News Preemptive Nuclear Attack: What Are the Implications?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pattylou
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nuclear
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the renewed focus on the U.S. nuclear strategy, particularly the potential for a first-strike policy against threats like Iran. Participants express concern that this approach could lead to reckless use of nuclear weapons, especially given the historical context of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). There is skepticism about the administration's intentions, with fears that it may be a tactic to intimidate rather than a genuine deterrent. The conversation highlights the ethical implications of using nuclear weapons preemptively, especially in light of past military actions that have resulted in civilian casualties. Overall, the sentiment is one of alarm regarding the implications of such policies on global security and the potential for escalating conflict.
  • #51
faust9 said:
http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2005/09/12/afx2219227.html

So many quotes from the ambassador to Syria... are so stupid.

'It shouldn't be that hard, if you see young men between the ages of 18 and 28, who are coming without a return ticket, landing in Damascus airport to control that.'
This doesn't strike me as a good rule of thumb to use, if you're trying to limit recruits from coming into the country. The ambassador is being just a wee bit simplistic.

'As during the Soviet era, Soviet communism was the defining of our time, now it's terrorism and extremism that's the defining challenge of our time,' he said.
Hmmm... Seems to me some men flew some airplanes into some buildings, killed thousands of people and the world united. There were no WMD involved, no grand plan for world domination, just a high tech prank that worked and we suffered. If terrorism is growing, it doesn't seem to be in response to 9/11. 9/11 saw the world unite with the US. It seems instead, that if terrorism is indeed the defining feature of our time, that we have to hold our *response* to 9/11 responsible.

'Our patience is running out with Syria,' Khalilzad told a press conference. When asked how the US could respond, he said 'all options are on the table', including military.

'I would not like to elaborate more, they should understand what I mean,' he added.
Oh goody. This should help. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
edward said:
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.
Don't we have troops just about, well, *everywhere?* I mean, in enough places that fallout could threaten some of them somewhere ----The idea that we wouldn't strike if our troops would be threatened by fallout seems questionable, to me.
 
  • #53
pattylou said:
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.
Preemptive strike is a questionable policy no matter who promotes it. But I agree that this administration has already had their turn at this and they were horribly wrong--no more turns for them. :eek:
faust9 said:
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.
Correct.

Hey, here's an idea. What if the US worked toward normalizing relations with other countries, including Iran and maybe even N. Korea?
 
  • #54
loseyourname said:
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?
I don't see that eventuality playing out. Let's say we had such intelligence - the kind you describe. In that case, we would have tremendous support from all over. With that support, we may decide to strike with a nuke first, but (1) doesn't this seem a bit risky - mightn't you detonate the bomb you are targeting and cause as much damage as would have happened anyway and (2) with such broad support, other options would probably be tenable.

If there were some historical example of this scenario that people bring up in the "preemption" debate, I'd consider it. The scenario just seems incredibly far fetched. And we know that we have trigger-happy guys in charge at the moment, so they wouldn't *wait* for that kind of intelligence. They'd go in on marginal intelligence, and even beef it up (or yellow cake it up as the case may be) -- they've lost any right, in my mind, to make the sorts of claims they make about who is a threat and who isn't.

Under a different president, one I believed and trusted, I might agree with you. Such a president would not be eager to arm his troops to the teeth - he'd be more interested in increasing world peace through alliance and cooperation.
 
  • #55
2CentsWorth said:
Preemptive strike is a questionable policy no matter who promotes it. But I agree that this administration has already had their turn at this and they were horribly wrong--no more turns for them. :eek:
Preemption has it's place, but consider this:

‘You and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase immediate threat. I didn't, the president didn't. And it's become kind of folklore that that's what's happened."-Donald Rumsfeld

Not only did they do a poor job in carrying out their attack but they don't even understand what constitutes justifcation for a preemtive strike. Obviously they these some of the last people we should trust to develop more efficent means to carry out such attacks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
vanesch said:
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.
The military are not looking to develop these weapons as a mere threat. They want them because the targets they envisage attacking are immune to conventional bombs and so the most economical way to meet their objectives in terms of men and materials is to use nuclear bombs. Without a doubt if congress gives the military the funding to develop these weapons once they have them they will use them.

I see two major downsides to this strategy; first America's enemies will be far more likely to initiate a nuclear strike before America can destroy their arsenals and second; be in no doubt if Bush or any future administration for that matter uses pre-emptive nuclear strikes against any country they will succeed at a stroke in uniting the entire world - Against America.
 
  • #57
I don't think its necessary for America to have a pre-emptive strike policy. They have more fire power(conventional) than rest of the countries put togeather...
 
  • #58
welll...tht was after the post USSR era...
 
  • #59
Yaaks said:
I don't think its necessary for America to have a pre-emptive strike policy. They have more fire power(conventional) than rest of the countries put togeather...

We also still have more nukes, more nerve gas, and more biological weapons than could ever be used because no one would be left alive to use them. At the end of the cold war the USA had enough WMD to kill the population of the world 10 times over.
 
  • #60
Nerve gas and biological weapons? Can you tell me where they are, or provide a link or other refference? I'm not going to go get them and release them into a convention of Amway salesman in a hotel lobby in Walla Walla on the 14th of next month or nothin'. Nah, it ain't like that at all; I'm just...uh...curious, y'know?
 
  • #61
edward said:
We also still have more nukes, more nerve gas, and more biological weapons than could ever be used because no one would be left alive to use them. At the end of the cold war the USA had enough WMD to kill the population of the world 10 times over.
Sounds like a preemptive first strike is in order! ...Oh wait, you said we, meaning the U.S.

Too bad the media is reporting only about Katrina these days. No one is discussing this, or UN reforms, or whether Dubya has the audacity to attack Iran and/or Syria without officially declaring war with congressional approval (I'm certain he won't try going to the UN again). If Dubya takes military action against another country in the Middle East, why do I suspect there are still plenty of Americans who would support it? :eek:
 
  • #62
2CentsWorth said:
Hey, here's an idea. What if the US worked toward normalizing relations with other countries, including Iran and maybe even N. Korea?
What do "normal relations" with a psychopath look like? Il is like Stalin, only crazy.
 
  • #63
russ_watters said:
What do "normal relations" with a psychopath look like? Il is like Stalin, only crazy.
Perhaps, but how would you classify Saddam?
 
  • #64
pattylou said:
I don't see that eventuality playing out.

I don't either, but that's not the point. The military needs contingency plans for everything, even things that have very little probability of ever occurring. They can't afford to be caught off-guard should such a situation arise. They also don't have time to debate should such a situation arise. The debate takes place now, so that should the time come, they know exactly what to do and execute pre-packaged orders like mindless robots.

Let's say we had such intelligence - the kind you describe. In that case, we would have tremendous support from all over. With that support, we may decide to strike with a nuke first, but (1) doesn't this seem a bit risky - mightn't you detonate the bomb you are targeting and cause as much damage as would have happened anyway and (2) with such broad support, other options would probably be tenable.

1) When you're already detonating a nuclear weapon over a site, detonating another nuclear weapon at the same site would not cause any additional damage. Actually, I suppose there would be additional fallout, but it wouldn't make the blast any larger. [Note: I think this is the case, but if someone knows better, please correct me.]

2) What other option would there be? When the firing of weapons upon you is imminent, you either kill or be killed. I'm not talking about an Iraq scenario, where we have options like continued inspections, sanctions, or even assassination. I'm talking about some madman fueling up his missiles that are targeted at a major city. You're pretty much out of options at that point, which is the whole reason for this contingency plan. It's an absolute last resort.

If there were some historical example of this scenario that people bring up in the "preemption" debate, I'd consider it.

Don't you think a huge part of the reason we were so caught off-guard by 9-11 and Katrina was that nothing of that caliber had ever occurred before? We can't afford to plan only for those situations that have already played out in the past. I wouldn't be surprised if someone in the 50s seriously planned a US response to extraterrestrial invasion. We need to be prepared for anything.

Under a different president, one I believed and trusted, I might agree with you.

Sorry Patty, but I think that under a president who shows such poor leadership skills in his responses to crises, planning ahead and not having to think on the spot is even more crucial. The thought of Bush with his hand over the big red button may not be the most pleasant, but it beats the thought of Bush sitting in his office trying to figure out what to do as a nuclear strike is imminent. The less thinking he has to do in the moment, the better.
 
  • #65
loseyourname said:
Patty said:
Let's say we had such intelligence - the kind you describe. In that case, we would have tremendous support from all over. With that support, we may decide to strike with a nuke first, but (1) doesn't this seem a bit risky - mightn't you detonate the bomb you are targeting and cause as much damage as would have happened anyway and (2) with such broad support, other options would probably be tenable.
1) When you're already detonating a nuclear weapon over a site, detonating another nuclear weapon at the same site would not cause any additional damage. Actually, I suppose there would be additional fallout, but it wouldn't make the blast any larger. [Note: I think this is the case, but if someone knows better, please correct me.]
As far as I understand it blowing up a nuke will not make it blow up itself. Nukes aren't triggered the same way regular bombs are. The triggering mechanism is a very precise and delicate operation that would be destroyed by an explosion not set off by it. Wiht out the triggering mechanism the radioactive material will not blow up but obvioulsy could be spread around by the explosion.
And I think that the matter of using nukes against biologicals has a lot to do with the fact that this would render them impotent (hopefully). Even as the biologicals are being set off in an area a decent sized nuclear explosion may be sufficient to destroy the biologicals before they can spread far enough to do significant damage. Using most any other form of weapon against such a target would only create more of a problem by spreading the biologicals about. So in this case nukes are a pretty good idea if such a threat is in fact eminent since there is virtually nothing else we would be able to do.
 
  • #66
TheStatutoryApe said:
And I think that the matter of using nukes against biologicals has a lot to do with the fact that this would render them impotent (hopefully). Even as the biologicals are being set off in an area a decent sized nuclear explosion may be sufficient to destroy the biologicals before they can spread far enough to do significant damage. Using most any other form of weapon against such a target would only create more of a problem by spreading the biologicals about. So in this case nukes are a pretty good idea if such a threat is in fact eminent since there is virtually nothing else we would be able to do.

Now that you mention it, I think that scenario played out in several biological disaster movies that came out around the time of the big Ebola outbreaks. Some virus was threatening to spread to the entire country (or world, depending on the ambitions of the filmmaker) and the president makes the tough decision to nuke the affected region before that can happen. Of course, the hero always saves the day by coming in with an antidote right before they do this.
 
  • #67
Well, I got to say I'm not really convinced by the arguments pro- this policy. But for the sake of argument, if we were to accept those arguments the question of whether such a policy actually spurs proliferation hasn't been addressed, though SOS mentioned it and it's in the articles as well. Since we're talking about doing this because terrorists *might* have WMD, then it seems that basic human response is to arm yourself to face your threat. So, to any opponent to whom we are a threat, additional arming on their part would be a likely outcome.

It's just nuts, to my way of thinking.
 
  • #68
Was anyone paying attention before 9-11?

This is nothing new. They have been working on this policy since they got into office.

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/spurring_nukes.htm

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/12/07/MNG5Q3GH941.DTL

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/npr.htm

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/president-bushs-nuclear-weapons-policy-illogical-ineffective-and-dangerous.html

Will Rumsfeld sign it?

Of course he will. He wrote it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #69
loseyourname said:
Sorry Patty, but I think that under a president who shows such poor leadership skills in his responses to crises, planning ahead and not having to think on the spot is even more crucial. The thought of Bush with his hand over the big red button may not be the most pleasant, but it beats the thought of Bush sitting in his office trying to figure out what to do as a nuclear strike is imminent. The less thinking he has to do in the moment, the better.
Bush wants to use nukes and he will. He will find a reason just like he did for Iraq.

Ask him about blowing up frogs, I am sure he will have some plausible excuse.
 
  • #70
Skyhunter said:
Bush wants to use nukes and he will. He will find a reason just like he did for Iraq.

Ask him about blowing up frogs, I am sure he will have some plausible excuse.
Talk about someone who is mentally unstable...

And aside from timelines, proliferation, etc., NO this is not just contingency planning. This is saber rattling, and a dangerous policy. Bush's mentality is "either the world is with me or I'll blow it up."
 
  • #71
pattylou said:
Well, I got to say I'm not really convinced by the arguments pro- this policy. But for the sake of argument, if we were to accept those arguments the question of whether such a policy actually spurs proliferation hasn't been addressed, though SOS mentioned it and it's in the articles as well. Since we're talking about doing this because terrorists *might* have WMD, then it seems that basic human response is to arm yourself to face your threat. So, to any opponent to whom we are a threat, additional arming on their part would be a likely outcome.

It's just nuts, to my way of thinking.
There are two possible ways to read your conclusion When you say "to any oppoennt to whom we are a threat..." are you talking about the terrorist threat that we are planning to use this policiy against? If so, then the idea that "...additional arming on their part would be the likely outcome.." is sort-of a non-issue. terrorists who want to attack the U.S. will arm themselves as heavily as they can no matter what the U.S. is doing.
 
  • #72
SOS2008 said:
Talk about someone who is mentally unstable...

And aside from timelines, proliferation, etc., NO this is not just contingency planning. This is saber rattling, and a dangerous policy. Bush's mentality is "either the world is with me or I'll blow it up."
I saw the thread about Kim Jong Il, I didn't bother to comment because I believe the current psychopath sitting in the oval office is a far greater threat than some tin horn dictator.

The same sadistic motivation that drove him to blow up frogs, and burn pledges with hot wires is still a part a of his psyche.

And the scariest part is that is the tough guy persona that so appeals to the conservative military types.
 
  • #73
LURCH said:
There are two possible ways to read your conclusion When you say "to any oppoennt to whom we are a threat..." are you talking about the terrorist threat that we are planning to use this policiy against? If so, then the idea that "...additional arming on their part would be the likely outcome.." is sort-of a non-issue. terrorists who want to attack the U.S. will arm themselves as heavily as they can no matter what the U.S. is doing.
Since "terrorists" are not of a specific nation state, I take it the US is threatening to use Nukes against...Iran, Syria? The point made by pattylou is terrorists don't need WMD to attack as was amply illustrated by 9-11. I take it that means using Nukes in retaliation would not be justified in this case? It's just idiotic.

If anyone has proof about how terrorists are arming themselves heavily with WMD, please provide evidence--Oh and maybe someone can narrow it down to where all these terrorists are so we will know where to make our preemptive first strike.
 
  • #74
LURCH said:
There are two possible ways to read your conclusion When you say "to any oppoennt to whom we are a threat..." are you talking about the terrorist threat that we are planning to use this policiy against? If so, then the idea that "...additional arming on their part would be the likely outcome.." is sort-of a non-issue. terrorists who want to attack the U.S. will arm themselves as heavily as they can no matter what the U.S. is doing.

I believe systems are inter-related. I believe that by promoting nuclear pre-emption, we cause many small effects - such as greater fear in the world in general, among "non-terrorists" including citizenry and legitimate governments, as well as among "terrorists."

I believe this could lead to more of a mentality among some segments that "The US is escalating and so we should too." If a legitimate government is influenced in this way, then it may play out similarly to what we see going on in Iran. Legitimate governments may also consider terrorist organisations to be a useful resourse - ie governments and terrorists are inter-related.

And then there's the whole issue of Bush deciding that a legitimate government is a legitimate *target* for a pre-emptive strike because they "harbor terrorists" - even though he struck out with this approach wrt Iraq. Some argue that his actions have increased recruitment for terrorist groups - and if that's the case then a nuke-preemption plan would certainly boost enlistment to these groups as well!

You can't separate it into neat little boxes. Governments (including the US) *do* help terrorist groups. They just don't call them terrorists when they are helping them. They call them freedom fighters.

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

(of course, it's really the US that is spreading freedom. )

I feel that I haven't really hit the nail on the head in my response to you, but I trust you get the general drift. This either/or mentality is not the best one for developing safe global relations and peace. Understanding that people generally lie along a spectrum, and understanding the *reasns* for terrorism, instead of responding with force, is an approach that stands a much better chance of success.

p.s. my husband flies virtual fighter pilot missions every Thursday with someone named Lurch. I have to ask if that's you.
 
  • #75
Well, thank you patty for at least providing legitimate counterarguments. Since no one else is actually addressing the merits/dismerits of this policy and just assuming that Bush is insane and trying to scare people and wants an excuse to use nukes, I'll just bow out. I'm trying to discuss military strategy and everyone just wants to psychoanalyze their favorite boogeyman.
 
  • #76
I just realized that it is all about money. Using the threat of a nuclear strike or even making a nuclear strike on a country, is much cheaper than sending in the military.

With our current national debt, an Iraq style military invasion of another country would be impossible to finance.
 
  • #77
loseyourname said:
Well, thank you patty for at least providing legitimate counterarguments. Since no one else is actually addressing the merits/dismerits of this policy and just assuming that Bush is insane and trying to scare people and wants an excuse to use nukes, I'll just bow out. I'm trying to discuss military strategy and everyone just wants to psychoanalyze their favorite boogeyman.
How can this be discussed without reference to the recent preemptive strike that was based on claims of WMD? How can one not question the administration that is formulating this doctrine, and motives and possible uses of it during the duration of it's term, and possibly beyond that?

There has been a response to the idea that this is just military planning. In this current global environment, which is very volatile, why would the US make the announcements that have been made if it is just military planning? A continued lack of understanding of the rest of the world? Would this reason make anyone feel better? Not me. And if it is truly just an option, why aren't other options being discussed? Because to date this administration has acted unilaterally with no effort at negotiations (unless the other party or parties agree to all their term--meaning no compromise), and military options, particularly nuclear ones, should be of last resort.

In the meantime, countries are part of the "axis of evil," whereas the US is pure as the driven snow, and Americans with short memories of history believe this BS. The Bush administration has been pursuing a neocon agenda, and this is the wrong direction for our foreign policy.
 
  • #78
loseyourname said:
Well, thank you patty for at least providing legitimate counterarguments. Since no one else is actually addressing the merits/dismerits of this policy

I don't think this policy will have much merit in the global community.
But apparently we still have the , "Nuke them out of existence", mentality within certain circles.
 
  • #79
The refusal of the US to reject first strike, in the face of a worldwide propaganda campaign by the USSR, stabilized the cold war and can arguably have prevented nuclear exchanges. The leaders in the Kremlin could never be sure just what would trigger the US strike, and so they erred on the side of caution.
 
  • #80
Someone earlier made the point that it was the threat of retaliation that kept the USSR from striking, not fear of us acting pre-emptively. Are you saying this isn't the case?

If it is, then the distinction between the current proposal and the cold war, is that the US is talking about pre-emptively striking terrorist groups. This preemption is problematic because:

1. terrorists are not localized or a nation state (where do you strike? What about the fallout on allies or our own troops?).

2. our intelligence appears limited and occasionally manipulated (what if you get it wrong?)

3. "terrorists" are not well defined and can be: a/ individuals, b/ a localised group, c/ members of a non-localised group, or even d/ a ruling group of a nation (Taliban). These different manifestations of "terrorists" can interact as well. And, who we call a terrorist, can change from one year to the next, as well, with no change on their part or agenda.

4. We screwed up wrt Iraq, when we used this same approach sans the nuclear bomb. Same mentality, same players, same propaganda - only add a nuclear bomb to the plan. Oh dear!

And *none* of these concerns are nearly as much of a problem if we remove "pre-emptive" from the plan, and simply go with retaliation after the fact. Like we did in Afghanistan. Remember how that one actually went over pretty well?

(of course, I think "nuclear" should be removed from the plan as well, but I'll leave that out for the sake of argument for the moment).
 
Last edited:
  • #81
Patty said:
And *none* of these concerns are as much of a problem if we remove "pre-emptive" from the plan, and simply go with retaliation.
I think that this plan is more or less just adding "pre-emptive" to our current plans. I think another effect is that we will begin producing more nukes as well, that is "new nukes" that won't be designed for blowing up entire cities or city blocks. I believe they wanted to be able to produce these and have them on hand just incase but needed some reasoning for it. The fact that the US is more or less getting away with having pre-emtively struck Iraq so far is also setting a precident that the military believes will allow them more leeway in their options. So they are adjusting their strategies to take advantage.
If people call foul on the military for adding a "pre-emptive policy" then I think they will only change the wording, if they even care.
 
  • #82
They don't care, our attack on Iraq wasn't a preemptive strike. Preemptive, by the very definition of the word, requires the attack to be a response to an immanent threat. Not even our administration tries to claim that Iraq was an immanent thereat at this point; so apparently they have no respect for the policy of preemption and clearly have no trouble with commiting acts of outright aggression.
 
  • #83
kyleb said:
They don't care, our attack on Iraq wasn't a preemptive strike. Preemptive, by the very definition of the word, requires the attack to be a response to an immanent threat. Not even our administration tries to claim that Iraq was an immanent thereat at this point; so apparently they have no respect for the policy of preemption and clearly have no trouble with commiting acts of outright aggression.
Good point about the definition requiring immanent threat. And as many of us know, this administration has pursued it's agenda even without popular support in America. They don't care about representation, laws, cost, divisiveness--nothing but there own desires.

As far as comparisons to the cold war go, there are significant differences, such as a clear "enemy" that clearly had WMD. In this case MAD was indeed a deterrent regardless of first strike or retaliatory strike. These things don't exist in the "war on terror."
 
  • #84
edward said:
I just realized that it is all about money. Using the threat of a nuclear strike or even making a nuclear strike on a country, is much cheaper than sending in the military.

With our current national debt, an Iraq style military invasion of another country would be impossible to finance.
This is a good point as well. At this time, what other way can the Bush administration attack another country? So is it just a threat to maintain a position of strength? If so, it is being aimed at nation states, not terrorists.
 
  • #85
edward said:
I don't think this policy will have much merit in the global community. But apparently we still have the , "Nuke them out of existence", mentality within certain circles.

Sure, if you consider the destruction of a single missile silo or biological launch site to be blinking a group of people out of existence. I guess this is just one of those emotionally charged issues in which hyperbole is not going to be avoided. Personally, I can't even imagine a scenario where a large-scale first strike would be authorized. Honestly, I'll admit that I'm probably being somewhat naively optimistic. I don't doubt that there are elements in this and all governments that would use nuclear weapons with far less discretion than I would. But I don't see people making that point. I see them resorting to overstatement and one-liners. Okay, granted, some people do make legitimate points, but we still get an awful lot of overstatement and one-liners. I guess they're just a pet peeve of mine, like Pengwuino is a pet peeve of everyone else. Probably a relic from my experience with formal debates and hours spent in philosophy classes carefully evaluating the way arguments are made. I can't stand political discussions, yet I refuse to stop taking part in them. I believe this is what Juliet meant by "sweet sorrow," but I'll just call it a compulsive malady, more like heroin than sugar.
 
  • #86
russ_watters said:
What do "normal relations" with a psychopath look like? Il is like Stalin, only crazy.
I'd say a lot like Britains 'relations' with Bush :biggrin:
 
  • #87
loseyourname said:
Sure, if you consider the destruction of a single missile silo or biological launch site to be blinking a group of people out of existence. I guess this is just one of those emotionally charged issues in which hyperbole is not going to be avoided. Personally, I can't even imagine a scenario where a large-scale first strike would be authorized. Honestly, I'll admit that I'm probably being somewhat naively optimistic. I don't doubt that there are elements in this and all governments that would use nuclear weapons with far less discretion than I would. But I don't see people making that point. I see them resorting to overstatement and one-liners. Okay, granted, some people do make legitimate points, but we still get an awful lot of overstatement and one-liners. I guess they're just a pet peeve of mine, like Pengwuino is a pet peeve of everyone else. Probably a relic from my experience with formal debates and hours spent in philosophy classes carefully evaluating the way arguments are made. I can't stand political discussions, yet I refuse to stop taking part in them. I believe this is what Juliet meant by "sweet sorrow," but I'll just call it a compulsive malady, more like heroin than sugar.
What the US military gov't is doing is trying to remove the taboo against the use of nuclear weapons from the public consciousness.

As many of the US military's potential targets are deep underground they believe a ground penetrating nuclear device is the best military option.

This is not a policy designed to handle scenarios such as examples you have given of missiles being fuelled and about to fire. This is simply a response to lessons the military have learned from Iraq. i.e. airstrikes with conventional weapons against deeply buried hardened bunkers are ineffective and ground invasions are expensive.

Certain countries which America has designated as 'evil' such as Iran are allegedly pursuing weapons programs which could eventually lead to them possessing nuclear weapons. The US has stated they will not let this happen and so rather than launch a full scale invasion of a country which has a strong conventional military force and as they know conventional airstrikes will not work they are looking for ways to destroy the installations where the weapons are being developed.

The US military will not wait until the Iranians are fuelling missiles ready for a strike, they will destroy Iran's capability to ever develop weapons long, long before they have perfected a working bomb. First though they are running a PR campaign to persuade people that nukes aren't really all that bad and that they should be considered just another specialist weapon in the military's arsenal to be used when needed such as (son of) napalm and fuel air bombs (aka the poor man's nuclear bomb).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #88
Art said:
I'd say a lot like Britains 'relations' with Bush :biggrin:
Yeh, we've had many a discussion about the long list of dictators the U.S. has maintained relations with through history. Though their system of government is not our preference (e.g., Cuba), these countries have been contained perfectly well without launching WW3. The reason being is the capitalists (multinationals, etc.) prefer stability over ideology, because they want an environment in which commerce can flow unimpeded.

How have so many countries become an enemy? Using Iran as an example -- Iran has been ripe for democracy (certainly more than Iraq). In the case of Iran, what comes first, the chicken (U.S. aggression) or the egg (nuclear program as insurance against an unprovoked attack)? If the country is not a real threat (is Iran planning to attack the U.S.?), what could be done to normalize relations (carrot versus the stick), in which certain behavior (e.g., support of terrorism) could be addressed.

N. Korea is struggling to survive, and Syria is very nervous (they don't have a nuclear program). What constitutes a legitimate threat to American safety?
Why are military options the first on the table? So what changed, when, and why?
 
  • #89
loseyourname said:
Well, thank you patty for at least providing legitimate counterarguments. Since no one else is actually addressing the merits/dismerits of this policy and just assuming that Bush is insane and trying to scare people and wants an excuse to use nukes, I'll just bow out. I'm trying to discuss military strategy and everyone just wants to psychoanalyze their favorite boogeyman.
"Just because I am paranoid doesn't mean the are not out to get me."

to me the idea that Bush & Co. are looking for scenarios where they could use nuclear weapons is misguided.

I agree there could be possible scenarios where a nuclear strike may be feasible. Instead of preparing for the eventuality as Bushco are doing, I would develop policies and practices to prevent such a scenario.

Bushco does not want to avoid using them, they want to do it.

Why do I believe this?

Why do you think they rushed into invade Iraq when the weapons inspectors were in Iraq?

They didn't want the scenario they had created for a preemptive war to dissolve when the inspectors found that the WMD hype was nothing more than hype.

I am no longer willing to give them the benefit of any doubt! I believe they are "oblivious, in denial, dangerous."
 
  • #90
It is interesting to note earlier theories of big business and tendencies toward the status quo, compared to now and and how for some big business instability can be just as profitable if not more? But getting back to Bush's foreign policy, here is a nice summary of why the US has been heading the direction it has:

The comeback of neoconservatism under George W. Bush

During the 1990s, neoconservatives were once again in the opposition side of the foreign policy establishment, railing against the post-Cold War foreign policy of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, which reduced military expenditures and was, in their view, insufficiently idealistic. They accused it of lacking "moral clarity" and the conviction to unilaterally pursue U.S. strategic interests abroad. In the writings of Paul Wolfowitz, Norman Podhoretz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Max Boot, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, William Bennett, Peter Rodman, and others influential in forging the foreign policy doctrines of the Bush administration, there are frequent references to the appeasement of Hitler at Munich in 1938, to which are compared the Cold War's policies of détente and containment (rather than rollback) with the Soviet Union and the PRC.
---------
Such so-called neoconservatives were eager to implement a new foreign policy with the change in Administrations from Clinton to George W. Bush. Early in the Bush Administration…many neoconservatives perceived Bush's foreign policies to be not substantially different from the policies of Clinton.

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and The Pentagon, however, the influence of neoconservatism -- at least as it is understood to mean an aggressive stance toward foreign policy threats -- in the Bush administration appears to have found its purpose in the shift from the threat of Communism to the threat of Islamic terrorism.

As compared with traditional conservatism and libertarianism, which sometimes exhibites an isolationist strain, neoconservatism is characterized by an increased emphasis on defense capability, a willingness to challenge regimes deemed hostile to the values and interests of the United States, pressing for free-market policies abroad, and promoting democracy and freedom. Critics have charged that, while paying lip service to such American values, neoconservatives have supported undemocratic regimes for realpolitik reasons [Realpolitik (German for "realistic politics") is foreign politics based on practical concerns (political expediency) rather than theory or ethics].
------
Neoconservatives won a landmark victory with the Bush Doctrine after September 11th. Thomas Donnelly, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an influential conservative thinktank in Washington that has been under neoconservative influence since the election of Reagan, argued in his AEI piece "The Underpinnings of the Bush doctrine" that "the fundamental premise of the Bush Doctrine is true: The United States possesses the means—economic, military, diplomatic—to realize its expansive geopolitical purposes. Further, and especially in light of the domestic political reaction to the attacks of September 11, the victory in Afghanistan and the remarkable skill demonstrated by President Bush in focusing national attention, it is equally true that Americans possesses the requisite political willpower to pursue an expansive strategy."

The Bush Doctrine, a departure from previous U.S. foreign policy, is a proclamation on the right of the United States to wage pre-emptive war should it be threatened by terrorists or rogue states. This doctrine can be seen as the abandonment of a focus on the doctrine of deterrence (in the Cold War through Mutually Assured Destruction) as the primary means of self-defense. There is some opinion that preemptive strikes have long been a part of international practice and indeed of American practice, as exemplified, for example, by the unilateral U.S. blockade and boarding of Cuban shipping during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The doctrine also states that the United States "will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States."

While more conventional foreign policy experts argued that Iraq could be restrained by enforcing No-Fly Zones and by a policy of inspection by United Nations inspectors to restrict its ability to possesses chemical or nuclear weapons, neoconservatives considered this policy direction ineffectual and labeled it appeasement of Saddam Hussein.

-------
The neoconservatives, often referred to by their political opponents as the neocons, are credited with (or blamed for) influencing U.S. foreign policy, especially under the administrations of Ronald Reagan (1981–1989) and George W. Bush (2001–present). Neoconservatives have often been singled out for criticism by opponents of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, many of whom see this invasion as a neoconservative initiative. Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives may be characterized by an aggressive moralist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, and, in the past, a greater acceptance of the welfare state, though none of these qualities are necessarily requisite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocon...eback_of_neoconservatism_under_George_W._Bush
 
  • #91
Pre-emptive attacks are immoral. Pre-emptive nuclear attacks are just stupid.
 
  • #92
But the THREAT of preemptive nuclear attacks can be very useful. Nobody suffered a nuclear attack between 1950, when the Soviets got the bomb, and now. Partly because of US first strike capability and threat.
 
  • #93
selfAdjoint said:
But the THREAT of preemptive nuclear attacks can be very useful. Nobody suffered a nuclear attack between 1950, when the Soviets got the bomb, and now. Partly because of US first strike capability and threat.
Yes, it did in that scenario.

These weapons are not weapons of mass destruction, so 1) how much of a deterrence will these create? and 2) in regard to terrorists, will it function as a deterrence or a recruiting tool? And as someone mentioned, it also caused the arms race--the current scenario involves possible proliferation within numerous 'rogue' nations (North Korea already, and Iran in the process).
 
  • #94
Smurf said:
Pre-emptive attacks are immoral. Pre-emptive nuclear attacks are just stupid.
I someone was gearing up to try and kill me; I'd be sure to do everything I could to preempt that, including attack. I don't see how anyone could consider such a position immoral.
 
  • #95
I sure am teetering on the idea of turning the middle east into a glass parking lot. Unfortunately, there would be too many "friendlies" at any given time. :)
 
  • #96
kyleb said:
I someone was gearing up to try and kill me; I'd be sure to do everything I could to preempt that, including attack. I don't see how anyone could consider such a position immoral.
My bad, I was thinking preventive. Wrong term :rolleyes:
 
  • #97
I whole heartedly argee with you on the idea of preventive attacks, just wanted to clarify the moral validity of preemption.
 
  • #98
The first (if there every is one) preemptive nuclear attack may very well be performed by Isreal against hostile Arab country. There is enough hate (hundreds of years of it) towards Isreal in the Middle East that if one of these hostile Arab countries had nuclear capacity, they would use it to attack Isreal at first opportunity. This could be a very likely situation.
 
  • #99
kyleb said:
I someone was gearing up to try and kill me; I'd be sure to do everything I could to preempt that, including attack. I don't see how anyone could consider such a position immoral.
To clarify, based on what you say and the overt threats from the US gov't if Iran, Syria or N. Korea launched a preemptive nuclear attack against the US are you saying you'd believe it to be morally justified?
 
  • #100
deckart said:
The first (if there every is one) preemptive nuclear attack may very well be performed by Isreal against hostile Arab country. There is enough hate (hundreds of years of it) towards Isreal in the Middle East that if one of these hostile Arab countries had nuclear capacity, they would use it to attack Isreal at first opportunity. This could be a very likely situation.
I do not think any country, regardless of years of conflict, will ever take nuclear weapons so lightly. Even considering conventional warfare--any Arab country will always think twice about a military attack against Israel, and I should think Israel would think twice in reverse.
 

Similar threads

Replies
22
Views
5K
Replies
148
Views
14K
Replies
67
Views
10K
Replies
56
Views
9K
Replies
105
Views
12K
Replies
102
Views
15K
Replies
13
Views
4K
Back
Top