Pentagon can't be serious...

[MaX]

News from Yahoo (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050911/pl_afp/usmilitarynuclear_050911182220) [-X

[Brunellus]

News from Yahoo (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050911/pl_afp/usmilitarynuclear_050911182220) [-X
Pentagon is deadly serious, and doing its job.

Like it or not, defense planning at the General Staff level means planning all available options. I'm frankly quite surprised that this sort of thing is public at all.

[drizek]

and they wonder why people want to kill them...

[PatrickMay16]

News from Yahoo (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050911/pl_afp/usmilitarynuclear_050911182220) [-X
Is it just me, or does that seem incredibly strange?
Using weapons of mass distruction to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction?

[blastus]

Can someone say MAD...Mutually Assured Destruction?

[xequence]

Its just like them... They can have nuclear weapons, other countries cant. They can nuke, other countries cant :/

[XDevHald]

Is it just me, or does that seem incredibly strange?
Using weapons of mass distruction to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction?
Some of them have their head on backwards and don't realize that people read this and could cause serious problems later on.

Makes you wonder why they do things that are wrong when it shouldn't be done in the first place.

Makes me wonder ....

[Brunellus]

Is it just me, or does that seem incredibly strange?
Using weapons of mass distruction to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction?
It's very simple.

There are two kinds of nuclear power: first-strike powers and second-strike powers.

the United States is a second-strike power. Its nuclear weapons are both so numerous and so diverse that it is nearly impossible for any single strike--no matter how large--to destroy them all.

Emerging nuclear-weapons states are first-strike powers. They have very few bombs, and these are rather concentrated in location.

The simple calculus is this. The advantage of the emerging nuclear power's weapons is only real if they are used in a first-strike capability. If it were possible to eliminate that threat, at a stroke, before it were to be launched, then it is entirely rational for the General Staff to be planning such a move.

Ultimate authority for the execution of that war plan rests on the commander-in-chief.

Kennedy had similar options on the table before him during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, and found a way around them. The fact remains, however, that he needed to know about all the tools at his disposal.

[YourSurrogateGod]

/me hoping that this thread is locked before it delves into politics...

[KiwiNZ]

/me hoping that this thread is locked before it delves into politics...

Not yet , lets see how this goes . The posts have been ok to date but I will monitor.

From a personal point of view. I live in a proudly Nuke free Nation that hates the whole Nuke issue.

No one wins with nukes ever .

"The fruits of victory would be ashes in the mouth" J F Kennedy

[YourSurrogateGod]

Not yet , lets see how this goes . The posts have been ok to date but I will monitor.
Imo, it's inevitable. Sort of like Godwin's law.

From a personal point of view. I live in a proudly Nuke free Nation that hates the whole Nuke issue.

No one wins with nukes ever .

"The fruits of victory would be ashes in the mouth" J F Kennedy
To be frank, after 9/11, I'd rather see my government try to go for just about every idea imaginable rather than do little if anything.

[papangul]

Hope the provisions of this policy are never misused. :sad:

[drizek]

so you think its ok to nuke innocent civilians in foreign countries just because they flew a couple planes into a couple buildings? no disrespect to the people that died in 9-11 or anything, but it was only 2xxx people. a nuclear bomb on baghdad/tehran could kill millions of innocent people.

as for godwins law,

[YourSurrogateGod]

so you think its ok to nuke innocent civilians in foreign countries just because they flew a couple planes into a couple buildings? no disrespect to the people that died in 9-11 or anything, but it was only 2xxx people. a nuclear bomb on baghdad/tehran could kill millions of innocent people.

as for godwins law,


... and there's the flame-bait.

[KiwiNZ]

OK that went over the mark

[KiwiNZ]

Following representations from members I have reopened this thread and edited some posts .

Please do not turn this into a flame fest or I will close it again .

[TravisNewman]

I incite either Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson (ever since I first learned of them, I've never been able to keep them straight. It's embarassing)

"Those who would give up civil liberties for safety deserve neither"

Granted, us having nukes doesn't threaten OUR civil liberties, but it has the potential to nuke the civil liberties of other countries (pun intended).

The leaders of the world need to start thinking about doing what's best for the world, not what's best for the country they preside over. It's just like Iran. Bush has been putting pressure on Iran to stop their nuclear power program, because they "could" use it to develop nuclear weapons. A week later, Bush starts pushing for US to have more nuclear power plants, and we already have stockpiles of nuclear weapons. A few radical nations, North Korea for example, are a threat to us. They have nukes, they've admitted they have nukes, and it's not unlikely that they'll use them. but I think the majority of nations who have nukes have them for protection from nations like N Korea, and, frankly, the USA. Nobody should have nukes. Nobody should have anthrax. The fact is, the US doesn't mind weapons of mass destruction when they help us achieve a goal. They provided an immense amount of weapons to Iraq in the 80s. I saw a cartoon once of Rumsfeld saying "I know Iraq has WMD's! I still have a copy of the reciept!"

I'll stop now, and as Kiwi says, I hope this stays civil, because there are always a lot of great opinions for all sides coming in.

[kanem]

The simple calculus is this. The advantage of the emerging nuclear power's weapons is only real if they are used in a first-strike capability. If it were possible to eliminate that threat, at a stroke, before it were to be launched, then it is entirely rational for the General Staff to be planning such a move.
But why does the U.S. need nukes to eliminate the threat with one stroke? The U.S. has mega tons and tons of conventional weapons that could destroy large areas quickly. And nuclear missiles don't go any farther or faster than regular ones. The only advantage in nukes over conventional weapons is the vast amount of damage they do over a wide area. They are not better at taking out targets like a nuclear plant, or any bunkers (http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-56/iss-11/p32.html) as this administration would have us believe.

IMO what this new move does is give other countries furthur incentive to develop their nuclear weapons programs. How can the U.S. scold India and Pakistan (or Iran and North Korea for that matter) for developing nukes when the U.S. is talking about using them. And not just using them, but using them 'pre-emptively'. If using them pre-emptively is justified, then North Korea or Iran would be justified by using nukes pre-emptively on the U.S., since they are obviously the U.S.'s potential targets.

[skoal]

This is all very old news to some of us. As blastus keenly observed, it's MAD for the 21st century. I lived through it's application in the 60s onward, and it worked. Worked very well.

The perceived threat will work even better at twisting the thumb screws where it's needed most - the civilian level. Rogue terrorist states have long since gotten away (literally) with state sponsored murder. Now, we have bigger threats other than hijacked airliners. Time to light a fire under their totalitarian britches with a little help from a newly PARANOID populace...

\\//_

[TravisNewman]

"If using them pre-emptively is justified, then North Korea or Iran would be justified by using nukes pre-emptively on the U.S., since they are obviously the U.S.'s potential targets."

nice point you got there.

Furthermore, if pre-emptive violence were acceptable, there would be only one person left on the planet, because if there were two left, one COULD attack the other. ANYONE could attack us at ANY TIME for no reason at all. Great Britain could be taken over by Al Qaida tomorrow, and they could use Britains resources to attack us. Are we going to nuke GB because of that?

[benplaut]

adopt us, oh Canada! ](*,)

[Ride Jib]

Furthermore, if pre-emptive violence were acceptable, there would be only one person left on the planet, because if there were two left, one COULD attack the other. ANYONE could attack us at ANY TIME for no reason at all. Great Britain could be taken over by Al Qaida tomorrow, and they could use Britains resources to attack us. Are we going to nuke GB because of that?

While I see your point of view, I disagree. While the article talks about pre-emptive attacks, I believe it implies that knowledge of a nucular attack is inevitable. Nukes have been used in the past, and we know the destruction they cause. With the pro-active world we live in today, the use of a nuke based on a whim would upset too many people for the government to get away with it.

Basically what I'm getting at is, I think it is a good plan when solid evidence exists, and it will not be used without hard evidence. And while I support Bush, it will need to be more evidence than existed with Iraq.

[drizek]

But that still doesnt change the fact that the large majority of the people in this country supported the war on iraq based on bushs "evidence". After iraq, and now new orleans, i really dont trust bush with anything, especially not a nucular weapon.

[macgyver2]

From a personal point of view. I live in a proudly Nuke free Nation that hates the whole Nuke issue.
Two days ago I had a semi-serious conversation with my girlfriend about moving to New Zealand...for reasons related to this issue, among others.


No one wins with nukes ever .
Amen.



I would rather give my life than have it be saved through the use of a nuclear weapon...any weapon, really...that killed even one innocent person.

[trash]

adopt us, oh Canada! ](*,)

Hawaii, Canada
I'd vote for that! \\:D/


So nice to know that Bush and the G8 have rendered the UN somewhat useless eh.

[endy]

Someone once said
Einstein spent the first half of his life trying to create the nuclear bomb. He spent the other half of his life trying to convince everyone not to use it.
I just don't think making more weapons could ever bring about peace it just doesn't make sense to me.

These are worrying times...

[parktownprawn]

since this makes me too angry to post anything that wouldn't force the moderators to immediately delete it (call me emotional but bureaucrats rationalizing mass murder always makes my blood boil) i'll post a humorous picture instead

http://www.snopes.com/photos/katrina/graphics/skybush.jpg

courtesy http://www.snopes.com/photos/katrina/disaster.asp

[tseliot]

Quote: Pentagon can't be serious...

Yes it can, it's just part of:
The
War
Against
Terror

[Galoot]

adopt us, oh Canada! ](*,)
You're kidding, right? With the price of oil moving the way it has been, it's only a matter of time before you "adopt" us!

[Kvark]

Thats hardly a surprice considering USA is the only country that has used nukes in the past and also the most warlike nation in the world.

[Knome_fan]

Pentagon is deadly serious, and doing its job.

Like it or not, defense planning at the General Staff level means planning all available options. I'm frankly quite surprised that this sort of thing is public at all.

I think you absolutely underestimate what this thing is about.
This is not just about planning for possible options, this is about developing a whole new defense doctrine that makes using nuclear weapons a possibility again.

As the article states this is closely related to the US developing new kinds of nuclear weapons (mini-nukes), that would make it possible to actually use nuclear weapons. So this also isn't MAD, as some people have mentioned, but this is a new doctrine that specifically tries to overcome MAD.

As someone already mentioned, MAD has effectively lead to nuclear weapons not being used and not being useable, however, this is exactly the "problem" this new doctrine tries to overcome.

[krusbjorn]

Nukes dont primarily work to blow out bunkers or other weapons. They primarily kill people. A heck load of people. Initially, of course, but also over a long, long time. People still die from cancer in the surroundings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki because the the strikes in 1945. From wikipedia:

"[...] killing at least 120,000 people, about 95% of which were civilian, outright, and around twice as many over time."

Nukes are a way of bringing a country to its knees, not taking out their weapons. The propaganda has gone as far as the people in charge fooling themselves, and that seems to be quite dangerous.

[Dragonfly_X]

The simple calculus is this. The advantage of the emerging nuclear power's weapons is only real if they are used in a first-strike capability. If it were possible to eliminate that threat, at a stroke, before it were to be launched, then it is entirely rational for the General Staff to be planning such a move.


Rational, What's so damn rational about using nuclear weapons??? This is such Yankee bull sh*t! [-X

[Knome_fan]

This is such Yankee bull sh*t! [-X

Please, let's not lead this discussion this way.

[Arktis]

Quite frankly speaking, I don't trust this administration to be responsible enough with this kind of power. Just look at their track record. I will be protestsing this in whatever way I see availible, and encourage others to protest it. Having a pre-emptive strike poilicy is suicide.

2nd strike capabilities are more than enough to deter foreign governments.

Of course, terrorists with nuclear capabilities would not be deterred by a 2nd strike policy. Fine. But I don't in the slightest part believe that the supposed terrorist threat is foreign. Again, look at the current administration's track record. This will be difficult to do, since most of the evidence for 9/11 has been silenced in the interest of 'national security'. Bull flarking crap. With a thorough examination, the reason becomes obvious. Bush has bosses, and they aren't the american people. Flame me if you like, censor me if you like, it is the truth and the evidence is overwhelming.

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/loose_change_dvd.html

This link does not represent the only collection of evidence of it's kind, believe me. But the documentary there does represent the most easily understood presentation of facts I have found to date. The american people have a responsibility to investigate the truth, something the news media has all too easily chosen to ignore. Go educate yourselves, I beg you, please. Please.

[endy]

Nukes dont primarily work to blow out bunkers or other weapons. They primarily kill people. A heck load of people. Initially, of course, but also over a long, long time. People still die from cancer in the surroundings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki because the the strikes in 1945. From wikipedia:

"[...] killing at least 120,000 people, about 95% of which were civilian, outright, and around twice as many over time."

Nukes are a way of bringing a country to its knees, not taking out their weapons. The propaganda has gone as far as the people in charge fooling themselves, and that seems to be quite dangerous.

It might be worth mentioning that the bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 were only 15 Kilotons. I say only because a few years later in 1952 the USA began testing 300 Kiloton bombs.

[Stormy Eyes]

Hope the provisions of this policy are never misused. :sad:

This is the US government we're talking about. Uncle Sam has been misusing the 'general welfare' and 'interstate commerce' clauses of the Constitution for over a century. They'll misuse this policy as well. Just you wait, and remember that I did not vote for these bastards.

[skoal]

As the article states this is closely related to the US developing new kinds of nuclear weapons (mini-nukes), that would make it possible to actually use nuclear weapons. So this also isn't MAD, as some people have mentioned, but this is a new doctrine that specifically tries to overcome MAD.

As someone already mentioned, MAD has effectively lead to nuclear weapons not being used and not being useable, however, this is exactly the "problem" this new doctrine tries to overcome.
No, sir. If you understood the doctrine of MAD, you would understand that ANY use of nukes was MAD.

Please read the following carefully (from the article), it summarizes the principles behind MAD quite effectively:

"To maximize deterrence of WMD use, it is essential US forces prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively and that US forces are determined to employ nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use,"

This article is quite antiquated. We have long since held tactical small yield nuclear weapons, as bunker busters or otherwise. Of course, we've never used them but at times we've threatened that we would (or could). That's an important point - at the very core of MAD. It's not a new doctrine to overcome it. Quite the contrary! It's a new application of it. It's quite MAD for anyone to believe the use of any nuclear weapon is sane - at any time, for any reason, at any perceived "justifiable" yield.

I think most here are reading more into this than what the Pentagon intends it to be: a warning shot across the bow of an emerging nuclear Iran. Remember, we are dealing with terrorists who fly themselves into buildings or explode themself with a C4 belt. Now, they understand their rogue deployment of a WMD means a much greater magnitude of lost innocents back home, including their family. It's quite MAD. Literally...

\\//_

[rjwood]

Isn't it a shame that this discussion even needs to take place. But a spade is a spade and needs to be called what it is. I applaude all you especially you young people for not letting this thread be shut down. Politics is a fact of life for everyone no matter who-what-where-when and how.
I can only imagine what it must be like knowing that the enemy you are fighting not only is not afraid of death but, in a sense welcomes it. I've read about this kind of thing and have seen movies representing it and that is chilling enough without having to actually live it. I don't understand why anyone would want to be a national leader. What payoff is big enough for that? The fact is that dangerous powerful people exist. Whether it's a Hitler or anyone else.
You know unfortunatly there seems to be a common ingredient in fear and it usually shows itself eminating from religion. Doesn't matter which religion. They all fear one another. What do you expect when they all think that the real God is theirs. Too bad. The sad part is that it's all just a myth anyway so everyone is killing and dying for nothing. What can you do? Diologue only can break down outer walls not inner ones.
You know it's all a personnal matter. Business is an extention or tool for religion. The christan reluctantly accepts the power that the U.S. economy affords it. Domestically they dipise it and internationally they accept it, Because it keeps them safe. Look at Al-Queada (however it's spelled) The very thing that they seek to destroy is what they tried to embrase in the beginning of the first Gulf war. The Saudies rejected their help in favor of the powerfull allied troops even though they hadd proven themselves very capable fighters during the Soviet invasion in Afganistan.
Everybody wants the power of the business community. That is where you young people need to stay focused. Keep it honest. Keep it a fair playing field, Even if it costs you some market share. It is better for business's to sacrafice market share than families to have to sacrafice their children. Religion will alway/s exist as will business. They need eachother. They feed off one another. But- somewhere, somehow, sometime we will understand the proper proportion of mixture. The U.S. means well but we're just paranoid as is any religious culture.
My hope is in future generations in which you are a part of being and developing. Do it with tolerance and great care and respect for all but, especially those who will come after you. Raise them to be kind and gentle but, not foolish. Not so much of an emphises on compitition. Teach them the art of winning and losing and apprcieting both with respect for the winner and loser.
Enough from me. Thanks for tolorating me:smile:. Good luck to all of you and keep up the conversation...

[primeirocrime]

here we go again ... Cold War 2. Most people in the world just want a cold beer and a sunny day, why should we allow this kind of crap?

[Stormy Eyes]

rjwood, I think you are making a mistake in saying that business needs religion as much as religion needs business. It doesn't. I believe organized religion is a parasite. It depends on the charity of the productive and on favors granted by the government (like tax exemption). Business does not need organized religion.

[Kvark]

In these situations religion is only a tool, an excuse, nothing more, just like talk about honor, valor and duty is only a tool.

How do you make someone go out on a battlefield or terrorist attack and get himself killed? You tell him it is his duty and honor demands it, or that it is his destiny and god demands it.

What do you say about why you are waging a war? A lot of pretty talk about duty or religion is the best excuse, an excuse that naive people will even buy.

But the real reason behind conflict is greed, hatered and politics.

[krusbjorn]

In these situations religion is only a tool, an excuse, nothing more, just like talk about honor, valor and duty is only a tool.

How do you make someone go out on a battlefield or terrorist attack and get himself killed? You tell him it is his duty and honor demands it, or that it is his destiny and god demands it.

What do you say about why you are waging a war? A lot of pretty talk about duty or religion is the best excuse, an excuse that naive people will even buy.

But the real reason behind conflict is greed, hatered and politics.

Amen to that.

[super]

this is just another example of the arrogance that exists in the political leaders of uor world. are american politicions somehow superior to to those in other parts of the world? why do they have the right to decide which governments to topple, which countries can have nuclear weapons, etc.. (for example why can china have nuclear weapons while many middle eastern countries cannot?

in my opinion, a country with such a large percentage of its population in prison, with such rampant poverty, and with their own homegrown terrorists should such fix their problems at home before they tackle the problems of other countries.



Rational people do not need organized religion. It is is the weak, the foolish, and the fearful that need a church;
wow! :razz:
now that could start a flamewar!
let's just say i humbly disagree! :grin:

EDIT: i agree with kvark. religion that is often used as a tool used by leaders to incite or stir people and it is not only used by extremist muslim clerics (anybody remember the axis of evil speech or the conflict in ireland)

[Paulus]

Einstein spent the first half of his life trying to create the nuclear bomb. He spent the other half of his life trying to convince everyone not to use it.

I'm not sure where this is from, he did not attempt to create the nuclear bomb, it was just another application of E=mcc.
sorry to be pedantic.

On topic:
I feel that this is an unfortunate view from out trans-atlantic friends, but it is not suprising when you actually see what the american media is pumping out to it's citizens, it really explains alot of the american traits and attitudes towards other countries. It is also explained by the almost alarmingly low percentage of americans that actually have a passport which imo lead to the suprising re-election of the bush administration.

We can only blame the american administration for this development, but it's citizens are partially responsible. It's down to them who's in charge.

This is a scandalously hypocritical attitude to WMD's, vote them out!

noone wins with nukes, ever played nuclear war?

[Stormy Eyes]

in my opinion, a country with such a large percentage of its population in prison, with such rampant poverty, and with their own homegrown terrorists should such fix their problems at home before they tackle the problems of other countries.

I agree, but the only solutions being offered by those "in the mainstream" are more of same failed nonsense. More socialist programs that foster dependence on government, further erosion of private property rights and thus of the right to a private life, more nonsense. If I had it my way, I'd strip the federal government of all powers not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, but I'm outvoted.


wow! :razz:
now that could start a flamewar!
let's just say i humbly disagree! :grin:

Dammit. I went to such trouble to distinguish organized religion from private, personal spirituality.

[macgyver2]

I feel that this is an unfortunate view from out trans-atlantic friends, but it is not suprising when you actually see what the american media is pumping out to it's citizens, it really explains alot of the american traits and attitudes towards other countries.
I like getting my news from the BBC. I find it more complete and accurate.


noone wins with nukes, ever played nuclear war?
Or watched War Games? :)

[phen]

MAD? I disagree with that!

MAD might work between countries. but i don't think that plans for an attack of n korea weren't around before. but imo, MAD does not work for the war on terror. terrorists are a small group of very wierd people, living scattered around many countries (rather saudi arabia - the best friend of the us- than iraq....). they are willing to die, so they will use dirty nukes or whatever they get. even if american bombs are aimed at them.

whats the point about this defense paper? throwing a bomb on a country, killing tenthousands of innocent people and 3 wierdos trying to build a nuclear bomb?

i think terrorists are very hard to catch, maybe other tactics should get a chance: fair politics in the middle east, no suppression of third-world countries for example. as soon as people become happy, they dont want to blow themselves away. and for the real religious/whatever extremists, i hope they get caught before their next attack..

[Knome_fan]

I'm not sure where this is from, he did not attempt to create the nuclear bomb, it was just another application of E=mcc.
sorry to be pedantic.


I think what the quote refers to is Einstein first lobbying for the creation of nuclear bombs (Remeber, he wrote a letter to Rosevelt about this very issue) and then spending the rest of his life fighting against nuclear bombs.

[Stormy Eyes]

I think what the quote refers to is Einstein first lobbying for the creation of nuclear bombs (Remeber, he wrote a letter to Rosevelt about this very issue) and then spending the rest of his life fighting against nuclear bombs.

Einstein wrote to Roosevelt, begging him to create a nuke before the Germans did. Oppenheimer actually built the damned thing, and he knew exactly what he did. Why do you think he said to President Truman in 1946: "I have blood on my hands"?

[zugvogel]

whats the point about this defense paper? throwing a bomb on a country, killing tenthousands of innocent people and 3 wierdos trying to build a nuclear bomb?

This notion that the "terrorists" are just strange wierdos who enjoy killing innocent people gets banded about far too much. It gives the impression that there is no reason behind their actions, other than their hatred of us.

With examples like the unquestioning support of Israel against the Palistinians, or the invasion of Iraq, I suspect that this is how would-be terrorists see the situation: We are under attack - We must do all we can to defend ourselves and defend our freedom.

Now re-read that last sentence but from an Western standpoint.

Both sides of this conflict use this ideal. Both sides have killed many innocent people. Both sides can point to good examples of how they're under attack. The main difference is that the west can target the organisers of terrorism, whereas the terrorists could never hope to kill anyone of political or military importance, leaving only innocent people as targets.

Any killing by either side is awful and should stop. But this constant portrayal that a terrorist does it just because he/she wants to bring down our society and "take away our freedom" as Mr Bush likes to pretend, is wrong, misleading, and ultimately a dangerous simplification of the situation.

[KingBahamut]

No Nukes please.

O-)

[MikeGreen]

I'm fairly confident that the release of this bit of "PR" is aimed at Syria and Iran. The timing leads me to that opinion. Iran is expected to settle its nuclear affairs at the UN while Syria has been directly accused of abetting the suicide bombings in Iraq. Note the closure of the Iraq/Syria border just prior to this "news" release. Also, both countries have constructed underground bunkers, as did Iraq, which proved difficult to defeat with using current weapons.

What the US is apparently attempting is to ensure that the "rogue" governments of the region realize just how serious the US has become. Apparently some rulers need to have things emphasized in the hopes of changing their habits.

Simply put, if people in this forum believe the US would really do it, perhaps others would also and thus would acquiesce to US demands. That is, after all, the easier route.

In other words, perhaps diplomatic threats work.

Just speculation, mind you :)