News N. Korea Threatens to Test Nuclear Weapons

[amp]

The trouble with the development of these new nukes is that another country can take the view that the US has belligerent intentions (pre-emption) and thus would likely use these nukes in its quest for control of certain regions of the world. Problem, if I were another country with nukes and the ability to deliver them I might not wait to see if the US behaves honorably, I could consider PRE-EMPTION to be in my country's best interest or as a national security matter. You may see what a can of worms this doctrine has opened up infused with the recent on going development of tactical nukes.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The US has always refused to reject first strike. If you are a head of state with nukes you will be aware of that. If the US convinces itself that you are preparing to strike, they will hit first. This was enough to control things during the cold war, we'll see how it plays out in the new world order.

 

[Pyrovus]

and they didnt use nukes. Whats your point?

My point being that the US, now, just like sixty years ago does whatever it feels it can get away with.

The world knows the US can't use their big nukes unless its a doomsday scenario. So who's afraid of those nukes today? nobody. Big nukes are a deterrence for big enemies, but the enemies are smaller today.

So, you believe that the US is so pacifist that it wouldn't respond to an attack using WMD with nukes? If these big nukes don't deter anybody, then why didn't Saddam use chemical weapons during the first Gulf War?

 

[studentx]

My point being that the US, now, just like sixty years ago does whatever it feels it can get away with.

and the US knows it can't get away with nuking other countries.

So, you believe that the US is so pacifist that it wouldn't respond to an attack using WMD with nukes?

Shouldnt it respond with nukes?

If these big nukes don't deter anybody, then why didn't Saddam use chemical weapons during the first Gulf War?

Because the US has more chemical weapons.

 

[russ_watters]

The US has always refused to reject first strike. If you are a head of state with nukes you will be aware of that. If the US convinces itself that you are preparing to strike, they will hit first. This was enough to control things during the cold war, we'll see how it plays out in the new world order.

I keep going back and forth on this one. Regardless of how the plans were laid out, would any President actually give that order? It would probably depend on the President. Or would it? Faced with the decision of whether or not to annihilate an entire country and possibly cause your own annihilation, would anyone really make that decision?

IMO, nuclear wepons, once two countries had them, ceased to be useable weapons*. They are a strategic deterrent, yes - but they are only a deterrent. They are of no tactical value. The very term "tactical (battlefield) nuke" is a an oxymoron.

*This only applies to rational leaders of stable governments, and that of course is where the problem we are in today comes from. The global community doesn't trust Nork Korea (expecially), Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc with nukes because it doesn't believe their governments are rational/stable enough to handle the responsibility and choose not to use them.

 

[russ_watters]

Because the US has more chemical weapons.

That isn't the reason. Saddam was rational enough to trust us. Or maybe that's giving him too much credit - maybe he was just fearful enough to trust us. He knew that we wouldn't take down his country if he didn't provoke us. We would not have responded to a chemical strike with a chemical strike or a nuclear strike. We would have responded by sending our military to Bagdhad.

 

[member 5645]

*This only applies to rational leaders of stable governments, and that of course is where the problem we are in today comes from. The global community doesn't trust Nork Korea (expecially), Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc with nukes because it doesn't believe their governments are rational/stable enough to handle the responsibility and choose not to use them.

I think a good term is 'accountable'. I personally don't trust nukes in anyone's hands without a democracy as a minimum prerequisite.

 

[Adam]

Yeah, let the mob decide who should be obliterated...