Preemptive nuclear attack

  • News
  • Thread starter pattylou
  • Start date
  • #1
pattylou
303
0
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:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,010
1,010
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:
  • #3
edward
119
166
The idea hopefully is just a scare tactic. Iran I presume, is the country we are trying to frighten.
 
  • #4
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
Scare tactics... hope no dems lose any sleep over it (although I am sure they will) :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
 
  • #5
russ_watters
Mentor
21,946
8,982
Pattylou: nuclear deterrence. Nothing to get upset about.
 
  • #6
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
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 I am going to start something :(
 
  • #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.
 
  • #8
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
Why didnt' my grandfather ever say anything crazy :(
 
  • #9
russ_watters
Mentor
21,946
8,982
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:
 
  • #10
Smurf
396
3
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?
 
  • #11
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
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 existence to MAD :)
 
  • #12
Smurf
396
3
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 existence to MAD :)
USA owes it's existence to France.
 
  • #13
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
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 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...
 
  • #14
Smurf
396
3
Pengwuino said:
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?
 
  • #15
hypatia
1,189
9
Just the words "Bush doctrine" make me feel all sick inside.
 
  • #16
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
Smurf said:
not a fan of history?

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

or Michael Moore :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
 
  • #17
pattylou
303
0
As a scare tactic it's pretty short sighted.
 
  • #18
SOS2008
Gold Member
38
1
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:
  • #19
pattylou
303
0
Yeah. Or: "Up your dubya."
 
  • #20
Yaaks
39
2
WHY?? of all policies...
SAD!
 
  • #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:
  • #22
Yaaks
39
2
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...
 
  • #23
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.
 
  • #24
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
20,866
4,838
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:
 
  • #25
pattylou
303
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.
 
  • #26
pattylou
303
0
Astronuc said:
... 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:

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. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
  • #27
Anttech
228
0
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...
 
  • #28
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
20,866
4,838
pattylou said:
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. :rolleyes:
 
  • #29
pattylou
303
0
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.
 
  • #30
motai
358
2
pattylou said:
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!"

:grumpy:

Not a particularly wise move in my opinion, but then again, I'm not the one making the decisions.
 
  • #31
SOS2008
Gold Member
38
1
pattylou said:
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. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
What Bush's belligerence has been causing is nuclear proliferation, so perhaps more likened to an arms race worldwide.
 
  • #32
LURCH
Science Advisor
2,557
118
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?
 
  • #33
pattylou
303
0
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.)
 
  • #34
Manchot
473
4
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.
 
  • #35
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,802
5
Astronuc said:
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. :rolleyes:

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.
 

Suggested for: Preemptive nuclear attack

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
239
Replies
4
Views
436
Replies
3
Views
333
Replies
3
Views
293
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
402
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
448
Replies
7
Views
573
  • Last Post
23
Replies
794
Views
20K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
830
Top