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.