Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Preemptive nuclear attack

  1. Sep 11, 2005 #1
    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 [Broken]

    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
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 11, 2005 #2

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

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

    What next... :cry: :cry: :cry: damned fools.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  4. Sep 11, 2005 #3
    The idea hopefully is just a scare tactic. Iran I presume, is the country we are trying to frighten.
     
  5. Sep 11, 2005 #4

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Scare tactics... hope no dems lose any sleep over it (although im sure they will) :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
     
  6. Sep 11, 2005 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Pattylou: nuclear deterrence. Nothing to get upset about.
     
  7. Sep 11, 2005 #6

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

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

    oops, i think im going to start something :(
     
  8. Sep 11, 2005 #7
    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.
     
  9. Sep 11, 2005 #8

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Why didnt' my grandfather ever say anything crazy :(
     
  10. Sep 11, 2005 #9

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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. :confused:
     
  11. Sep 11, 2005 #10
    Okay, nearly avoiding nuclear war numerous times, I suppose you could call that "Working". Personally I'd prefer something less...... maniacal?
     
  12. Sep 11, 2005 #11

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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 existance to MAD :)
     
  13. Sep 11, 2005 #12
    In that case wouldn't it just be imperial aggression?
    USA owes it's existance to France.
     
  14. Sep 11, 2005 #13

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

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

    Hardly, practically tried to destroy us early on. France owes its existance... to the US, australians, brits...... we should boss them around more often....
     
  15. Sep 11, 2005 #14
    not a fan of history?
     
  16. Sep 11, 2005 #15
    Just the words "Bush doctrine" make me feel all sick inside.
     
  17. Sep 11, 2005 #16

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    History isnt what you read off a left-wing blog smurf :P

    or Michael Moore :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
     
  18. Sep 11, 2005 #17
    As a scare tactic it's pretty short sighted.
     
  19. Sep 11, 2005 #18

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Eeeuooo! :yuck: 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" :bugeye:
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2005
  20. Sep 11, 2005 #19
    Yeah. Or: "Up your dubya."
     
  21. Sep 12, 2005 #20
    WHY?? of all policies...
    SAD!!!
     
  22. Sep 12, 2005 #21
    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... :frown:

    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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 12, 2005
  23. Sep 12, 2005 #22
    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...
     
  24. Sep 12, 2005 #23
    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.
     
  25. Sep 12, 2005 #24

    Astronuc

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    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. :grumpy:
     
  26. Sep 12, 2005 #25
    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.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook