.

Perhaps the world belong to everyone.

And no, the output of peoples labor does not.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps they would stop building chemical or biological WMDs if we would stop killing those that decide to cooperate and indeed put an end to their WMD programs.

The one positive thing to come out of the Iraq war was that Qaddafi did put an end to his WMD programs, out of fear that he would be next. Look how he was rewarded. That episode guaranteed that no tin horn dictator will EVER give up their WMD program.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

How much oil and minerals did we take from Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam or Korea?

We seem to mostly invade places as an excuse to launder US taxpayer money into the Military Industrial complex. The looting is all on our end.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[gurps_npc]

I always laugh at the "war for oil" people.

Do you know what the first war for oil was? World War Two. Japan wanted the oil in the Philippines, but the US owned them. So they (almost simultaneously) attacked the Philippines and the US Navy base in Hawaii that let the US protect the Philippines. That is simple history. The US proceeded to defend both ourselves and our allies (The Philippines).

That same pattern - 1) someone evil SOB who hatefull kills innocents, wants oil, so they attack an ally or pre-emptively attacks us for allying with them, 2) the US defends itself and our ally. 3) some idiot complains about 'war for oil' - continues to this day.

Do you still think "war for oil" is a bad idea?

The US has never, not once, invaded a country for oil and minerals. The idea that we have started a war for oil is just plain stupid. We are simply far too smart to do that kind of stupidity - not when we can so easily and cheaply have the CIA start a coup (which we did do in Iran).

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

Herp derp.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[gstoddart]

The US has never, not once, invaded a country for oil and minerals. The idea that we have started a war for oil is just plain stupid.

No, but the reality was before you went into Iraq in 2003, against any sensible facts, and despite evidence that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 ... your own government had people talking about how the oil you'd get from Iraq would pay for the war because they'd be so grateful. How did that work out for you?

And, further, how many places has America utterly failed to act when there was no oil?

America ignores what's happening in Africa because there's no oil for the most part. And yet claims loudly they must intercede in the middle east out of principle and on humanitarian grounds.

Has it occurred to you that the much vaunted "principles" America claims before going to war are entirely dependent on oil and/or your own economic benefit, and that your claims to do this out of a sense of right and wrong is bullshit?

Because it certainly has to the rest of the world.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Major Blud]

"Japan wanted the oil in the Philippines"

uh, wut? Japan wanted the Philippines to protect their southern flank and for agricultural purposes....they wanted Indonesia for oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

But you are correct.....Afgahnistan does not have oil, and the U.S. gets very little of its overall oil from Iraq.

http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_b...
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/...

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Major Blud]

Yeah, they sure did utterly fail to act and ignore what was happening in Africa because of the lack of oil. How did that work out for them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you assume that lack of involvement in Africa is about oil, rather than good old fashioned racism (I.E. we just don't give a shit).

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[gstoddart]

Yes, that was 20 years ago.

And America is doing, what, exactly, in Africa now besides insisting foreign aid be tied to no contraception?

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Fire_Wraith]

And Malaysia for Rubber, as well. They did so in part because the USA had organized a trade embargo on oil, rubber, and related POL products, in response to the Japanese invasion of China (and the subsequent occupation of the French colonies in Indochina).

The Philippines was the forwardmost US military base in the Pacific at the time, and sat directly astride the ocean route from Malaysia/Indonesia to Japan. But moreover it was fully expected by Japan that the US would declare war in response to any attack on British or Dutch possessions in East Asia, so Japan struck first, bombing the Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor, and following up with invasions of key strategic and economic locations.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[fightinfilipino]

The US has never, not once, invaded a country for oil and minerals. The idea that we have started a war for oil is just plain stupid. We are simply far too smart to do that kind of stupidity - not when we can so easily and cheaply have the CIA start a coup (which we did do in Iran).

*looks at Iraq*

*laughs until the point of crying.*

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

America ignores what's happening in Africa because there's no oil for the most part. And yet claims loudly they must intercede in the middle east out of principle and on humanitarian grounds.

Nothing is preventing whatever piece of shit country you live in from acting in Africa on humanitarian grounds. Why don't you do it?

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Major Blud]

"besides insisting foreign aid be tied to no contraception?"

Where on Earth is this official U.S. government policy? I know there are a lot of crackpots in the U.S., some of them in government even, but you'll be hard pressed to find any official documentation to verify this.

And 20 years is too long ago? What about 10 years? 4 months?

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[fsagx]

That episode guaranteed that no tin horn dictator will EVER give up their WMD program.

That seems logical, but Assad did just that:

Syria will give up control of chemical weapons

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps we should stop driving them towards nuclear weapons by invading them for oil and minerals.

I'm still waiting for all that free oil.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[deKernel]

Not sure actual numbers confirm your theory.

http://www.energytrendsinsider...

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Major Blud]

The link you provided confirms it...the U.S. gets less than 5% of it's oil from Iraq. I guess when I said "gets very little" of it's oil from Iraq, I should have been more specific.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

"we just don't give a shit" =/= racism

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

America ignores what's happening in Africa because there's no oil for the most part.

I wasn't aware that your country was doing everything it could to help Africans rise up out of poverty. The sad reality is that no body seems to care about what happens to Africa, except the Chinese, who don't care about the Africans, but just about the minerals under their feet.

Let's not ignore that Africa does have oil and gas. Nigeria is the 13th largest producer of oil in the world, and there are 4 or so OPEC nations in Africa.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[billstewart]

The Iraqis got their chemical weapons from the US for use against Iran. The US still hasn't destroyed their own CBW program products (though they do occasionally retire old unstable chemical weapons, as they've done recently.)

And both the US and Russians still have their hoards of smallpox, pretending they need to keep them to develop vaccines in case the other side uses theirs to attack, even though cowpox ("vaccinia") is good enough for a vaccine and not good enough for a weapon.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

"besides insisting foreign aid be tied to no contraception?"

Where on Earth is this official U.S. government policy? I know there are a lot of crackpots in the U.S., some of them in government even, but you'll be hard pressed to find any official documentation to verify this.

30-seconds searching on duckduckgo: http://allafrica.com/stories/200810010489.html

Granted I'm not 100% sure this is true, but it sounds familiar so this quick article confirmed my prior bias. I'm guessing if you spent a few minutes searching yourself you would either find more proof or find concrete evidence you could present refuting the parent's assertion (rather than just saying "nuh-uh, you are just wrong").

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[CrimsonAvenger]

Did he?

Or did he just say he was going to while hiding it better?

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

The US has never, not once, invaded a country for oil and minerals.

If you exclude Nicaragua, Colombia, Fiji, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Nicaragua, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Bolivia, and Nicaragua from your list...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

... or slaughtering their own citizens.

I think you mean "holding back their oil". Because slaughtering their citizens never really registered on any country's radar, except as an excuse to accomplish something else.

The Saudi's seem to behead a lot of people and we don't really care, they're our "friends" right? Or, well, they have oil.
We pretty much don't give a crap if anyone wants to slaughter their populations, unless they have some resource we want/need... in which case we *might* care if it impacts us getting "our" resources. If it doesn't affect "our" resources though, slaughter away....

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically, it was the ABCD embargo, or something like that. American-British-Chinese-Dutch.

All of those powers stopped supplying Japan materials necessary for Japan to continue to wage war. This also had the side-effect of cripping Japan's economy. The ABCD powers thought this would cause Japan to back down from carving up China and SE Asia. Instead, Japan decided to attack more of its neighbors.

Which kind of leads us to today's moral question. Assuming there's a power that's currently carving up some or all of its neighbors for its own gains.

Do you:

1. Continue to supply them on a business-as-usual practice and hope they give up?
2. Refuse to supply them and hope that they give up?

There were American businesses that did business with pre-1941 Nazi Germany. They have been condemned for it.

And yet America and its allies have also been condemned for pushing Japan into a corner.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gives a crap where the oil molecules come from? What matters is that the oil is pumped out and sold on the global market, which lowers America's oil's price (or prolongs the reserves, or whatever the intended result).

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Major Blud]

Since it's paywalled, I guess we'll never know.

The program mentioned in the article (PEPFAR) did devote money to programs that promoted abstinence, which is definitely somewhat misguided, but still spent two-thirds of its funding on programs which supported the use of condoms. Wikipedia makes no mention of an "insistence" or requirement that the aid money be devoted to abstinence-only methods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a ton of oil in Africa, particularly Nigeria. Of course, intervention in Africa is France's forte. If they don't see fit to invade, we assume things are sufficiently stable.

As for invading for oil, I'm skeptical of the oil conspiracists. You can't convince a large, democratic country to start a war just for oil. The world isn't that simple.

However, Cheney & Co are on record admitting that oil was one of the motivations for invading Iraq in 2003. It wasn't their only motivation, but it was a big one. And it was bigger than the supposed weapons of mass destruction, of which there was no substantive evidence other than what Cheney constructed.

The problem with most oil conspiracists and their skeptics is that they both presume that oil isn't a sufficient reason to start a war. But for some people (e.g. Cheney and similar politicians with medieval, real politik views about foreign policy), oil is one of the few reasons to go to war. Halliburton profits from oil wars, but so does every American. Almost everybody profits from cheap oil. And, frankly, Western oil companies are far more efficient at extracting and processing natural resources than local companies. It's a net gain. Of course, that doesn't make it right, nor necessarily in the best interests of Americans in the long-term. But you don't have to be a Scrooge McDuck or Seymour Burns to be persuaded, just a little bit, by such motivations.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[BCGlorfindel]

Often by the United States of America or other western powers. When nations see that having a nuke prevents other nations from toppling them, nukes become vital for stability.

Perhaps we should stop driving them towards nuclear weapons by invading them for oil and minerals.

So if you could travel back in time, you'd undo recent interventions. You would go back and change things so that today in your preferred reality, Afghanistan is still ruled by the Taliban with Bin Laden still living as their guest, Gadhafi still ruling Libya after completing the genocide he promised his opponents, and Saddam still ruling Iraq.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

Oil is a global commodity. It doesn't matter where America gets its physical oil, except at the margins. Our oil prices are directly effected by production of oil anywhere on the planet.

We get most of our foreign oil from the Americas, because it'd be stupid for Europe or Asia to import Venezuelan oil and America to import Middle Eastern oil, all things being equal. Why ship it further than you need to? Transport isn't free.

Arguing that "U.S. gets very little of its overall oil from Iraq" is a meaningless statement and only shows ignorance about the subject.

Note that I have no opinion on all the war-for-oil stuff, at least none that is simple enough to post as AC, or even coherent to put into words at all.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[lymond01]

I'm pretty sure we have no interest in playing fair here. While we have the biggest stick, America and its allies are that much safer. We're not two equally matched swordsmen allowing fate to guide our strokes and may the best duelist that day win. We want to make sure that when they other guy shows up in his fencing gear and foil, we are in our tank with an Apache helicopter as our tag team partner. And if this allows us the responsibility of playing worldwide police officer (and yes, you can use recent examples of both our international actions and actual local police officers' actions to see how well that's playing out), then so be it. People running governments seem to be complete assholes. We need, as a democracy, to try to curb this here in the U.S., maybe convince our leaders not to kill 100,000 people for every 3,000 of ours.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that was 20 years ago.

One third of Congress and two thirds of Federal judges have been there longer than 20 years. There's not that much turnover.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[BCGlorfindel]

Often by the United States of America or other western powers. When nations see that having a nuke prevents other nations from toppling them, nukes become vital for stability.

Perhaps we should stop driving them towards nuclear weapons by invading them for oil and minerals.

Perhaps the most salient point was made in another thread. The Ukraine, as one of the only nations to ever willingly give up a nuclear arsenal, is in the process of being invaded. I'm not sure if you care about the distinction that in this case it is Russia doing the invading and not the evil America or her western allies.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps they should stop flying planes into buildings or building chemical or biological WMDs or slaughtering their own citizens. Just sayin'.

I am quite fond of the construction of this sentence strings of OR's especially.

No government is publically known to have signed off on or specifically supported 9/11.. If your going to pick one anyway SA certainly would be at the top of my list followed closely by US whose CIA helped the same groups fuck over the Ruskies while they were busy invading Afghanistan. Everyone loves the Saudi's where most of the attackers were from even though they seem to have a surplus of crazy inbred fuckwits.

Chemical weapons were used enmasse against Iran during Iran Iraq war... The US didn't seem to give much of a fuck then when they were doing what we liked. None of the WMD either Nuclear or Chemical asserted as reason for invading Iraq was **ever** found.

Then we come to "slaughtering their own citizens" ... that sucks... you know what also sucks? The hundreds of thousands of people killed resulting from our "Invasions" .. Even Saddam's gassing of Kurds in the late 80's used as excuse for invasion some 15 years after the fact killed only a small fraction of the aftermath of US invasion.

No country is innocent.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Fire_Wraith]

Assad made a decision to ditch his chemical weapons in order to avoid military intervention by the USA.

Not all "WMDs" are alike though. Nuclear weapons are weapons of state preservation in a way that Chemical weapons have never been. Chemical Weapons are nasty stuff, to be sure - but in terms of history, they've been more of a liability than an advantage. I can't think of any state that managed to stave off invasion because it had chemical weapons, and at least one was invaded in part because they were alleged to have chemical weapons.

If anything, the lesson will be that Chemical Weapons are a bigger liability than benefit, and that Nuclear Weapons development is a gamble - but if it pays off, you're set. Once you have the bomb, you're not going to get attacked, though getting there is a dangerous proposition.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Fire_Wraith]

The USA is in the process of destroying old chemical weapons stockpiles, as are the Russians. Getting rid of the stuff isn't easy, or cheap. According to semi-unreliable sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention), the USA has gotten rid of approximately 90% of its stockpiles, while the Russians have gotten rid of 78%.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[ralphsiegler]

What country flew an airplane into any U.S. building? Terrorist group of Saudis, who were former apid CIA agents in Soviet-Afghanistan war, did that. Maybe our CIA should cut that kind of shit out, eh? Then you bring up WMD, Saddam had no working WMD nor WMD program when US invaded. What he did have were long-expired weapons with UN tags on them, that were built with dual-use tech and billions of dollars given to him by ...wait for it..the United States of America. Because at the time he was our bestest pal, even made an honorary citizen of Detroit by the mayor for his donations to church, etc.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but the reality was before you went into Iraq in 2003, against any sensible facts,

Really? I thought it was reported that U.S. soldiers actually /did/ find WMDs in Iraq. So maybe those facts weren't quite so unsensible after all, assuming you're saying the primary argument that the Bush administration used for going there was invalid.

Among my problems with the "we went there for oil" argument include the fact that invading Iraq didn't really seem to help our economy at all since oil prices never really went down for any significant period of time. I don't recall hearing about us taking over the oil fields and doing something sensible like giving ourselves a nice fat discount. If we went there for oil, why aren't we benefiting massively from it? Because I think we should be.

We also have Iran that's got plenty of oil and is run by a bunch of crazy religious fanatics. Seriously, their leaders have come out with a 9 point plan to destroy Israel, and they're constantly talking about "Death to America!" and referring to us as the Great Satan, as well as having formally declared war on us in 1979 and never having rescinded that. Iran actively sponsors terrorism as well and is a terrible place when it comes to basic human rights, and especially women's rights. Why don't we go invade there? It has oil and an excuse, so why aren't we there? Don't give me that "Obama" excuse, Bush had 8 years to try it and plenty of good reasons.

Actually, I think your assertions that America only acts for the purpose of acquiring oil are based on conjecture rather than the sensible facts you seem worried about not having. Instead, I think it is simply convenient for the anti-American attitude you portray, so you just keep talking about it. We could sure as hell be doing a much better job at going and taking oil from other nations than we'd supposedly done in Iraq. If that's our aim, I think we're being pretty ineffective.

P.S. There are plenty of people in the "rest of the world" that don't think exactly like you do.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Fire_Wraith]

More specifically it was American/British/Dutch, as China was already at war with Japan at the time, having been invaded in 1937. America was the organizing power though. Britain and the Dutch were embroiled in a war with Nazi Germany, and would have been hesitant to take such action without American guarantees/involvement. The idea, generally, was to force Japan to back down and end the war with China, and it followed on the heels of earlier action such as freezing Japanese assets in the US, and embargoing the sale of things like scrap metal to Japan.

It wasn't so much about their economy though, as the fact that Japan did not produce enough fuel and other POL products to run its military. Had they done nothing, they would have run out of fuel for their planes and ships, rubber for tires, etc. Not only would they be unable to continue their invasion of China, they would also be unable to fight back against the USA/Britain/etc should it come to war at a later point.

Essentially the Oil Embargo brought matters to a head, and forced Japan to choose between caving to the demands, or going to war, regardless of how bad the odds might be. Human nature, unfortunately, is to choose the latter - i.e. "not without a fight."

You're right though - it is an interesting question, of how far a nation can go in using economic means to influence or deter other nations, without resorting to warfare, or pushing another nation to outright warfare. The USA/etc _did_ push Japan into a corner in 1941, but that doesn't mean they weren't right to do so in the context. We should definitely have expected the eventual result, though.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[gatkinso]

Ukraine learned this the hard way. Next time they come across 1900 nuclear warheads paired with various delivery systems, they'll think twice before giving them back.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention, what, we aren't racist towards middle easterners now ? Racism has been unilaterally directed at blacks ?

Tell the mexicans, jews, arabs, asians and everyone else they can relax.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[gatkinso]

If that were the true motivator it would be far easier and less costly to take Venezuela.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[gatkinso]

Bananas are not a mineral! But then again they are loaded with potassium.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah! We pushed THEM into a corner? All they did was invade and rape China ? What victims!

Same line of bullshit when people say the US hurt the Japanese people too much attacking Japan, THEY, BOMBED, US. Our countrymen, grandparents, family, etc. died on those fucking boats.

Yes, we shouldn't have sent Japanese Americans to camps. That, we were wrong about.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Chris Mattern]

Close but not quite right. There's not really any oil in the Phillippines. What happened was this--Japan invaded French Indochina (later to be Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia). In response the US placed an embargo of oil and steel on Japan. The US at that time was a major oil exporter from the fields in Texas and Japan had been getting much of their oil from the US. They decided that they would make it up with the oil, not from the Phillippines, but rather the Dutch East Indies, which was also a major oil source. To get that oil, they were going to need to militarily occupy it. Japan didn't think they could get away with that without pulling the US in, so they decided they would strike the US first as part of the plan. They hit Hawaii, the Phillippines (not because of oil but because it was far too good a forward base to leave in US hands) *and* and the Dutch East Indies all at once, conquering both the Phillippines and the East Indies.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[BCGlorfindel]

Perhaps they would stop building chemical or biological WMDs if we would stop killing those that decide to cooperate and indeed put an end to their WMD programs.

The one positive thing to come out of the Iraq war was that Qaddafi did put an end to his WMD programs, out of fear that he would be next. Look how he was rewarded. That episode guaranteed that no tin horn dictator will EVER give up their WMD program.

Indeed. And all Gadhafi had done was use his military to crush and murder peaceful protests, and when that turned ugly, promising to 'exterminate the cockroaches house by house'. Stopping him was certainly an unjustifiable failure of international relations.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes and no. The first war for oil was really WW1. The first BEF unit to deploy didn't go to Europe. A Battalion of the Dorset regiment deployed to Basra, with the intent to disrupt the Berlin-Baghdad railway. Which was intended ship oil. Robert Newman's A History of Oil, while not in depth, is a starting point on finding sources for this reframing the first world war as an invasion of Iraq, and a war for oil.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[BCGlorfindel]

What country flew an airplane into any U.S. building? Terrorist group of Saudis, who were former apid CIA agents in Soviet-Afghanistan war, did that. Maybe our CIA should cut that kind of shit out, eh?

Then you bring up WMD, Saddam had no working WMD nor WMD program when US invaded. What he did have were long-expired weapons with UN tags on them, that were built with dual-use tech and billions of dollars given to him by ...wait for it..the United States of America. Because at the time he was our bestest pal, even made an honorary citizen of Detroit by the mayor for his donations to church, etc.

I'd second the SA blame for 911, but even more directly responsible than them would have to be Pakistan.

The American support for the mujahideen during the Soviet-Afghan times wasn't solely to Al Qaida chaps, but to anyone willing to fight the Russians, including Al Qaida and the Taliban and the Afghan Northern Alliance folks that were their enemies. It's not lying per se to claim that America supported people that would later become key players in the Taliban and Al Qaida, but it's certainly less than half of the truth.

Pakistan however had continued to support the Taliban right on through. Part of Pakistan's war planning against India was 'strategic depth' into Afghanistan where the friendly and allied Taliban forces gave room for them to move into and operate alongside. The Taliban being as largely uneducated and prone to fanatacism as they were made Al Qaida a moderate voice for Pakistan to work with the Taliban through as well. Pakistan's ISI(equivalent of the CIA) was deeply, deeply in bed with the Taliban and Al Qaida. When the towers went down, the American response was who could have or might have done this? The immediate response in tribal Pakistan was different and two fold. First, shock that Bin Laden actually went through with it and actually did it. The second, was when the Americans go to war with the Taliban, whose side will Pakistan take, and bets where 50/50.

Make no mistake, the Afghan war was 100% about Pakistan's response and ensuring that it and it's nuclear arsenal took sides against jihadists and severed it's buddy, buddy relationship with them. It was never stated outright publicly though, because that would be impolite and push Pakistan to refusing on principal, which it very nearly did anyways.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

> Japan wanted the oil in the Philippines

No. Having read considerable amounts of historical fact and conjecture on the topic of Japan's march to war, I can say without hesitation this is nothing whatsoever like the truth. This is more than obvious when one considers the approximately zero amount of oil in the Philippines, which hasn't been really commercially viable even to this day.

Japan's primary reason for going to war with the US is that they considered it to be inevitable. Their reason for doing it *when* they did was a simple mathematical formula that stated a fleet's effectiveness was lowered due to distance travelled, and when one considers the distance from Pearl to Japan, the larger US fleet would be rendered less powerful than the IJNs. However, when the ships authorized by the Second Vinson Act and Two-Ocean Navy Act came into the force, the numbers would once again be in the US's favour. When these numbers were *greatly* expanded by congress at the urging of Stark, the IJN felt they had to strike immediately or face certain destruction.

Not one book or paper I have ever read has even intimated that oil had anything to do with. The Dutch, sure, but not the US.

> The US has never, not once, invaded a country for oil and minerals ... easily and cheaply have the CIA start a coup

That is a very thin distinction you wish to create.

Re: Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[dunkelfalke]

Ukraine willingly gave up (as in "sold") most of its arsenal period. They didn't do ot because they were nice people (only Poles are less friendly), but because they couldn't afford the maintenance and needed money to steal. It has been one of most corrupt countries in the world for over 20 years - since they became an actual state.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

> I can't think of any state that managed to stave off invasion because it had chemical weapons...

Yep. If you're fighting a modern military, it will be effectively immune to chemical or biological weapons. The only thing you can do with those is to get very lucky with a sneak attack, or attack civillian populations.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

I still say we are looking at this problem the wrong way. If we were smart we would come up with a new reality game show called "blow your matches boys".
Pick a month, at the start of the month All nations get to develop all the nuclear weapons their hearts desire. At the end of the month you get to challenge anybody on the list. The U.S. promises to take one hit before it joins inthe fun and eradicates these cocksuckers once and for all.
If you don't like that idea, we can just go back to fire bombing Dresden. Nothing like lighting a fire under some "innocent civillians" ass to get them to tow the fuckin line. Soon enough the muslim loving white house resident will be gone and I shudder to think of it, but you have no idea how good the U.S. is at destroying shit. Hell, if it ever gets close to being bad in this country, the rest of the world is fucked. You desert dwellers better come up with a better plan.
Anyway, all this nationalistic talk is pretty quaint. It's amazing that you rubes still fall for the same flag waving bullshit. The truth is the 3,000 , give or take wealthiest people that pull your puppet strings don't care what country wins your stupid fuckin wars.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[asriel22]

No no no. Go further back. Back to the Native Americans. So a bunch of political refugees land in North America. A long story, but in the end the natives lose their land while the refugees pull out all the plugs and plunder the land, which they eventually end up calling "The United States of America". A lot of the natives were victims of biological weapons, but let's forget that. We all know how US likes a big full stop. Just ask the Japanese.

That sounds similar to some of the people in history. Germans, Russians or any other evil empire.

What I always admired about America is its talent for propaganda and hypocrisy.

And oh, about nuclear weapons. There are good men, evil men and incompetent men. In a world where America is the Big Brother, only the last category of people don't bother with nuclear weapons.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

The US still hasn't destroyed their own CBW program products

You think they just dump that shit down the drain or something?

Dumbass.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[blue9steel]

Assad made a decision to ditch his chemical weapons in order to avoid military intervention by the USA.

His decision and timing were brilliant since it prevented Obama from launching airstrikes and cruise missiles which he was on the verge of doing. Assad can always rebuild his WMD program later after he crushes the rebels.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[blue9steel]

It was a dumb move that showed they didn't understand our internal politics, but if they were going to do it, it was pretty shortsighted not to land troops and take Hawaii. That would have allowed them to consolidate their Pearl Harbor air strike results and forced us over 2500 miles back to the West Coast. Given our industrial power it probably wouldn't have mattered in the long run, but it would have bought them at least an extra year.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[demachina]

Iraq used chemical weapons to pretty good effect to stave off Iranian human wave attacks during the Iran Iraq war. If they hadnâ(TM)t it would have somewhat increased the likelihood that Iran would have won the war. With the help of chemical weapons Iraq fought a much larger country to a stalemate.

The Reagan administration and numerous western companies were fine with Iraq using chemical weapons against Iran during that era. They didnt want Iran to win that war.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Chris Mattern]

People say that, but I don't buy it. Hawaii was just too far away. It was amazing they were able to just launch an airstrike at it--the US didn't think it that was possible until it happened. But a full scale invasion, take and hold? No. Not that far away.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[amiga3D]

I am kind of curious about how many people the Saudis slaughter. According to amnesty international the Saudi government executed 79 people in 2013, about half of them foreigners. These were for a wide range of crimes including murder, rape and adultery, drug smuggling among others. While I think its a little harsh it doesn't seem like they're just "slaughtering their people." Yes the Saudis have oil and they are our friends. It's as good a reason as any to put up with some grisliness. The world runs on the golden rule, those with the gold rule. Gold is black nowadays.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[amiga3D]

He's smart to do it. Chemical weapons suck for the people using them almost as bad as for the victims. The Russians killed a lot of their own troops in Afghanistan with nerve agent. Even Hitler wasn't crazy enough to use gas in WWII. It's only effective against unprotected civilian populations and often causes more trouble than it's worth. Why hold onto a weapon that's useless against real troops and only brings the world down on your head when you deploy it?

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[amiga3D]

I sure as hell hope they don't. I still remember when they moved a train load of nerve agent through Macon, Georgia to send it off to be dumped in the deep ocean. People threw a fit. The mayor threatened to block the track until some Feds went and had a talk with him.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[amiga3D]

What? Bush lied? Obama lied? Say it isn't so!

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[amiga3D]

But Afghanistan does have a lot of other resources, not including poppies.

http://www.livescience.com/476...

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[fyngyrz]

Once you have the bomb, you're not going to get attacked

You might want to keep an eye on India and Pakistan...

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't convince a large, democratic country to start a war just for oil.

You don't need to convince a country. You just need leaders like Bush and Cheney. They went two for two.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[amiga3D]

We involved ourselves in the conflict between China and Japan. Two countries that had been at war many times over history. All in all I feel it was the best move for US interests but I can see Japan's view. They were at war and we were trying to hold them back. Countries do what is in their interests. There is no real right or wrong there is only survival. If we can cooperate and all survive that is great. If not, we have to survive. Japan miscalculated and the Japanese government and a lot of it's people did not survive. The US did. Personally as a citizen of the US I'm okay with that. I know if things had turned out the other way the world would be far different. Most likely even worse than the fucked up mess it is today.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, good grief. Here we go with pretending chemical weapons are seriously comparable to nukes again. We went into Iraq the second time under the complete fiction that they had NUKES, not chemical weapons.

Bioweapons and nukes are the concern. Not chemical weapons. Chemical weapons don't kill much better than (or sometimes even as well as) conventional bombs, and way less so that FA bombs. Also, every damn house with chlorine and bleach under the sink has all they need to brew up chemical weapons. Possession of chemical weapons are a ridiculous right wing pipedream as justification to invade any country.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

Ukraine has given up their nukes for some worthless paper from world powers, or whatever. See how well it worked out for them. And no, it wasn't the US invading them.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[cold fjord]

Your post manages to get things almost entirely wrong.

The Iraqis got their chemical weapons from the US for use against Iran.

No, they didn't. The Iraqis manufactured their own chemical weapons although early on they cooperated with Egypt. Any country with a chemical industry, the ability to make dyes and insecticides, can manufacture chemical weapons.

The US still hasn't destroyed their own CBW program products (though they do occasionally retire old unstable chemical weapons, as they've done recently.)

The US has been in the process of destroying its chemical munitions for decades. There was a lot of them and its a slow process to render them safely destoryed. The ones that still exist require careful handling as they are often corroded or unstable.

And both the US and Russians still have their hoards of smallpox, pretending they need to keep them to develop vaccines in case the other side uses theirs to attack, even though cowpox ("vaccinia") is good enough for a vaccine and not good enough for a weapon.

Various pox related diseases still exists in nature, and various countries have illegal biological weapons programs thought to include small pox. A Soviet defector even indicated that the Soviet Union had been manufacturing small pox for use as a strategic attack weapon. What makes you think that cowpox is a good starting point to create vaccines effective against modern genetically engineered strains, unknown strains, or related diseases as have recently been seen in the country of Georgia?

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[cold fjord]

No, but the reality was before you went into Iraq in 2003, against any sensible facts, and despite evidence that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

The reality is that you must not have paid any attention to the discussions about Iraq to post that nonsense. The US didn't claim that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. What it did claim, and quite accurately, was that Iraq was involved in actively supporting terrorism. Your "sensible facts" are nonsense as well. Saddam's Iraq had a well documented history of aggression, use of WMDs, crimes against humanity, and all manner of other crimes.

... your own government had people talking about how the oil you'd get from Iraq would pay for the war because they'd be so grateful. How did that work out for you?

It wasn't a driver of policy, and a minor point. I can see why it so consumes you.

And, further, how many places has America utterly failed to act when there was no oil?

You mean like Vietnam, Korea, Germany, Italy, Japan, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Afghanistan, Cuba? The US isn't responsible for doing whatever your whims are, and not every problem in the world is one the US can or should address. But it does make a useful if dishonest club for you as you damn the US when it does act and when it doesn't.

America ignores what's happening in Africa because there's no oil for the most part.

You mean like the billions of dollars in aid the US has given to fight the AIDs crisis in Africa? Or the assistance the US is giving to support resistance against various terrorist factions? Could you remind me, isn't Libya in Africa? How did apartheid come to an end?

And yet claims loudly they must intercede in the middle east out of principle and on humanitarian grounds.

Much to your distress. Is Saddam still gassing entire villages? No? Why not?

Has it occurred to you that the much vaunted "principles" America claims before going to war are entirely dependent on oil and/or your own economic benefit, and that your claims to do this out of a sense of right and wrong is bullshit?

We've already seen that your claim about oil is bullshit, and the "economic benefit" is as well. That would seem to leave you totally baffled why the US has gone to war.

Because it certainly has to the rest of the world.

You aren't the rest of the world.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[f3rret]

Various pox related diseases still exists in nature, and various countries have illegal biological weapons programs thought to include small pox. A Soviet defector even indicated that the Soviet Union had been manufacturing small pox for use as a strategic attack weapon.

You are referring to the revelations about Biopreperat made by Ken Alibek and a few others.
This is not just some rumor, hear-say based report, US and UN Inspectors visited many of the Biopreperat sites, including the Sverdlovsk site that supposedly caused an accidental release of Anthrax.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

If the US wants Iraq oil, we have to get in line and buy it on the open market.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Holi]

Name me the country that did that. What it wasn't a country that attacked us?

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Holi]

I am so glad you think America is a piece of shit, now get out.

Re: Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[BCGlorfindel]

Ukraine willingly gave up (as in "sold") most of its arsenal period. They didn't do ot because they were nice people (only Poles are less friendly), but because they couldn't afford the maintenance and needed money to steal. It has been one of most corrupt countries in the world for over 20 years - since they became an actual state.

Thanks for agreeing and confirming the only facts I pointed out:
Ukraine willingly gave up it's nuclear arsenal.
Russia is now invading Ukraine.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[tehcyder]

> I can't think of any state that managed to stave off invasion because it had chemical weapons...

Yep. If you're fighting a modern military, it will be effectively immune to chemical or biological weapons. The only thing you can do with those is to get very lucky with a sneak attack, or attack civillian populations.

I think when Tony Blair was twatting on about Sadaam Hussein having WMDs that would reach Britain, the assumption was they would be used to attack civilians. If they had existed, that would have been a good reason for Britain not to invade Iraq. So it was lucky they didn't exist and we did invade...Hold on.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[blue9steel]

Well they had a whole fleet there already, logistics are always tricky but it seems hard to imagine they couldn't have thrown in some troop transports.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[tehcyder]

What? Bush lied? Obama lied? Say it isn't so!

Whatever your view of Obama, you can hardly blame him for the Iraq invasion in 2003 when Bush was president.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Chris Mattern]

They did not have "a whole fleet there already." For an airstrike, the fleet only had to get in airstrike range, and they were barely able to manage that. For an invasion, the fleet would have to actually go all the way to Hawaii, and maintain a supply line at that distance. No, it would've been too much.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[blue9steel]

I'm not sure exactly what the strike distance was but I know that it was less than 500 miles since Admiral Yamamoto initially considered a 500 mile "suicide" strike before his officers convinced him it was unnecessary in order to achieve surprise. The flight time is described as 90 minutes and the max air speed of a "Kate" Nakajima B5N torpedo bomber is only 235 mph so they were definitely within 352 miles. So, let's use a reasonable estimate of 300 miles. A Japanese battleship of that era could travel at 27 knots (about 31 mph) at flank speed. Every navy does things a bit differently but a reasonable cruising speed would be at 2/3rds power, so at 20mph they could have arrived there 15 hours after the initial strike.

At the time, General Short was concerned that the Japanese would follow up with an invasion the day after the strike so this isn't just fantasy. To be fair, the Army had about 43,000 troops there, with roughly two divisions worth of combat power though few were veterans, many were new recruits and about a third were national guard troops. With total air superiority and heavy naval gunfire it would have likely been possible to smash up the defenses and support an opposed landing. Seizure of the naval fuel supply depot would have allowed the Japanese fleet to roam the area at will and forced us to send a very heavy force to attempt to retake the island. Given their greater number of aircraft carriers at that time it's possible they could have forced a decisive battle prior to Midway with better results. In the end, it probably doesn't matter as they had no hope of successfully invading the west coast and that means eventually we would have produced a fleet of sufficient size to smash them. Still, many parts of the war were very sensitive timing wise and this could have delayed our efforts against Germany with negative consequences.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Chris Mattern]

A Japanese battleship of that era could travel at 27 knots (about 31 mph) at flank speed. Every navy does things a bit differently but a reasonable cruising speed would be at 2/3rds power, so at 20mph they could have arrived there 15 hours after the initial strike.

Yes, it could have. I'm having trouble coming up with hard figures, but I believe if it did so, it then wouldn't have enough fuel to get home.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[amiga3D]

I don't. He did however fail to live up to his promises. There is plenty of blame to go around.

Re: Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[dunkelfalke]

Not just nuclear. They have sold almost all of their conventional weapons as well, back in the 1990ies, to every tin pot dictator with spare cash.

Even so Russia invades Ukraine just now, and it took a coup to do that. I think you are vastly oversimplifying things.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[blue9steel]

I don't have the remaining fuel data, but if you look at a map of the route they used it certainly looks like it was a small fraction of their trip:

http://www.history.army.mil/bo...

On the other hand the Yamato class had an 8285 mile range, the distance between Japan and Hawaii is 4107 miles. Although fleets normally bring bunker ships with extra fuel I did find a statement on wikipedia with regards to a third air strike wave "The task force's fuel situation did not permit him to remain in waters north of Pearl Harbor much longer, since he was at the very limit of logistical support. To do so risked running unacceptably low on fuel, perhaps even having to abandon destroyers en route home" Of course if you take the island and seize the fuel reserves there you obviously A) Don't have to sail home and B) Now have more fuel.

So it looks like it would have required extra resources in terms of troop carriers and bunker ships plus some willingness to take risks. Of course freeing up the three divisions they'd likely need to take the island and having enough shipping available would mean curtailing one of their other objectives. They had about 11 divisions available with enough shipping to move them around. The Philippines and Malaya were essential in order to prevent US and British forces from raiding their supply lines so that's about six divisions unavailable. If they abandoned their plan to initially take Burma and delayed the invasion of Thailand and the US outer islands I think they could have scraped three divisions together along with enough transport. Of course they wouldn't be able to leave them all there, but they could have seized the island and then reposition two divisions afterwards leaving a single division as defense.

*shrug* High command would probably never have approved such a risky venture in the first place, but if they did it's reasonably likely they could have pulled it off at a cost of some progress on their other objectives.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[eric_harris_76]

Sounds like a plan. Does never voting for Democrats or Republicans figure into it? Because they seem to be behind those invasions and occupations.

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

This...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This

sentence...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_%28linguistics%29

is...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_%28linguistics%29

reliably sourced.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

Re:Countries without nuclear weapons get invaded

[lsatenstein]

Often by the United States of America or other western powers. When nations see that having a nuke prevents other nations from toppling them, nukes become vital for stability.

Perhaps we should stop driving them towards nuclear weapons by invading them for oil and minerals.

I believe every country should have a few hundred nuclear weapons of at least the power to destroy a city of radius 50km. And let every nuclear country realize that if they throw the bomb, automatic mechanisms from at least 100 different sources would automatically launch a counter attack.

I compare that right to have the bomb to the USA gun law, where everyone can have an automatic rapid fire rifle. All that is important is to keep the bomb away from individuals wanting to commit suicide.

Wait... what?

[Penguinisto]

How on earth does increased accuracy increase the temptation to use one? A nuke of any size going off *anywhere* as an act of war would immediately send up the balloon, and cause an all-out retaliation. Frig sakes, even Curtis LeMay knew that when he responded to Kennedy's request for a series of nuclear attack/response scenarios with a single puffed-out version of 'nuke them back to the effing stone age'.

Seriously... if you use a nuke first these days, the entire planet will cut you off, if they don't come at you with everything they have. If you were nuked first, then the taboo has already been broken, and the world would almost expect you to unleash hell on whoever bombed you.

I realize that global politics is a lot more subtle and complex than most folks realize, and maybe I'm wrong, but on this subject, it seems pretty damned cut and dried.

Re:Wait... what?

[Anonymous Coward]

How on earth does increased accuracy increase the temptation to use one? A nuke of any size going off *anywhere* as an act of war would immediately send up the balloon, and cause an all-out retaliation. Frig sakes, even Curtis LeMay knew that when he responded to Kennedy's request for a series of nuclear attack/response scenarios with a single puffed-out version of 'nuke them back to the effing stone age'.

Seriously... if you use a nuke first these days, the entire planet will cut you off, if they don't come at you with everything they have. If you were nuked first, then the taboo has already been broken, and the world would almost expect you to unleash hell on whoever bombed you.

I realize that global politics is a lot more subtle and complex than most folks realize, and maybe I'm wrong, but on this subject, it seems pretty damned cut and dried.

You say these things as if they were fact. They are not, they are suppositions.
The same way a defensive system can alter strategic balance, so can improved nuclear tipped missiles with highly accurate targetting systems. MAD is irrelevant in regional conflicts. Think about how close a nuclear exchange is possible between India and Pakistan. Or Israel targetting single military installations in Iran with bunker buster that are nuclear not conventional. Americans, Russians, French, British and the Cinese think of nuclear weapons as political weapons. Not military weapons. But if you manage to make a very precise low yield nuclear missile that incinerates let's say less than 1 km^2 it becomes by this simple performance an offensive weapon.Just like neutron bombs were all the rage in the seventies.

Re:Wait... what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo. MAD is still in place, and any country, anywhere, would be retailated in force by using it.

I wonder when this will change, though. What will the world be like once some nation does use nukes? Will we wind up with a World War I scenario where treaties pull nations in and everyone fires their poppers? For example, if China nukes Japan, the US will respond, or if the US nukes Iran, Russia will respond. Once this is done, and nukes become an accepted method of warfare... what then? A nuclear exchange (say between India and Pakistan) won't destroy the world, but it will redefine how the weapons are used.

Re:Wait... what?

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Seriously... if you use a nuke first these days, the entire planet will cut you off, if they don't come at you with everything they have. If you were nuked first, then the taboo has already been broken, and the world would almost expect you to unleash hell on whoever bombed you.

I realize that global politics is a lot more subtle and complex than most folks realize, and maybe I'm wrong, but on this subject, it seems pretty damned cut and dried.

I really couldn't disagree more. If Russia or China nuked anybody, there would be a lot of world wide anger, but any actual acts against them? Ha ha ha ha ha. Even the USA's BFF the UK really could not possibly be more of China's bitch on a constant basis.

Here's how I see the nuclear powers.
Bad actors: Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea.
Good actors: USA, France, UK, Israel.
I doubt that any of the "good actors" would ever use a nuclear device first. Putin may be just trying to make everybody else think he's unbalanced or he may actually be crazy enough to possibly use a nuke first. I'm not happy with either possibility. India probably wouldn't use a nuke first, but Pakistan may be crazy or irrational enough to do so. North Korea is definitely irrational enough to do so. I doubt that China's civilian government would use a nuke as a first choice, but I fear that the Communist Party may not have as great a control over the PLA as they'd like to think and if the PLA has the ability to launch strikes without the CCP giving the order, there just might be generals crazy enough to do it because they don't believe anybody has the guts to make them pay for it. No amount of public pressure can make the 'bad actors" I listed back off and if anybody honestly thinks the USA, France and the UK are the greatest threats to the world, then you're delusional to a point that nobody can bring you back from.

Re:Wait... what?

[AxeTheMax]

One of the 'good actors' was the first to develop and has been the only one to ever use nuclear weapons. Despite there being no military reason for it other than to demonstrate a more efficient method of killing civilians than anything that had been developed before. You're talking poppycock, either because you chose to be deluded in favour of one side, or because you're stupid and swallowed all the propaganda you've been fed.

Re:Wait... what?

[gstoddart]

How on earth does increased accuracy increase the temptation to use one?

Usually the ridiculous belief you could do a small scale strike to disable your opponent, or that there is a scenario in which nuclear war is "winnable".

Those of us who remember when M.A.D (mutually assured destruction) as the awesome way we kept nuclear bombs in check have long since stopped expecting rational thought to play into the calculus of nukes.

The assumption that nobody would ever be idiotic enough to use them has always struck me as entirely unfounded.

I realize that global politics is a lot more subtle and complex than most folks realize, and maybe I'm wrong, but on this subject, it seems pretty damned cut and dried.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I do disagree that world leaders can be counted upon to act rationally, or make decisions supported by logic.

Or that they wouldn't simply do this crap out of ego or spite.

Look around at some of the piss-pot despots and ask yourself ... would you trust this person to not be an idiot? Now, look at the leaders of some Western countries and ask yourself ... my god, do we let this idiot control nukes?

Re:Wait... what?

[Penguinisto]

i would suspect that a regional conflict a'la India/Pakistan would amplify the ostracism/elimination by the rest of the world, since the stakes would be perceived as being smaller overall (as in 'oh, it's just a couple of small countries doing this, and they only have a small handful of nukes, so...')

Now the act of North Korea tossing a nuke in anger would present some problems, but only insofar as China's tolerance for such an act. Then again, w/o China's protection, North Korea could be turned into a self-lighting parking lot with no one on the planet giving any real objections to it, though I'm not really sure that China would really tolerate the Norks pulling such a stunt.

Israel I think is smart enough to know that if they used anything nuclear in an aggressive manner, what few friends they do have would cut them off at the economic knees, leaving them at the mercy of, well, all of their neighbors. I strongly suspect that the presence of Israeli nuclear weapons is purely political and/or last-ditch, and for no other discernable reason.

Re:Wait... what?

[Anonymous Coward]

It entirely depends on who they nuke. If Russia nukes a NATO country, it's going to be a bad day for everyone because a full scale war, and likely nuclear war, would be the result. If it didn't come to that, then NATO would essentially be worthless, the US would lose what support it does manage to keep, and it would not be a power anymore beyond it's own military capability. I very much doubt those in power would let that happen.

Re:Wait... what?

[chipschap]

This is just another way to say "The US is bad and everyone else is oh-so-wonderful" which is a popular theme around /.

I'm sorry America can't be as moral and upright as North Korea, Cuba, Russia, Iran, and all the other paragons of virtue that you love so much.

Re:Wait... what?

[ColdWetDog]

Consider that, since the end of WW2, the nature of nuclear weapons (types, sizes), their numbers, their delivery systems have and the political landscape have changed so much that what we did 70 years ago really has little to do with the present tense. Give up on this rather ancient trope and look around you. If you think there are parallels between Hiroshima, Nagasaki and today's complex interplay of countries, economies and military forces, you are the delusional one.

Re:Wait... what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt that any of the "good actors" would ever use a nuclear device first.

Well, they already did. Haven't you heard about Little Boy or Fat Man?

Re:Wait... what?

[gewalker]

No military reason? US casualty estimates for a conventional invasion were typically around 500,000 US casualties (though some were much higher or lower) and estimated Japanese casualties were usually higher. Non-nuclear attacks are also devastating, the fire-bombing of Tokyo likely killed about twice as the attack on Hiroshima

The US considered simply demonstrating a bomb to convince the Japanese to surrender, but ultimately it was decided that this would be more likely to be ineffective. Considering that Japan did not surrender after the first bomb was used this assessment was very likely accurate.

The purpose of the military is to defeat the enemy. If you can drop 2 atomic bombs and end the war without US casualties you have accomplished a large military victory at very low military cost to the US.

Argue against the use of nuclear attacks on Japan on other factors if you like, but stating there was no military reason reveals ignorance or worse on your part.

Re:Wait... what?

[BCGlorfindel]

This is just another way to say "The US is bad and everyone else is oh-so-wonderful" which is a popular theme around /.

I'm sorry America can't be as moral and upright as North Korea, Cuba, Russia, Iran, and all the other paragons of virtue that you love so much.

Well said and amen to that. American bad behaviour can't be looked at in a vacuum, you have to compare it to alternatives and look at the corresponding actions of other major players. Otherwise your just crying that the world is a bad and cruel place...

Re:Wait... what?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not crazy, and most likely not that smart.
Propping up the economy by "creating" markets is just a band-aid after being savaged by those oligarch sharks.

If anything, he should've worked with Europe to strengthen the economic ties even more, more than that, extend their markets worldwide.
Look at China right now; they tied their economy so tightly to everyone elses, the rest of the world just looks away from some incredible things. Like territorial disputes and countless human rights abuses ... and so many others.

Re:Wait... what?

[ShanghaiBill]

No military reason? US casualty estimates for a conventional invasion were typically around 500,000 US casualties

False dichotomy. Nukes and a conventional invasion were not the only alternatives. The Japanese had already indicated that they were open to a negotiated surrender. The only condition that they considered nonnegotiable was the status of the emperor. But after they surrendered unconditionally, we let them keep the emperor anyway.

 

Re:Wait... what?

[swb]

In what fucking world do you think it would have ever been politically acceptable to allow the Japanese a negotiated surrender after 4 years of war and after Pearl Harbor Especially when that would have been approved by an unelected President like Truman?

I would imagine that the converse was true, that there were elements who wanted to *continue* nuking Japan after the second strike as retaliation for starting the war.

Re:Wait... what?

[aliquis]

Your good vs bad seem an awful lot like west vs the rest ..

Also I don't see why the US couldn't use theirÂs first.

I know a good target which is even an ally to the country but I guess power and possibly stability is more important than human rights and politics. .. or it's about the possibly outcome, or millions of lives. Or whatever.

Maybe it's just against nasty happening at a huge scale in a short time?

Or they are afraid that if they used it that would had told the world it's ok and after that any country would be fine with using it too? .. then again the US is the only country which has used it. .. the good guys ;) .. seeing how that alliance stuff work I guess one could question why it was important and why the Germans was stopped. Was it because bad bad Germans or was it because OMG GERMANY MIGHT BECOME THE WORLDS SUPERPOWER #1!?

I'm not a fan of communism or lack of freedom. At all. But what has China done really? They show some interest of some islands outside of their coast and.. more importantly may become the regional superpower of at least that part of the Pacific / Asia?

As for global conflicts in what way is China worse than UK, France and the US of A?

Maybe also India.. Who were the colonizers again?

Anyway, to be fair my country is being colonized.
Invaded.
Settled.
Having our law and society overthrown by those moving in.
Living of our wealth.

And while our constitution accept the Sami people and I guess Kurds, Copti and Yazidi our-self as a people is denied. All that matter supposedly is citizenship and not even that matter much. What matter is who's within the borders and then everything belong to them too. Possibly even when they are outside of the borders too and just live anywhere on the planet.

There's a difference in a people and citizenship. I don't feel it's correct that people take control over the meaning of the word to by that way deny peoples feeling of belonging and union. Neither with all the lies about how everyone supposedly want just the same as we do. Or acts as we do. They necessarily don't.

If Russia nuked once would the US start nuking Russia? Really? ..

All ideologies based on enforcing shit by violence are more risky to use it. I guess the idea of freedom may count there too.. Though I consider that one the better one.

I personally don't know where I've got the US as far as foreign politics go. Regional power and stability seem like it may be more important than helping people fighting for freedom quite often. And I guess the behavior isn't consistent.

Personally I wouldn't mind a global society based on freedom, possibly well-fare, shared resources and some control for how they are used (not necessarily central planed though. Something like really high taxes on environmental pollution and resource consumption.)

Re:Wait... what?

[swb]

I think I've read that the Israelis have communicated back-channel to key actors that they will respond to a nuclear or chemical attack against Israeli with a response that will hit *all* major Arab capitals and Mecca.

To your larger point, I think only desperate, religiously motivated non-state actors reasonably believe that they can "get away" with use of a nuclear weapon. Either via subterfuge or because they believe in some kind of metaphysical redemption that transcends any material consequences.

I think even the worst bad state actors understand that state use of a nuclear weapon has a significant possibility of devastating retaliation which would end their state as they know it and possibly lead to the disintegration of the civilization it represents.

Think of the domestic political situation in the United States relative to being attacked with a nuclear weapon. For one, I would imagine that there would be significant demands within the military for a retaliatory nuclear strike as a preemption against a further strike. The American public would DEMAND a retaliatory strike and political pressure would very likely lead to one on its own.

Re:Wait... what?

[Hognoxious]

How on earth does increased accuracy increase the temptation to use one?

Take out NAS North Island, military target. US gets annoyed. World opinion unpredictable, depending on what led up to it. US might nuke you a bit in return. Might let you off if you say sorry and surrender immediately, pretty please, blaming rogue elements etc.

Take out San Diego, massive civilian casualties plus fallout and shit. US will be more than a bit cross. World opinion will be mostly on their side, apart from anyone stupid enough to listen to Putin. US almost certain to blow you to fuck.

Re:Wait... what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The most likely to use nukes on your list are the Israelis. Because the god told them it was OK. The least likely to is China. (And, yes, we all realize that one of them already used nukes.)

Re:Wait... what?

[maestroX]

A little piece of you
The little peace in me
Will die

Re:Wait... what?

[ShanghaiBill]

In what fucking world do you think it would have ever been politically acceptable to allow the Japanese a negotiated surrender after 4 years of war and after Pearl Harbor

The American people were open to a negotiated surrender. They were war weary, and not real enthusiastic about seeing a million of their sons, brothers and husbands die in Japan. Troops returning from Europe were sent home on leave, and when ordered to return to prepare for the invasion, many of them refused. They felt they had done their share in Europe. In light of these facts, Truman had discussed a negotiated end to the war with his advisers as a fall back in case the nukes didn't work.

Re:Wait... what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The world is a bad and cruel place, you insensitive clod!

Re:Wait... what?

[dmaul99]

The Japanese leadership did not see the atomics as significantly worse than what they had already suffered due to the sustained bombings their cities had endured in which many more civilians died than from both the bombs combined. What did it for them was the Soviet Union declaring war on them and rapidly taking Manchuria and able to invade via the relatively undefended north and western borders in very short order, like one or two weeks time instead of the months it would take the Americans to get on with it.

There was no point to a valiant stand against the Americans, they would be slaughtered by the Soviets from the other end. At this point they surrendered and to save face, in a way, they attributed their defeat to the magic bomb against which there was no honor in facing.

The US knew this of course, that neither invasion nor the abomb were necessary to end the war because the Soviets would take care of it, but then it was about who got to dictate the terms of surrender and keeping Japan's resources and conquered territories out of Soviet hands. Not an unreasonable motive, which is hard to say when 150-200 thousand civilians died by the bombs, but many more than that would have died by a Soviet invasion or an American one or both. Some in Hirohito's inner circle wanted to bring it to that, fight till the last man woman and child.

Also, the bombs were punitive. I'm not saying this to express approval or disapproval of this, but after all - it is these civilians who sent their sons to massacre the Chinese, taught them that they were the master race to rule the world, commit atrocities, etc. Nanking, Unit 731 (thought Auschwitz was the worst place you could possibly imagine?), etc etc etc

Lastly, just as the Japanese were able to have a "neat" reason to surrender, the Americans wanted a big final bang to symbolize victory and to take their place as the world's #1 superpower, knowing the Soviet Union was going to be competing with them for that claim.

Re:Wait... what?

[phantomfive]

We can work to make America better, even without claiming that it is the worst country in the world.
America can be a decent country and still work to improve. Both things can happen.

Re:Wait... what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep,

Norway, Sweden, Canada all are all looking pretty good these days. You can't just point your finger and say what the US is doing is OK because they are not as bad as others. Moral and ethical behavior doesn't work that way.

AC

Re:Wait... what?

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet they did work (nukes). I will never understand Japanese empathy for WWII, THEY FUCKING BOMBED US. How do you not get that ? They raped China, Singapore, Phillipines, etc. Invasion of Japan would've been brutal. We'd just seen what happened when Germany wasn't fully disarmed from WWI.

"Sorry, our bad, let us be without penalty" was not a good enough outcome.

Re:Wait... what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd imagine the stealth characteristics are what actually raise the temptation.

Basicly, it's the same thing as pinching your sister and getting her in trouble with your parents when she punches you for it.

If you have stealth nukes and your opponent doesn't you gain the ability to deploy a single nuke which goes off without warning, and causes a very different calculous to be performed by the target (having lost 1 city they need to decide if it's worth a full MAD strike against you, knowing you'll return the favor).

Re:Wait... what?

[Penguinisto]

The Japanese leadership did not see the atomics as significantly worse than what they had already suffered due to the sustained bombings their cities had endured in which many more civilians died than from both the bombs combined.

Militarily, this would be false. Where before it would take swarms of US bombers put at considerable risk to firebomb a city into almost nothing (yet not really damage hardened bunkers/buildings by too much), Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed that it only took one bomber (though both flights had three - including two observers) to wipe out an entire city (or whatever), and obliterate nearly *everything* in it, all with less effort than a reconnaissance mission.

Also, consider that after Hiroshima, most Japanese leaders either considered it to be a lie ("...no, there must have been hundreds of bombers, not three!", didn't know about it fully, or thought it was some sort of fluke bombing that turned into a conventional firestorm, and the survivors were just too dazed to know quite what happened (after all, Hiroshima was completely untouched up to that point). By the time they realized that maybe Hiroshima did happen the way it did, Nagasaki blew up the same way, and survivor stories corroborated way too nicely.

But as for the whole Russians thing? Two reasons why that's not really as consequential as some would like to believe:

1) Japan was doing all of its negotiating through the Soviets, and knew them well enough that they not only didn't care, but were way too busy with cleaning up (and consolidating power in) half of Europe. Even if the Japanese thought they were serious? Siberia worked both ways, and logistics would prevent the Soviet army from doing hardly anything - by the time the Sovs could bring anything substantial to bear, the US would have long since bombed Japan's home population, infrastructure and culture into literal non-existence with these new atomic bombs.

2) From the Japanese militaristic point of view, the US wouldn't even have to invade - but simply stand back, bomb everything (and everyone) into impotent ash, then forget that Japan ever existed. It would be a death without honor, which was a living hell to the Tojo faction's mindset... to be treated as little more than hornets killed with a can of bug spray.

Re:Wait... what?

[stooo]

>> Consider that, since the end of WW2... blablabla

The nature of the nuclear weapon is still to kill many hundred thousand people at once. That did not change. It just became much more efficient at it.
The power of the 1945 bombs was terrifying the world, the power of todays weapons is still terrifying the world.
So yes, it can be compared. The problem just increased 20dB in magnitude. The USA is still the main bad actor.

Re:Wait... what?

[stooo]

>> THEY FUCKING BOMBED US.
No. They destroyed a few planes and some ships. In WWII order of magnitude, that was a slap in the face, not more. Military are there do kill and to be killed, that's their job.
Real "FUCKING BOMBING" in WWII is killing millions of civilians. Japan did it in china, USA did it in japan and germany. etc etc etc.

Re:Wait... what?

[ericloewe]

Eliminating the need for a protracted ground war sounds like a very good military reason.

The ethics are open to debate, but it's nonsensical to claim there was no reason.

Re:Wait... what?

[ShanghaiBill]

THEY FUCKING BOMBED US.

No they didn't. Pearl harbor was bombed by the pilots of the Imperial Japanese Navy, most of whom died at Midway. The civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not bomb Pearl Harbor. Indirect collective revenge is not a good reason to kill 200,000 people.

Re:Wait... what?

[Anonymous Coward]

> How on earth does increased accuracy increase the temptation to use one?

The basic theory is that if you build a weapon for a specific non-strategic role then the chances that you trigger use goes up.

Take a step back and consider the first serious strategic weapon buildout in the early 1950s. Back then the weapons were in the megaton range and were designed primarily to attack cities and major military and industrial centers. But in reality, they were aimed primarily at Soviet cities - Moscow was targeted with no less than 170 weapons because both the AF and Navy wanted the glory of hitting it. At that point in time it was clear that any use of any weapons by any party would trigger all-out retaliation by all other parties.

The introduction of tactical weapons in the 1950s started to change things. Now there were two scenarios that might trigger a launch, a strategic attack or battlefield use as part of a conventional war scenario. However, there was serious concern that one would immediately trigger the other, which meant you now had twice as many ways to trigger an attack on your cities.

Continue forward. Each additional target for these weapons is another potential trigger for all the others.

Beyond that, however, we have to conclude this is mostly sabre rattling and/or make-work projects for Los Alamos and LLNL. There is absolutely no reason to build a nuclear precision weapon.... NONE. Guy hiding in hard rock cave? Drop conventionals on the exits and air tubes. Dead.

Re:Wait... what?

[chipschap]

Norway, Sweden, Canada, etc., are not super-powers and don't have the same world role, like it or not.

Can the US be a better place? Absolutely. That's what we have to work for. America espouses high principles and when we don't live up to them that's a problem.

But is the US the worst place around, or even a bad place, as things go? Answer for yourself.

Let's try to build up the US, by making it better and striving toward those high principles that we ought to not just espouse but act out. But let's not just blindly tear the US down.

Re:Wait... what?

[chipschap]

Truman had to make the toughest decision any human being was ever called upon to make. It's easy to criticize in retrospect. He called it "a decision that would challenge the wisdom of Solomon himself." (approximate quote)

Was he right? Was he wrong? I think he did the best he could. Say what you want about his advisors, what information he had or didn't have, and so on, but in the end history would hold him and him alone responsible, and he knew it.

I would have hated to have been in his shoes.

Re:Wait... what?

[blue9steel]

It has nothing to do with us being nice, and everything to do with the fact that we can smash flat pretty much anyone we want with conventional weapons, thus leaving little justification to go nuclear.

Re:Wait... what?

[blue9steel]

The USA is still the main bad actor.

If we're limiting the discussion to nuclear weapons you seem to have little justification for that stance since we haven't bombed anyone lately.

Re:Wait... what?

[blue9steel]

Indirect collective revenge is not a good reason to kill 200,000 people.

Generally no, setting an example of what happens when poke us with a sharp stick, that's another matter entirely.

Re:Wait... what?

[blue9steel]

Your good vs bad seem an awful lot like west vs the rest.

As bad as the West is the rest of the world make us look like saints.

Re:Wait... what?

[aliquis]

As bad as the West is the rest of the world make us look like saints.

I'm not necessarily convinced.

Since some guys seem to be involved in what's happening.

Just had this argument on twitter with some American "white genocide" person where there was a complain on Asians going to the US to study at universities and I asked about that and someone said that the number of seats was limited and I asked if that didn't seemed like a bad/stupid policy and why one can't make more seats and more universities.

And I guess they took me for some socialist feminist mass-immigration retard so I let them have it with that maybe if US didn't toppled their countries they wouldn't come here and maybe US should take that cost and those people rather than just maintain power and grab resources and let us handle the immigration burden and also how it made less sense to complain about people not staying in their own country when you've been there ruin it. Ended with Iran and Saudi-Arabia not being good countries either but at least they didn't fled here in such numbers as the Syrians and Iraqis do because guess what? US haven't helped toppled the power authority there.

Sure the middle-east is shit. Sure Islam is too.

But the actual borders was set up by UK and France AFAIK and who removed Saddam, Gadaffi and wanted Al-Assad gone? Why is ok with Saud?

Re:Wait... what?

[Sarius64]

Not a single person that fought in that war (of either gender) ever said any like that to me. Most people wanted to burn Japan to the ground for Pearl Harbor. Most of the O-6's and above I've discussed this with (from that period) projected nothing but a desire to completely destroy Japan's ability to conduct war in any fashion. After the events in the Philippines, the war wasn't going to end in a negotiated surrender, in my opinion.

Re:Wait... what?

[sociocapitalist]

I doubt that any of the "good actors" would ever use a nuclear device first.

You conveniently forget that the US is the only country who has actually used nuclear weapons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Wait... what?

[blue9steel]

Well if you compare our (admittedly stupid) immigration policy with that of say Japan we look positively enlightened.

Re:Wait... what?

[tehcyder]

One of the 'good actors' was the first to develop and has been the only one to ever use nuclear weapons. Despite there being no military reason for it other than to demonstrate a more efficient method of killing civilians than anything that had been developed before.

This is just another way to say "The US is bad and everyone else is oh-so-wonderful" which is a popular theme around /.

No, it's a way of saying "the US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against mass civilian targets." Whether you think it's justified or not does not affect the truth of that statement.

Re:Wait... what?

[tehcyder]

I doubt that any of the "good actors" would ever use a nuclear device first.

Well, they already did. Haven't you heard about Little Boy or Fat Man?

That's different, the US was at war. Er...

Re:Wait... what?

[aliquis]

I don't know you you mean with "our" (Are you also Swedish? Do you mean the US one?)

Also I don't know what you'd call stupid and enlightened and what you actually mean with it.

Re:Wait... what?

[blue9steel]

Well, I'm American, thought that was obvious, so when I say "our" I mean the US one. The current US immigration policy is dumb in a variety of ways, describing them all would take a huge thread all it's own, but at least we tend to let in immigrants on a regular basis. Many other countries throughout the world are actually anti-immigrant, Japan being a prime example.

This is a silly article

[HBI]

Only in the eyes of an ivory tower theoretical type could the tripwire of nuclear weapons first use be "eased" by "low yield". No matter how low the yield, the secondary effects of the nuclear weapon remain the same. It remains a WMD. If someone lobs a "low yield" nuke at you, do you think you're going to blink an eye before using your own arsenal? The whole premise is silly.

Nuclear disarmament is a fool's errand. The deterrent effect of a nuclear arsenal cannot easily be understated. All nations would aspire to it, if it were possible. They aren't going away, and reducing the arsenal below a certain point may actually be more destabilizing than maintaining more warheads. (see below)

The construction of newer weapons has no impact on the equation, except on the counterforce mission. It might make it easier to destroy your opponent's arsenal, but you still retain the SSBN problem, meaning that in practical terms there is no difference. But newer anti-missile technologies have a similar but greater destabilizing effect on deterrence, as they CAN shoot down the SSBN-based missiles.

tl;dr - article is a bunch of pointless hot air

Re:This is a silly article

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Given the small size of some nuclear warheads I wonder how difficult it would be to just swap out conventional explosives with nuclear ones on existing precision weapons. Granted these tiny nukes are closer to a dirty bomb than what most people are familiar with when it comes to a nuclear explosion but still a 72 ton blast is at least on the same order of magnitude as one of these guys even if they make up different ends of the order of magnitude, and we don't seem to have problems using the latter ones.

Re:This is a silly article

[HBI]

There are nuclear equivalents to most conventional weapons - Tomahawk missiles had a nuclear payload designed for them, for instance. Bolting on a nuclear warhead onto most weapons isn't impossible. Of course, the issue is - who is going to use them and risk escalation?

The answer, in general, is no one. There is a line there, and once crossed, it opens up the use of even half megaton strategic assets. Or a FOBS.

"Low yield" is still a NUCLEAR WEAPON.

[Anonymous Coward]

They want to make nukes "tactical", more "easily usable", more "helpful militarily" and "smaller".

All of these will lead directly to proliferation and ultimately to nuclear war, there's no compelling reason to think they won't be used in the future.

Nukes will always be in our back-pocket

[TWX]

As long as other powers have nukes or have developed them and could develop them again then we'll have nukes. And as long as we have nukes then other countries will continue to have them as a deterrent against us.

It doesn't matter how crude or sophisticated the device is- the two nukes that were used in conflict were just about as crude as one could get and they still each destroyed a city in one stroke.

Science always progresses faster than poltiical thought. It's not usually science that uses the developments for ill intead of for benefit though, that's firmly in the realm of politics. That we've only used nuclear weapons in anger twice, effectively in one drawn-out moment in history, and have not used them cavalierly subsequently is hopefully proof that we're maturing, however slowly.

Re:Nukes will always be in our back-pocket

[Kjella]

Your argument sounds roughly like the one I heard was common after WWI, after millions dying in static trench wars they thought barbed wire and machine guns would basically end war since any attacker would be sending their troops into a massive suicidal bullet rain. At the time it was probably true, remember the car was in its very infancy. Except over the next 20 years the Germans created Panzers and Blitzkrieg tactics outmaneuvering and overrunning France in six weeks.

So maybe in the 1950s or 1980s you could send ICBMs and have them reach their destination, but they're always working on laser weapons, missile-destroying missiles like the Patriot missile and a host of other highly classified projects. In case you missed the memo NATO has been working on a ballistic missile shield, allegedly against rogue nations like Iran and North Korea but Russia is also not amused. There might come a time where the "mutually" part of "assured destruction" is no longer valid, it's not like we invented nukes and war is now over, forever. Then you're being extremely naive.

Re:Nukes will always be in our back-pocket

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuclear shield? lol, who thinks that they would ever work? The stuff that the US is working on and trying deploy is just welfare for the arms industry and propaganda, nothing more.

Re:Nukes will always be in our back-pocket

[Anonymous Coward]

That we've only used nuclear weapons in anger twice, effectively in one drawn-out moment in history, and have not used them cavalierly subsequently is hopefully proof that we're maturing, however slowly.

If they had been used, you would not be here to observe that fact.

Nuclear Disarmament is Idiotic

[tmosley]

Nuclear weapons prevent wars between great powers with great success. Only a complete idiot or a warmonger of the most evil type would call for nuclear disarmament. Of course, one of those groups is very useful for the other.

If we didn't have all this nuclear non-proliferation nonsense, not only would the world be a peaceful place, but we'd have cheap, abundant nuclear power everywhere. There wouldn't be any "developing" countries--they would all be first world.

Trying to have wars in a world with nuclear weapons is like trying to have gangs of roving banditos in a nation where everyone carries around rifles and handguns. It's just not possible, and anyone who tries won't last very long.

Re:Nuclear Disarmament is Idiotic

[Flavianoep]

If we didn't have all this nuclear non-proliferation nonsense, not only would the world be a peaceful place, but we'd have cheap, abundant nuclear power everywhere. There wouldn't be any "developing" countries--they would all be first world.

I'm answering you by quoting you, hoping that you pay attention to what you said.

Re:Nuclear Disarmament is Idiotic

[bill_mcgonigle]

Thank you for being a voice of reason here.

Nuclear weapons prevent wars between great powers with great success.

The point needs to be sharpened - it's because _finally_ politicians put themselves at direct risk of bodily harm by starting wars for their own power, wealth, and ambition, instead of just sending subjects' children abroad to go die for them.

Besides that, it's a complete unicorn-fart delusion that the nuclear-armed nations will give them up without a radically different coordination system than the nation-state model.

Anybody who wants to get rid of nuclear weapons needs to first work on getting rid of politicians.

Re:Nuclear Disarmament is Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuclear weapons prevent wars between great powers with great success.

No, it HAS done so so far. You'd be foolish to think that the nuclear deterrent will never fail. When it does finally fail, we will have gladly taken all of those conventional wars in exchange for what we get instead.

Re:Nuclear Disarmament is Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuclear weapons prevent wars between great powers

As long as there isn't anyone with their finger on the button hoping to get 72 virgins for pushing it.

Re:Nuclear Disarmament is Idiotic

[dryeo]

Trying to have wars in a world with nuclear weapons is like trying to have gangs of roving banditos in a nation where everyone carries around rifles and handguns. It's just not possible, and anyone who tries won't last very long.

I guess that is why places like the middle east and Afghanistan are so peaceful.

Re:Nuclear Disarmament is Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuclear weapons prevent wars between great powers with great success.

Nuclear weapons haven't prevented any wars between great powers; they just relocate the battlefield to the poorer countries.

Re:Nuclear Disarmament is Idiotic

[tmosley]

They aren't peaceful due to literally continuous and massive outside meddling, but there most assuredly aren't any non-state backed bandits roving the countriside.

Re:Nuclear Disarmament is Idiotic

[tmosley]

Not really. There were plenty of wars in poor countries before nukes came about. More even than today. Today, small countries have to worry about stepping on the toes of nuclear powers when thinking about declaring war on their neighbors, which has cut the number of wars fairly dramatically.

Re:Nuclear Disarmament is Idiotic

[tmosley]

If you have a point, you should make it. I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here.

Re:Nuclear Disarmament is Idiotic

[Flavianoep]

My point is that it is utterly naïve to think that nuclear power would ever be the solution for underdevelopment, as if the lack of energetic resources were the only deterrent to any country to develop. It is also naïve to think that the nuclear empowered nations do not take part nor have an interest on preventing that more countries develop nuclear technology. Any country that starts investing in uranium enrichment will face the threat of sanctions, which are not called for, or enforced, by the nuclear disarmament campaigners but by the same countries that have A-bombs. By the way, I know the difference between A-bombs and nuclear power plants---Soviet engineers where able to build a power plant but, nonetheless, the Kremlin had to buy the secret to the A-bomb. However, there is a lot of mistrust towards countries that want to develop this kind of energy, and I am not even thinking Iran, but Brazil and Argentina.

Re:Nuclear Disarmament is Idiotic

[tmosley]

"it is utterly naïve to think that nuclear power would ever be the solution for underdevelopment"

Really? Cheap power doesn't lead to economic development? Are you developmentally disabled, or just a liberal?

"It is also naïve to think that the nuclear empowered nations do not take part nor have an interest on preventing that more countries develop nuclear technology."

Uh, duh. That's because those nations are led by warmongers who see non-nuclear armed nations as possessions rather than as free peoples. And they aren't far off the mark.

"I am not even thinking Iran, but Brazil and Argentina."

Yes, because US doctrine doesn't allow for South American countries that we can't topple at any time we want. You know, because the US is led by warmongers.

Re:Nuclear Disarmament is Idiotic

[Flavianoep]

"it is utterly naïve to think that nuclear power would ever be the solution for underdevelopment"

Really? Cheap power doesn't lead to economic development? Are you developmentally disabled, or just a liberal?

OK. I didn't express myself right. There would be economic development, but it would not be enough to make most countries first world. There are more things to becoming first world besides energy, like education.

"It is also naïve to think that the nuclear empowered nations do not take part nor have an interest on preventing that more countries develop nuclear technology."

Uh, duh. That's because those nations are led by warmongers who see non-nuclear armed nations as possessions rather than as free peoples. And they aren't far off the mark.

"I am not even thinking Iran, but Brazil and Argentina."

Yes, because US doctrine doesn't allow for South American countries that we can't topple at any time we want. You know, because the US is led by warmongers.

If you substitute "politicians" for "warmongers," that will quite reflect what have happened in the last century, and the situation doesn't seem to have changed. See, it's not a question of war, it's a question of power, and powerful people don't like sharing.

Disarmamant?

[serviscope_minor]

I frankly don't believe that disarmament is ever going to happen because too many people want power. So, the nuclear powers are:

France - never going to disarm because they've been invaded twice in living memory (just) and suffered awful consequences. Never going to happen again.

USA - lolno.

Russia - yeah Putin is totally going to disarm when everyone does because he's such a nice guy. I think he'd wet himself with glee if everyone else disarmed.

India - not until Pakistan disarms, because Pakistan is way too unstable (and probably not even then).

Pakistan - not until India disarms, and, well, who will be a serious power without them.

North Korea - well, they're a total basket case of a country so whatever they do wouldn't surprise me. But evil dictators aren't know for relinquishing power.

Iseael - disarm while they're surrounded by hostile nations who tried to wipe them off the map within living memory? Not likely.

China - eeeynope. I think they're going to keep on growing their power, and not being uninvadable is not a good way to do that.

UK - I don't think we actually will (I really hope).

Re:Disarmamant?

[Flavianoep]

UK - Don't you remember being alone fighting most of a continent (under German rule), a little more than a 100 since you were alone fighting most of the same continent (under French rule)?

Re:Disarmamant?

[Anonymous Coward]

I like how you gave France the excuse that they've been invaded twice, but the Russians, who have suffered exactly the same (and to much worse consequences), just want to keep their nukes because they're just bastards.

Re:Disarmamant?

[Fire_Wraith]

It's an interesting question why one of the two major island nations that is a staunch ally of the USA relies solely on the US nuclear umbrella as deterrent, but the other maintains its own, separate, nuclear force. That's not to say that Britain _should_ get rid of its nuclear weapons, or to suggest that Japan should develop them, either - it's just something of an interesting parallel. Of course, it probably has mostly to do with Japanese aversion to nuclear weapons (due to being the only people nukes were used against), and general adherence to their postwar pacifism.

Re:Disarmamant?

[smoore]

India developed their nukes because of China not Pakistan. China is the only country with more potential soldiers than India and after several wars in the 60s where Chinese swamped the Indians with numbers they looked for an equalizer. Pakistan then followed India for the same reason to equalize their lesser forces with India's. India isn't going to disarm unless China does.

Re:Disarmamant?

[serviscope_minor]

UK - Don't you remember being alone fighting most of a continent (under German rule), a little more than a 100 since you were alone fighting most of the same continent (under French rule)?

Thankfully the two biggest parties do not support disarmament. Public opinion is always mixed and many people are distressingly naive about it.

Re:Disarmamant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Go fuck yourself. The facts are that both Russia and France have been invaded in living memory. If it's a valid excuse for France to not disarm, it surely is also a valid excuse for Russia.

Just because you don't like what Russia is doing now doesn't let you conveniently forget about their history.

Re: Disarmamant?

[Anonymous Coward]

In WWII, Russia let a mad dog off its chain. They shouldn't have been surprised that it turned and bit them.

Re:Disarmamant?

[serviscope_minor]

Oh sure, but now Pakistan has them they would never ever ever ever EVER disarm.

Re:Disarmamant?

[ericloewe]

Why worry about stockpiling nukes when you can just build them quickly if push comes to shove? They've got the know-how and plenty of nuclear material.

Re:Disarmamant?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Japanese ever need nuclear weapons I bet they'll have them fabricated and ready for use so goddamn fast it'll make your head spin.

Re:Disarmamant?

[Anonymous Coward]

UK - Don't you remember being alone fighting most of a continent (under German rule), a little more than a 100 since you were alone fighting most of the same continent (under French rule)?

No. No, they don't. They're gluttons for self-disarmament. Just look at their history with small arms. Before World War I, guns were commonplace and essentially the only law was the 1903 Pistols Act which was aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of insane people. After WWI, they passed the 1920 Firearms Act and later the 1937 Firearms Act which progressively restricted private firearm ownership.

"Incidentally, the NRA's call to help arm Britain in 1940 resulted in the collection of more than 7,000 firearms for Britain's defense against potential invasion by Germany (Britain had virtually disarmed itself with a series of gun control laws enacted between World War I and World War II)." (NRA)

How ridiculous is that? After fighting The War To End All Wars, Britain quickly forgot being mostly alone fighting Germany and disarmed itself to the point that its citizens couldn't even arm themselves to defend their island.

Now, having had another go at a World War, and watching peace not break out worldwide, the UK "enjoys" some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. Completely self-inflicted.

So no, they don't remember. Odds are they'll remember who to ask for help next time the SHTF though.

Re:Disarmamant?

[charyou-tree]

Yeah, they're bastards, but if you want to understand nuclear disarmament, look at what happened to Ukraine.

After the breakup of the Soviet Union, they willingly gave up their nuclear weapons to Russia in exchange for the solemn promise, pinky swear, that their sovereignity would be respected.

And Russia waited a little while and took the Crimean peninsula.

Now I ask you, having observed that, what nation would ever be stupid enough to give up their nuclear weapons, ever?

Re:Disarmamant?

[fyngyrz]

This. I would go further -- I bet the components are ready to plug together. And they already have ballistic capable launch platforms. And they've had nuclear reactors for years, not to mention some of the smartest, well educated, motivated individuals on the face of the earth and huge industrial powerhouses very well acquainted with keeping tight security.

Although I should admit that it doesn't worry me even a little bit, nor do any of the known nukes around the globe. They're just really big bombs. Sucks just as much to be blown up by a grenade, or shot with a 50 caliber bullet. Being taken out by a bayonet or other bladed weapon is no party either. I truly think it's just beyond awesome that politicians are finally on the front lines -- if we get nuked, they are finally the first to go, as they should have been for every war they declared, frankly. And I don't think for even a second that the actual leaders of Muslim countries are taken in by that 72 virgins BS, any more than most US presidents are seriously religious (except for poor old drugged out Bush, but that's our own fault...) Religion is a tool of control. Smart people quietly ignore it, or go through the motions as needed. Religion is not there for people smart and cunning enough to get to positions of national leadership. It's there for everyone else.

Re:Disarmamant?

[Holi]

I am pretty sure Japan was banned from developing nuclear weapons under the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan. It basically made us Japan's military until quite recently.

Nukes are obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

Precision guided bombs are much more effective and cheaper.

Re:Nukes are obsolete

[jklovanc]

Comparing precision guided bombs to nuclear bombs is like comparing a spring shower to a force 5 hurricane. Precision guided bombs do not kill whole cities and the millions of people in them in one shot.

Re:Nukes are obsolete

[bobbied]

Precision guided bombs are much more effective and cheaper.

Somehow saying, "I'm going to precision bomb you back into the stone age if you do that!" just doesn't carry the same ring as "I can turn your sand into blue glowing glass for miles around if you do that!"

Precision guided weapons have the distinct advantage of hitting what you aim at and almost nothing else but present a more serious problem of KNOWING exactly when and where to put that bomb.

Nuclear weapons are like huge hand grenades where being within a few thousand feet is usually just fine so the targeting issue is easier to handle, only now you have the collateral damage problem to deal with.

Both weapons have their place...

It's not accuracy that's reviving the arms race

[Tony Isaac]

It's the fact that more smaller countries are now able to obtain or make nuclear weapons. When it was just the US and Russia, as long as the two countries were in a stalemate, the world was (somewhat) safe. But now that the list of countries with nuclear weapons is growing, the calculations become much more complex, and the risk level for the world is higher.

Ukraine?

[jklovanc]

Most nuclear countries will see Ukraine as a cautionary tale. They disarmed and got invaded.

Re:Ukraine?

[Fire_Wraith]

Yes, this is a very salient point. While Ukraine is unlikely to be completely taken over by Russia, it certainly goes to show how tangible weapons would be a lot more reassuring to a threatened nation than toothless paper "guarantees" of the sort Ukraine received.

Re:Ukraine?

[Anonymous Coward]

The best post of the thread, right above.

Re:Ukraine?

[EmagGeek]

Why do you think it is so unlikely? I happen to believe it is a fait accompli.

Re:Ukraine?

[jklovanc]

In eastern Ukraine there is a large Russian ethnic demographic. Putin is using that as a pretext to "free" his people. This pretext does not hold for central or western Ukraine. Ukraine will exist but it may be smaller.

Re:Ukraine?

[Anonymous Coward]

And how large a demographic is big enough to be a pretext? What about "defensible borders"? "Contiguous access"? By the time you satisfy all of those pretexts, you have a small region in the northwest that isn't a "viable state" and might as well become a "protectorate".

Re:Ukraine?

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. was the one of guarantee states in those disarming papers. But the U.S. Congress didn't ratified those papers. Well, that doesn't show much respect to the Ukraine from U.S. feds if you ask me.

Re:Ukraine?

[ahodgson]

Which was exactly the pretext Hitler used to invade Czechoslovakia. And then took over the rest anyway.

Re:Ukraine?

[dotancohen]

Most nuclear countries will see Ukraine as a cautionary tale. They disarmed and got invaded.

Libya, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

Re:Ukraine?

[phantomfive]

Because the resources are in the eastern half of Ukraine.

Re:Ukraine?

[jklovanc]

That was because the world then sat on the sidelines when Czechoslovakia was invaded. This time may be different. It is not inevitable.

Re:Ukraine?

[fyngyrz]

You see anyone not sitting on the sidelines here?

All kinds of noise was made about Hitler's early moves, it's just that other than noise, everyone sat. Which is just what everyone is doing now. Not saying there's much to conclude from that, but it's certainly a similar thing thus far.

Re:Ukraine?

[jklovanc]

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain met with Adolf Hitler in Berchtesgaden on 15 September and agreed to the cession of the Sudetenland; three days later, French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier did the same. No foreign power had done anything similar to that in regards to Ukraine.

Re:Ukraine?

[fyngyrz]

No foreign power needs to, either. It's a meaningless political nothing.

Re:Ukraine?

[jklovanc]

Take a look at this map. There would be plenty of Ukraine left if areas with most Russian speakers succeeded. If you look at what is going on right now eastern Ukraine is far from joining Russia.

Re:Ukraine?

[jklovanc]

Just pointing out how the Sudetenland is different than Ukraine.

All kinds of noise was made about Hitler's early moves, it's just that other than noise, everyone sat.

The difference is that France and England activly tried to appease Hitler by giving him land. That is not happening in the Ukraine. No foreign power had done anything close to that.

Not saying there's much to conclude from that, but it's certainly a similar thing thus far.

Sorry but the situations are very different.

Re:Ukraine?

[fyngyrz]

the situations are very different.

You think so? consider this, for instance. And this too. And this. No appeasement? Hardly. You just don't see it in the news. You'll read more about it in the histories when this behavior is revealed as part of the present diplomatic pattern, and what it led to is in the rear view mirror. Just as we did with Nazi Germany.

It's a shell game. Nothing is quite what it seems, and sure as little green apple seeds make little green apples, no one is eager to tell the public what is actually going on.

Re:Ukraine?

[jklovanc]

None of those even comes close to two heads of state declaring that sovereign Ukrainian land belongs to Russia.

Re:Ukraine?

[fyngyrz]

None of those even comes close to two heads of state declaring that sovereign Ukrainian land belongs to Russia.

No one needs to. They've already taken what they wanted. Fait accompli.

You're really letting this stuff fly right over your head. Odd. Russia -- and the US -- are the 800 lb (~363 kg for you victims of the metric system) gorilla of international "we did it, you can suck it" politics. Approval from others is not something that changes the course of much in particular, although it's typical when some kind of externally facing benefit is desired from them.

Germany, on the other hand, was a small, massively industrial country between the size of the 4th and 5th largest US states (Montana and New Mexico) and smaller than Severo-Kavkazsky federalny okrug, the second smallest of the nine federal districts of Russia. Germany was very busy trying to consolidate a starting foothold for a major, vicious, multi-country land grab. The remainder of Europe as a whole was terrified. Initially, they did what they thought they had to do, true enough, but in the end it was nothing but deterrent-free conciliation, just as many actions aimed at Russia today are. The specifics of the act mean very little; it's the nature of it that guides future action.

Re:Ukraine?

[jklovanc]

Germany, on the other hand, was a small, massively industrial country between the size of the 4th and 5th largest US states (Montana and New Mexico) and smaller than Severo-Kavkazsky federalny okrug, the second smallest of the nine federal districts of Russia.

According to this the population of Montana in 1936 was about 554k. According to this Germany had a population of 65M and the US had a population of 122M. Germany was 117 times as big as Montana. Your numbers are a bit off. Russia had a population of 131M. If you are talking land area then you are looking at the wrong numbers. Land area is meaningless when calculating ability to wage war. By that logic Mongolia should be quite powerful but it is not. Population is the most important factor. Then there is the recent memory of WW1 and had a desire to avoid another war with Germany at all costs. No WW1 Allied Power in Europe wanted to lose another generation of young men so soon. Hitler gambled on the US not getting involved and he was almost right.

Putin may be trying to follow Hitler's path but the west isn't. You need to take the whole time frame into context not just isolated actions.

Nuclear arms use probable in five years

[SuperKendall]

A nuke of any size going off *anywhere* as an act of war would immediately send up the balloon

Western nations have no stomach to use nuclear arms any more - so if Russia or Iran (well, really that should be when instead of if) uses nuclear arms against someone, very likely NATO will do nothing except sanctions. Really.

If you think that sounds absurd, wouldn't shooting down a civilian airliner with zero repercussions sounds absurd? That has happened. So why is it so unlikely that a tactical nuclear weapon that kills 100k or so people in some minor country would bring no further action, at least not nuclear action...

Even IF none of that is true, it doesn't matter if that is there perception of what our reaction would be (Putin certain thinks that is true). Or in the case of Iran, they WANT war in the middle east, so they will absolutely use a nuclear weapon - I figure they stockpile at least five, send some to Israel and some to the U.S. then retreat to comfy bunkers to enjoy the war unfolding.

Re:Nuclear arms use probable in five years

[MechaStreisand]

If you think that sounds absurd, wouldn't shooting down a civilian airliner with zero repercussions sounds absurd? That has happened.

That civilian airliner flew right into a war zone where aircraft had been shot down with SAMs earlier that week*. And the troops who shot it down fully believed it to be a Ukrainian combat aircraft. That loss is ENTIRELY on the airliner who chose that course. The Vincennes was more at fault for shooting down an airliner than the pro-Russian forces were in this case, and there were no repercussions for that either.

* Yes, shorter-ranged SAMs. Should airliners be flying in any area where any SAMs are used? Why didn't the airline do due diligence here? If an airliner were to fly over Iraq during the invasion in 2003, would you blame US or Iraqi forces for shooting it down? Yes, you'd probably blame the Iraqis.

Re:Nuclear arms use probable in five years

[SuperKendall]

That loss is ENTIRELY on the airliner who chose that course.

That's a bullshit excuse since there were MANY airlines and flights flying that route, and it's not like pilots are "deciding" where to fly - they have routes already planned. There were probably thousands of flights over the Ukraine that week alone before the one plane was shot down...

There is no excuse for shooting down a passenger jet, period. It's on people conducting war to not harm civilians if at all possible, and it's VERY POSSIBLE to identify civilian aircraft in many ways (transponders being just one).

Re:Nuclear arms use probable in five years

[ericloewe]

Sure, blame the victim.

Funny how a bunch of drunken retards get a pass for shooting down an airliner they thought was a military transport plane that posed no immediate danger AND covering it up at the same time you condemn the stressed-out/paranoid crew of a warship that felt threatened (even though there was no threat) by an airliner they thought was a fighter aircraft where there was no attempt at a cover up.

Re:Nuclear arms use probable in five years

[MechaStreisand]

Bullshit. Don't fly through a warzone. Air defense systems have a hard enough time not shooting down their own aircraft.

Re:Nuclear arms use probable in five years

[MechaStreisand]

and it's not like pilots are "deciding" where to fly - they have routes already planned

The AIRLINES should have changed those routes. NONE of those planes should have been there. Goddamn morons like you send airliners over a fucking war zone.

Re:Nuclear arms use probable in five years

[MechaStreisand]

That warship 1) caused the situation that made them feel threatened, as they went into Iranian waters to chase gunboats that fired WARNING shots at helicopters who were in their territory, and 2) there was no other fighting going on over the Strait of Hormuz at the time. It wasn't a known warzone, unlike Eastern Ukraine. So in that case, the crew of the ship do have a responsibility to identify civilian aircraft. The crew of a SAM in a war zone have a responsibility to fight a war.

Re:Nuclear arms use probable in five years

[blue9steel]

Western nations have no stomach to use nuclear arms any more - so if Russia or Iran (well, really that should be when instead of if) uses nuclear arms against someone, very likely NATO will do nothing except sanctions. Really.

Depends on who they use them on. A NATO member, well it's probably WWIII. Uzbekistan, meh probably just lots of shouting and saber rattling, then some sanctions.

Re:Nuclear arms use probable in five years

[MechaStreisand]

Actually, I want to apologize for calling you a moron. (For serious.) I got angry. I need to keep that under control. People disagree... it doesn't make you a moron, it just means you disagree. I believe, though, that the airline's responsibility is to keep an eye on trouble spots, and route their airliners around them if they become dangerous. I do believe some other airlines did this, but not all. By not doing so, Malaysia airlines were criminally negligent, independent of the responsibility of the Buk crew.

We ignore Africa becuse it's not a threat ...

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO America (the nation) ignores "what's happening in Africa" because most African problems are there and not here - as opposed to problems in the Middle East which too frequently lead the simpleminded (Major Nidal, the Tsarnaev boys, the Charlie Hebdo killers, etc) to cause problems in other parts of the world. Boko Haram and its adherents are an abomination, but they don't travel outside the continent much.

Has it occurred to YOU that people can hold multiple opinions as to why war might be a desirable political choice, some better/more realistic than others? Has it occurred to you that some other people might not hold the same opinions as yourself? Because it has to the rest of us reading your maunderings.

not necessarily ridiculous

[Chirs]

Imagine that a nation had a small "clean" nuke that could be delivered with pinpoint precision. At that point it's basically just a more efficient form of high explosive. Why *wouldn't* they use it? (As opposed to tens or hundreds of conventional bombs.)

The issue with nukes is that they're WMDs. If they got to the point where they were no longer WMDs but rather just a very efficient way of blowing up a relatively small area (a single remote military installation, for example) then people are going to use them.

Re:not necessarily ridiculous

[sociocapitalist]

Imagine that a nation had a small "clean" nuke that could be delivered with pinpoint precision. At that point it's basically just a more efficient form of high explosive. Why *wouldn't* they use it? (As opposed to tens or hundreds of conventional bombs.)

The issue with nukes is that they're WMDs. If they got to the point where they were no longer WMDs but rather just a very efficient way of blowing up a relatively small area (a single remote military installation, for example) then people are going to use them.

Maybe, maybe not. There could be international law against the use of such weapons and as with any technology, one side not developing such weapons doesn't mean the other side is not going to do so.

this is exactly the point

[Chirs]

Imagine if there was a precision guided tactical nuke that was basically equivalent to 10 conventional precision guided bombs. People would be much more likely to use it.

Depends who you are nuking

[dlenmn]

Full disclosure: I haven't RTFA, so I don't know who the author thinks will nuke who. However, the responses here mostly assume it would be a nuclear power nuking another nuclear power. As many have pointed out, having precision nukes would not cause that to happen; it's just too risky.

However, I think that precision nukes do increase the chance of a nuclear power nuking a _non_nuclear power. Granted, I don't think the risk is that high, but there are some possible scenarios where a precision nuke could be used -- maybe a major terrorist attack on the US (lead by a hawkish president) by a group based in some remote area. I'm sure other scenarios could give other nuclear powers an itchy trigger finger too. Again, I'm not saying it will happen, but it's more likely with precision nukes than without.

Re:Depends who you are nuking

[Anonymous Coward]

That's precisely the threat of precision nukes. Obviously the U.S., China, and Russia aren't going to nuke each other. Any kind of nuclear attack, even low-yield, will be treated the same.

But if the U.S. is using precision nukes then it destroys any hope that anti-proliferation will continue to work. Until now non-nuclear nations assume that a nuclear nation wouldn't use a nuke. But if they start using low-yield, precision nukes, why should they differentiate one nuke from another. Now they're rightly afraid of being nuked, and they'll want to become a nuclear power with a nuclear deterrent.

Plus, think of India and Pakistan. If the big powers have precision nukes, then India and Pakistan will want them, too. A precision nuke makes it more likely for a politician to gamble that a targeted nuclear first strike won't snowball into a nuclear war.

Pakistan, Israel

[billstewart]

Pakistan has nuclear weapons (and India has the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Nuclear Bombs as well), but aside from their border conflicts around Kashmir (for which the nukes make war less likely but more risky), their big invasion problem is non-governmental forces like Taliban, for whom nukes are really no use at all.

And Israel, of course, has the bomb (probably also the hydrogen bomb), but you're not allowed to say that in discussions about whether Iran can make one also. Wouldn't be a total surprise if the Saudis had it too.

Straight from Dubya, that's where:

[Anonymous Coward]

Try here:

Bush's mammoth global anti-AIDS initiative, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, poured billions of dollars into Africa but prohibited groups from spending any of it on family planning services or counseling programs, whose budgets flat-lined.

The restrictions flew in the face of research by international aid agencies, the U.N. World Health Organization and the U.S. government's own experts, all of whom touted contraception as a crucial method of preventing births of babies being infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

You can quibble, but it quite clearly was "official U.S. government policy" that "insist[s] foreign aid be tied to no contraception."

Re:Straight from Dubya, that's where:

[Major Blud]

"Initially, a recommended 20% of the PEPFAR budget was to be spent on prevention, with the remaining 80% going to care and treatment, laboratory support, antiretroviral drugs, TB/HIV services, support for orphans and vulnerable children (OVC), infrastructure, training, and other related services. Of the 20% spent on prevention, one third, or 6.7% of the total, was to be spent on abstinence-until-marriage programs in fiscal years 2006 through 2008, a controversial requirement "

So yes, some of it was devoted to abstinence-only programs (which are proven not to work), but:

"To slow the spread of the epidemic, PEPFAR supports a variety of prevention programs: the ABC approach (Abstain, Be faithful, and correct and consistent use of Condoms); prevention of mother to child transmission (PMTCT) interventions; and programs focusing on blood safety, injection safety, secondary prevention ("prevention with positives"), counseling and education."

I know Wikipedia isn't the gospel truth, but somehow I doubt mcclatchydc.com is either. Feel free to update Wikipedia with the claim that the groups were "prohibited from spending any of it on family planning services or counseling programs".

the patience of the non-nuclear states

[Tailhook]

the patience of the non-nuclear states is wearing thin

That's and amusing line. These people are living in some kind of alternate reality where the Putins, Kim Jong-uns and nuclear armed imams of our world are standing around waiting for war crazed 'muricans to come to their senses so we can all mutually disarm because some pacifist hippy in Geneva said so. Just how far up your peacenik ass must you have shoved your head to actually believe the worlds nuclear powers are really going to indulge the `patience' of their client states?

stealthy plus accurate nukes are a bad idea

[Wandering_Burr]

One of the reasons that MAD worked through the cold war was that both sides could be reasonably sure to annihilate the other because of the early warning systems. This is why the Cuban Missle Crisis and the mid-range nuclear missles in Turkey were so destabilizing at the time. The risk of stealthy and accurate weapons is that the other side is more likely to fire off theirs early if they think it might be their last chance to strike back. There have been numerous cases of cold war systems reporting false attack data that both the Soviets and the US waited out knowing that even if wrong they could strike back. But what if you are a second or third world power with just a couple of nice weapons sites. If you thought it might vaporize any minute you'd be pretty damn tempted to push the shiny red button before your enemy took it away. Think India/Pakistan border. Nukes are a genie out of the bottle which keeps things complicated and interesting-but in general we should leave them as a weapon of absolutely last resort lobbed from far, far away.

John Oliver on Nuclear Weapons

[codemachine]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

As usual, John Oliver has a great rant on the subject.

Right now, the US has more nuclear weapons than they can safely take care of. Manning the silos is now a demoralizing job, because those people basically do nothing and yet the job is tremendously tedious. So it ends up being done by people who really shouldn't be in such an important position, and do not take enough care in their job, especially given the dangers if something were to go wrong.

The US is the only country to drop a nuke on a civilian population. Everyone knows about when they dropped a couple on Japan, but few people remember when they accidentally dropped one on North Carolina. It did not explode, but it was one of a number of close calls that have happened over the years.

As it is being managed now, the nuclear deterrent is more of a danger to the US than to anyone else, though it is also a danger to planet as a whole. I don't think a complete disarmament makes any sense in the short term, but a move towards scaling back to safe and sustainable levels would make sense. However, those that benefit from such massive and useless military spending are not about to let it happen without a fight.

Other countries

[Anonymous Coward]

"The patience of non-nuclear countries is wearing thin."

Quite frankly, who cares? I hate to be draconian, but geopolitics is dictated by a nation's self interest. When countries operate against their self interest, bad things happen for them and their allies and their neighbors.

Also, more accurate low yield weapon systems do not increase the likelihood of use, the opposite is true. Maintaining an updated, effective nuclear deterrent that can outperform modern counter-missile batteries ensures that the price of going to war is so high as to be not worth it. Letting them age increases the chance of conventional warfare, and considering how destructive conventional warfare has been historically, nuclear deterrents have in fact reduced the chance of a major war by dramatically increasing it's cost.

None of the airlines changed course

[SuperKendall]

Thanks for the apology.

I didn't remember any stories at the time saying any airlines had diverted from the Ukraine before MH17 - but all of them set new routes to avoid it after.

That was a lot of airlines that changed courses...

Japan, South Korea, Germany, etc. could have nukes

[Strange Attractor]

They rely on US capability instead. If they doubted that capability, I think they would build their own.

Read any history?

[Anonymous Coward]

The US has never, not once, invaded a country for oil and minerals.

Maybe not, but hey- once you own the country what the hell- let's grab all we can!