News Preemptive Nuclear Attack: What Are the Implications?

[pattylou]

It's in the news again. Here's a few articles. I don't have much to say about it except that I was already depresseed today to begin with and this doesn't help. I think people should be informed - so I pass on the articles without any additional comment.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article311903.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1776250,00.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/war-o...n/2005/09/11/1126377206276.html?oneclick=true

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/11/AR2005091100166.html

What next... damned fools.

 

[edward]

The idea hopefully is just a scare tactic. Iran I presume, is the country we are trying to frighten.

 

[Pengwuino]

Scare tactics... hope no dems lose any sleep over it (although I am sure they will)

 

[russ_watters]

Pattylou: nuclear deterrence. Nothing to get upset about.

 

[Pengwuino]

Pattylou: nuclear deterrence. Nothing to get upset about.

nothing that hasnt been going on for the last... 60 years...

oops, i think I am going to start something :(

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

I agree it is just MAD all over again. Hey it worked for 60 years why not give it another run.

It's like my granddad used to say, Nuke them till they glow then shoot them in the dark.

 

[Pengwuino]

Why didnt' my grandfather ever say anything crazy :(

 

[russ_watters]

Yeah, mine doesn't say things like that either. Strange - I thought it was old Republicans who were supposed to say crazy things like that.

 

[Smurf]

I agree it is just MAD all over again. Hey it worked for 60 years why not give it another run.

It's like my granddad used to say, Nuke them till they glow then shoot them in the dark.

Okay, nearly avoiding nuclear war numerous times, I suppose you could call that "Working". Personally I'd prefer something less... maniacal?

 

[Pengwuino]

Okay, nearly avoiding nuclear war numerous times, I suppose you could call that "Working". Personally I'd prefer something less... maniacal?

Well considering one of the scariest parts about MAD (the other side annihilating you) doesn't really exist in this conflict, I kinda like the idea :P. Canada owes its existence to MAD :)

 

[Smurf]

Well considering one of the scariest parts about MAD (the other side annihilating you) doesn't really exist in this conflict, I kinda like the idea :P.

In that case wouldn't it just be imperial aggression?

Canada owes its existence to MAD :)

USA owes it's existence to France.

 

[Pengwuino]

In that case wouldn't it just be imperial aggression?

Not if you didn't fire the first few shots...

USA owes it's existence to France.

Hardly, practically tried to destroy us early on. France owes its existence... to the US, australians, brits... we should boss them around more often...

 

[Smurf]

Hardly, practically tried to destroy us early on. France owes its existence... to the US, australians, brits... we should boss them around more often...

not a fan of history?

 

[hypatia]

Just the words "Bush doctrine" make me feel all sick inside.

 

[Pengwuino]

not a fan of history?

History isn't what you read off a left-wing blog smurf :P

or Michael Moore

 

[pattylou]

As a scare tactic it's pretty short sighted.

 

[SOS2008]

Just the words "Bush doctrine" make me feel all sick inside.

Eeeuooo! Nothing should be named after him except coining phrases like "You pulled a Dubya" when you do something stupid. I mean, just think about this sentence for awhile...

"US develops strategy for first use of nuclear weapons against WMD"

 

[pattylou]

Yeah. Or: "Up your dubya."

 

[Yaaks]

WHY?? of all policies...
SAD!

 

[rachmaninoff]

People, stop confabulating. Neither "M.A.D." nor "scare tactic" apply to this policy - to even bring them up is an obfusciation. What the administration is discussing is a nuclear first strike against a terrorist organization (and presumably some foreign country as collateral). Mutually Assured Destruction is the phenomenon that "prevents" nuclear first strikes (as opposed to initiating them); and what's more, it assumes a stable nuclear adversary.
As to "scare tactic" - regardless of whether it's an objective of the admin. to "scare" Iran (or ... ) with this planning, nevertheless the end result would in fact be a real, working nuclear first-strike policy. Don't confuse this with a poker-style "bluff"; it's not - they have nukes, and they really might use them. Consider that a central theme in these discussions is the research of "low-yield" nukes (as bunker-busters); if anything this talking point attempts to render the public less terrified of their effects* and thus make it politcally easier to use nukes. Maybe they will, in the near future.
*not that they should be...

If the USA were to have done a first-strike on Moscow in the 50s', that would not have been "M.A.D." Is that clear?

Just to set things straight.

 

[Yaaks]

If the USA were to have done a first-strike on Moscow in the 50s', that would not have been "M.A.D." Is that clear?

Just to set things straight.

If tht had had happened, both US and the USSR would have geographically erazed each other for the world map..
not to mention the allied countries...

 

[rachmaninoff]

If tht had had happened, both US and the USSR would have geographically erazed each other for the world map..
not to mention the allied countries...

I meant before they had their H-bomb, and the ICBM.

If A nukes B without reprecussion, because B did not have nukes, there is no part of that that has anything to do with M.A.D.

 

[Astronuc]

nuclear deterrence. Nothing to get upset about.

I could see deterrence with respect to Russia or China or some other state with territory (and perhaps people), but terrorists know no borders and are not entirely rational. So I don't see this as a deterrent, but more as another belligerent statement to the world.

As we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq, with a large amount of collateral damage, that being thousands of innocents killed by errant artillery, bombs and mislead fire, the Bush administration doesn't seem too interested in protecting the innocent. So my concern is that Bush would arbitrarily use nuclear weapons recklessly against innocents who are just in his way.

 

[pattylou]

Another argument against the "scare tactic" argument, that I have to ask: At what point is something *not* a "scare tactic?"

The pre-emptive invasion of Iraq could be argued to be a scare tactic "Give our policy some teeth; let 'em know we mean it!"

If Rumsfeld signs this thing, etc, then what? Will we actually allow commanders to request and carry nuclear weapons? Would we argue that they carry them as a scare tactic? Will we use them, as a "scare tactic?"

I think the expression is entirely meaningless. Anything can be called a scare tactic. And Rachmaninoff: Yes, your point is clear. Thanks.

 

[pattylou]

... the Bush administration doesn't seem too interested in protecting the innocent. So my concern is that Bush would arbitrarily use nuclear weapons recklessly against innocents who are just in his way.

He doesn't seem particularly concerned with the truth of WMD, either. Perhaps the thought is, that if we had used nukes against Iraq, that our inability to find WMD could be explained by our destruction of them.

Nuclear bombs to spread freedom.

 

[Anttech]

France owes its existence... to the US, australians, brits

Actually its owes its existence more to the Russians, than anyone.. but hey, that's not what Holywood would have you know...

 

[Astronuc]

He doesn't seem particularly concerned with the truth of WMD, either. Perhaps the thought is, that if we had used nukes against Iraq, that our inability to find WMD could be explained by our destruction of them.

I imagine Pakistan, India, China, and SE Asia might object to being contaminated by fallout from a nuclear attack on Iran.

I can't imagine, but then I am not Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld, that the US would use nuclear weapons in such a way.

 

[pattylou]

I can't suss out your response - quite - I imagine *any* country would object to being targeted with nukes on the premise that Bush thought there were terrorists there. (or on any premise.) The problem is compounded by the definition of terrorist changing over time, and that definition being subject to the person (oir governemnt) you ask.

I can't imagine, but then I am not Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld, that the US would use nuclear weapons in such a way.

Well, I was never alarmist before this particular resident; this administration lost my faith oh, about 4 years ago. I don't put anything past them. Look how they've gotten away with morphing the reason to invade Iraq. If they can sell people like they did on these changing reasons - and make us now think it's OK to preemptively invade another country solely to enact regime change (something that was *not* okay nor American in the past) then yeah, I expect they'll find a way to sell this nuclear thing too. They've started by marketing the things as "bunker busters." I mean, that sounds pretty precise and fairly harmless. Must be OK. God bless the USA.

 

[motai]

I can't suss out your response - quite - I imagine *any* country would object to being targeted with nukes on the premise that Bush thought there were terrorists there. (or on any premise.) The problem is compounded by the definition of terrorist changing over time, and that definition being subject to the person (oir governemnt) you ask.

I wouldn't be surprised if the terrorist organizations may want to use this to their advantage. Get America to aim its nuclear arsenal at a country (such as Afghanistan, or Syria, etc) so that terrorist organizations can raise support from citizens of that country who would otherwise just be civilians. In a way, they'd be rousing them up and feeding their hatred toward America.

They might use propagandistic techniques like "Citizens of [x country], we know that America wants to target your country with a nuclear attack. Rise up, citizens of [x country] and join the Al Qaeda resistance movement!"



Not a particularly wise move in my opinion, but then again, I'm not the one making the decisions.

 

[SOS2008]

He doesn't seem particularly concerned with the truth of WMD, either. Perhaps the thought is, that if we had used nukes against Iraq, that our inability to find WMD could be explained by our destruction of them.

Nuclear bombs to spread freedom.

What Bush's belligerence has been causing is nuclear proliferation, so perhaps more likened to an arms race worldwide.

 

[LURCH]

Seems to me like a matter of appropriate response. Is it ever right to use WMD? If so, certainly the most appropriate time to use them is when your enemy is using them.

I'm a bit confused as to the first link's statement that nukes, in "one scenario", might be used against WMD arsenals that are about to be use against the US, and, " Another is where nuclear weapons could be used against biological weapons that an enemy was close to using...". Is this not the same scenario?

 

[pattylou]

No, it is not ever right to use them.

The only time that you can use them (even though it is "wrong") is in retaliation for a strike by the enemy. The reason you can use them at this point is because you are "in the right" globally speaking.

The critical flaw in Bush's policy is *pre-emption.* We made a huge blunder with this approach - Iraq *had* no weapons of mass destruction so in hindsight we weren't pre-empting a threat at all! All that this pre-emptive poliocy ensures, is global disgust, civilian deaths, unecessary debt, and so on. It's completely stupid.

To "kick it up a notch" and now say we're going to pre-empt with *nuclear* weapons, well it's *beyond* stupid.

(But hell, we're already raping our own country's environment. May as well poison the rest of the world too.)

 

[Manchot]

Hardly, practically tried to destroy us early on. France owes its existence... to the US, australians, brits... we should boss them around more often...

not a fan of history?

History isn't what you read off a left-wing blog smurf :P

or Michael Moore

Seriously, have you never taken a basic American history class? France is the reason that we won the Revolutionary War. If the French navy hadn't defeated the British at the Battle of Chesapeake, Cornwallis would've been able to resupply during the Battle of Yorktown (in which half of our troops were French). Even if he had still lost, he would've been able to escape by sea, and the surrender would've never been signed, because we had no navy to stop him.

At no point in our early history did France try to destroy us. So, give me one specific example to support your assertion. Was it when they helped us to win our independence in the first place? Was it when they allowed us to effectively double our land mass for the equivalent of $200 million in today's dollars (granted, Napoleon was strapped for cash and didn't want Louisiana to fall to the British)? Was it when when we were de facto allies during the War of 1812? In fact, aside from them owing us debts in the 1830s, and the Iraq War, we've always been on good terms with the French.

Of course, I'll be surprised if you actually do reply.

 

[loseyourname]

I imagine Pakistan, India, China, and SE Asia might object to being contaminated by fallout from a nuclear attack on Iran.

I can't imagine, but then I am not Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld, that the US would use nuclear weapons in such a way.

This kind of seems like a last-ditch, fallback type of plan. I'm thinking of Crimson Tide again, where a band of rebels had seized a nuclear missile silo and threatened to fire on the US. The plan became to nuke the site if thermal sensors detected the missiles firing up, before they had a chance to be fired. Though the semantics of whether or not such a scenario truly constitutes a "pre-emptive" strike, it's certainly a first strike. I get the feeling that this policy would be somewhat in accord with such a scenario. If we knew that a terrorist group had come into possession of serious WMDs, something they could detonate in or over a large American city, then we might just nuke the area they were holed up in as soon as there was an indication that they were preparing to fire. The same basic idea could work should some state like North Korea decide it wants to fire on Japan. As soon as it looks like their missiles are preparing to fire, take them out first. At least I hope that's the idea, because I can at least understand the thinking there. I do agree that fallout in rural Pakistan or North Korea (assuming they don't keep missile silos in cities) is better than having the entire city of New York or Tokyo wiped out. Granted, neither seems remotely likely, but the military needs contingency plans for anything that has even an infinitesimal chance of occurring.

I do agree that this isn't about mutually assured destruction, though. It's about taking a rogue group out before they have the opportunity to do much greater damage. A first-strike against a fully armed nation like the old Soviet Union would not have incapacitated their ability to fire back on us. This policy is targetting entities that only have a small cache of weapons that can all be destroyed in one strike.

 

[russ_watters]

I could see deterrence with respect to Russia or China or some other state with territory (and perhaps people), but terrorists know no borders and are not entirely rational. So I don't see this as a deterrent, but more as another belligerent statement to the world.

You're right, if the policy is just about terrorism, terrorists won't necessarily be deterred by it. But at the very least, the policy is partially aimed at countries like Iran and North Korea.

As we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq, with a large amount of collateral damage, that being thousands of innocents killed by errant artillery, bombs and mislead fire, the Bush administration doesn't seem too interested in protecting the innocent.

Define "large". The collateral damage from those two wars was about the lowest its ever been in the history of warfare for those types of conflicts.

I'm a bit confused as to the first link's statement that nukes, in "one scenario", might be used against WMD arsenals that are about to be use against the US, and, " Another is where nuclear weapons could be used against biological weapons that an enemy was close to using...". Is this not the same scenario?

Just a general fyi, since the US doesn't use chemical or biological weapons, as a matter of policy, all 3 types of wmd are treated the same and the response to all 3 is nuclear weapons.

Will we actually allow commanders to request and carry nuclear weapons? Would we argue that they carry them as a scare tactic? Will we use them, as a "scare tactic?"

Certian units may carry nuclear weapons, but local commanders do not have the ability to arm the weapons. The fear you are expressing is a common one, but unwarranted. Quite simply, the use of nuclear weapons does not work the way you fear that it could.

 

[loseyourname]

No, it is not ever right to use them.

The only time that you can use them (even though it is "wrong") is in retaliation for a strike by the enemy. The reason you can use them at this point is because you are "in the right" globally speaking.

Even under my hypothetical scenario, where we had reason beyond reasonable doubt to believe (say, a direct threat had been made and satellites showed they were fueling) that a nuclear device was about to be fired on a city of millions of people and hundreds of billions of dollars worth of infrastructure, you don't think it would be better to fire first? Would you wait for Tokyo to be competely destroyed and then fire back?

 

[pattylou]

This policy is targetting entities that only have a small cache of weapons that can all be destroyed in one strike.

I thought one criticism of our policy is precisely that it has de-centralized terror networks, thus the chances of taking out an entire cache in one strike seems unlikely to me. ?

 

[cronxeh]

considering the military's reaction on 9-11-05 I would say they won't only wait for Tokyo to be destroyed but would actually wait for the results from the detonation site to determine whose uranium exactly it was, and then they'll have a little meeting in the war room, take a quicky poll on CNN and, after some congressional debate, they'll fire z missiles!

 

[vanesch]

In fact, aside from them owing us debts in the 1830s, and the Iraq War, we've always been on good terms with the French.

And in the last case, they simply wanted to stop you from doing something stupid :-)

 

[vanesch]

I thought one criticism of our policy is precisely that it has de-centralized terror networks, thus the chances of taking out an entire cache in one strike seems unlikely to me. ?

That's why they need VERY BIG BOMBS. In fact, the best way to get rid of terrorism is to blow up the entire planet. It is a failsafe strategy.

 

[loseyourname]

I thought one criticism of our policy is precisely that it has de-centralized terror networks, thus the chances of taking out an entire cache in one strike seems unlikely to me. ?

The idea isn't to take out the entire network or even all of their weaponry. It's to take out all of their nuclear weaponry. It's not likely that they would be able to acquire more than one or two. Now please, don't approach this just thinking of a way to argue against me. Just consider the situation I'm talking about. Either some terrorist network or rogue nation has acquired nuclear capability, perhaps taken a single silo, and is preparing to fire on a major city. Should we not take them out first? I'm not talking about anything beyond that. This strategy really wouldn't even work against anything but a potential missile attack. But even if there is only an extremely limited range of possible events in which this contingency plan might become usable, would you not, as a military commander, still want to have this contingency plan in place?

 

[edward]

The idea hopefully is just a scare tactic. Iran I presume, is the country we are trying to frighten.

OK so scare tactic is a much too simple term. Let me rephrase:

Rumsfeld wants to use the psychological advantage of threatening a nuclear pre-emptive strike to initiate a weapons of mass destruction aversion therapy in the government another country.

 

[pattylou]

I think I would feel fine with the plan if I trusted the people running the operation.

So, although as a military commander I might want to have this option available --- As a human being I think it is an unthinkable strategy. Any consideration of the ramifications of the strategy shows how flawed it is.

And, since I don't trust the motivations of our administration, I think they are particularly ill-suited to the defense of the policy, that you are offering.

 

[pattylou]

Certian units may carry nuclear weapons, but local commanders do not have the ability to arm the weapons. The fear you are expressing is a common one, but unwarranted. Quite simply, the use of nuclear weapons does not work the way you fear that it could.

Your claim is not what I read in one of the reports. The claim I read is that commanders will be able to request bunker busters and then be granted the option to use them.

 

[faust9]

Wow, we release a strategy of pre-emptive nuclear attack one day then shake our swords at Syria the next http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2005/09/12/afx2219227.html These two couldn't be related in any way could they?

 

[vanesch]

Rumsfeld wants to use the psychological advantage of threatening a nuclear pre-emptive strike to initiate a weapons of mass destruction aversion therapy in the government another country.

And an opportunity for a terrorist like OBL. If only he could now trick the US in striking, say, Iran or so, he'd achieve even better his goal of isolating the US worldwide, and get the muslim world completely to his hand.
But he doesn't even need to do so. It is sufficient that many muslims feel themselves threatened a bit more by the above threats for them to run even more massively in his arms. You would really get the impression that Rumsfeld is on OBL's payroll.

 

[Tarheel]

What everyone has lost sight of is that Gee Dub, Our President Talks with GOD every single day, THEREFORE, the possibility of this administration making an error of any kind is ZERO.

So don't worry... The creator is on our side?

 

[edward]

We couldn't nuke anything in Syria without exposing out troops in Iraq to the fallout. The first strike scenario as I see it is aimed at Iran.

Any terrorist weapons would most likely be moved around, especially now that we have warned them ahead of time.

There is also a possibility that terrorists could construct various types of WMD in the basement of the house next door to me.

 

[faust9]

We couldn't nuke anything in Syria without exposing out troops in Iraq to the fallout. The first strike scenario as I see it is aimed at Iran.

Any terrorist weapons would most likely be moved around, especially now that we have warned them ahead of time.

There is also a possibility that terrorists could construct various types of WMD in the basement of the house next door to me.

A little fallout is good for the skin. You get a nice alpha tan... Also, my recolection of geography must be skewed because I though Syria was to the left and Iran to the north, so an attack on Iran would possibly expose our troops to fallout... In either case the type of weapon used would dictate the amount and type of fallout.