Preemptive nuclear attack

  • News
  • Thread starter pattylou
  • Start date
279
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

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-on-terror/preemptive-strike-in-us-nuclear-plan/2005/09/11/1126377206276.html?oneclick=true
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
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:
38
165
The idea hopefully is just a scare tactic. Iran I presume, is the country we are trying to frighten.
 
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,854
14
Scare tactics... hope no dems lose any sleep over it (although im sure they will) :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
 
russ_watters
Mentor
19,016
5,168
Pattylou: nuclear deterrence. Nothing to get upset about.
 
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,854
14
russ_watters said:
Pattylou: nuclear deterrence. Nothing to get upset about.
:rofl: :rofl: nothing that hasnt been going on for the last.... 60 years....

oops, i think im 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
Gold Member
4,854
14
Why didnt' my grandfather ever say anything crazy :(
 
russ_watters
Mentor
19,016
5,168
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:
 
310
2
Argentum Vulpes said:
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
Gold Member
4,854
14
Smurf said:
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 existance to MAD :)
 
310
2
Pengwuino said:
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 existance to MAD :)
USA owes it's existance to France.
 
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,854
14
Smurf said:
In that case wouldn't it just be imperial aggression?
Not if you didn't fire the first few shots....

Smurf said:
USA owes it's existance to France.
Hardly, practically tried to destroy us early on. France owes its existance... to the US, australians, brits...... we should boss them around more often....
 
310
2
Pengwuino said:
Hardly, practically tried to destroy us early on. France owes its existance... to the US, australians, brits...... we should boss them around more often....
not a fan of history?
 
1,120
7
Just the words "Bush doctrine" make me feel all sick inside.
 
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,854
14
Smurf said:
not a fan of history?
History isnt what you read off a left-wing blog smurf :P

or Michael Moore :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
 
279
0
As a scare tactic it's pretty short sighted.
 
SOS2008
Gold Member
18
0
hypatia said:
Just the words "Bush doctrine" make me feel all sick inside.
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:
279
0
Yeah. Or: "Up your dubya."
 
39
1
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... :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:
39
1
rachmaninoff said:
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
Yaaks said:
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
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,543
1,685
russ_watters said:
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. :grumpy:
 
279
0
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.
 

Related Threads for: Preemptive nuclear attack

Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
31
Views
24K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
12K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
33
Views
7K
  • Last Post
6
Replies
127
Views
9K
Top