U.S. Works Up Plans for Using Nuclear Arms 1253
rjrjr writes: "The L.A. Times reports on the DoD's new stance on the use of nukes, including such comforting notions as nuclear bunker busters. What it all means is well explored in this cogent commentary."
Re:Good thing (Score:1, Interesting)
Otherwise, during Desert Storm, IIRC it was actually the British who made it most clear that Baghdad could kiss its a$$ goodbye, should they consider to launch anything more lethal at Israel. They had Tridents on standby in the eastern miditerranean. Ol' Margaret is not the kind of woman to mess with
Re:We need to plan ahead (Score:2, Interesting)
Second, other states have now a new argument for developing their own nuclear weapons. Before, having nuclear weapons was not very smart, as then the USA could use their own nuclear weapons against this nation. Now, the USA says it could use nuclear weapons against all other nations, no mattter if they have nuclear weapons or not. So developing own nucelar weapons can now somwhat be a defensiv tactic ("So they will see we can defend ourselves")
Third, which nation is going to attack the USA with nuclear weapons??? Sorry, only terrorist groups could do that, even Saddam is smart enough to not do that. And nuclear weapons will only help the terrorist in their try to present themselves as VICTIMS. They are not, of course, but if suddenly the USA uses nuclear weapons against, let's say the Iran, maybe some million people will then think phrases like "the USA are devil and they kill innocent people" aren't that wrong, and the terrorist have won new supporters.
- WSK
Didn't you ever see Dr. Strangelove? (Score:3, Interesting)
Same principle here. The message is being sent through an orchestrated leak.
-Isaac
Justified Usage (Score:3, Interesting)
But, I'm not sorry. In fact, I'm quite happy about this. Let's say we find a small pox lab in Iraq. We know they have it. They know we know. What's to stop them from using it?
A 50-megaton nuke pointed at Baghdad, that's what.
For fuck's sake wake up and smell the truth. The world is not , has never been, nor probably ever will be a nice place. Peace is purchased with superior firepower.
NEVER forget that.
Knunov
B.S. in Comp. Sci from UNC@Chapel Hill [unc.edu] - Oracle DBA, Novell CNE, and UNIX/Linux/BSD administrator/user/enthusiast. I was also a Captain in the U.S.M.C. [usmc.mil], MOS - Infantry - Force Recon, 1st Battalion [forcerecon.com].
So, unlike the vocal majority of computer geeks here, this geek actually has a clue about warfare.
Nobody should be surprised... (Score:5, Interesting)
From my time studying with them, it was evident that they were desperate for a nuclear policy shift. Some of their reasoning behind this was sound, other elements are not well conceived. Some key elements of their philosophy include:
Nuclear weapons are weapons/tools, just like any other. Just because nuclear weapons are "nuclear", does not mean that they are qualitatively different from other weapons. Fuel Air Explosives can lead to nasty metal poisoning incidents in their target areas - often more environmentally unfriendly than a low-yield nuclear airburst. A modern reduced-blast warhead (aka the neutron bomb, a wholly inaccurate name) produces an immense quantity of prompt radiation that tends not to stick around, and next to no residual/secondary radiation, and almost no fallout (assuming you use it carefully - fallout is a result of the fireball touching dirt sucked up from the ground, and can be avoided). There are some targets that are inaccessible to anything but nuclear weapons; during my time in SMSU, this included some structures in Libya and North Korea.
Deterrent theory relies upon the belief that you will use the weapons, and for that belief to be credibly instilled, you must be prepared to use them should whatever line-in-the-sand you create be crossed. I was personally surprised not to see a tac-nuke strike on Tora Bora for this reason; a tenet of deterrent policy had been that a large-scale assault on mainland America would result in maximum retribution. In the Gulf War, when Bush Snr. Administration officials spoke of "maximum retallation" to chemical use, everyone assumed that meant "nuclear" (as it happens, Bush Snr. had removed that option from the table - see below) - otherwise, the question remains "what are you going to bomb that you wouldn't have bombed anyway?" [hint: the answer is "nothing". Iraq actually thought that they were under nuclear assault at one point, and that didn't change anything from their perspective].
Arms Control Is Always Bad. A particularly strongly held viewpoint (ironic, given that Van Cleave negotiated parts of the ABM Treaty, and Dr. Crouch worked on Start) is that arms control will always fail. Prof. Colin Gray has written some texts explaining this idea (in particular, "why arms control must fail"), and these make informative (if scary) reading. The argument may be summarized as "arms control cannot work when you need it" - that is, in order to agree on meaningful (and enforced) arms control, both countries must be starting to like one another anyway - so it doesn't help; if they come up with something without making real progress, violations become major relationship sticking points (see Krasnoyarsk...)
American Hegemony. Most of the people with whom I worked at DSS are believers that moving towards a unipolar world-model is a good idea (I disagree strongly, but thats because I'm a whiny European...). They tend to frame this argument in two ways. The first is entirely domestic in nature: if the US doesn't rule the world, it will turn to isolationism. This argument is not strong, since it assumes a total lack of sophistication among US policymakers, most of whom were able to handle selective engagement without becoming overly confused. The second is much more terrifying, and can be seen as an extension of Manifest Destiny theory. Basically, they see the US as being a paragon of virtue and believe that the US should "help" the rest of the world live within a mutually prosperous (read: US exploited) Pax Americana. This is no different from the colonial eras of any other nation, but I don't recommend telling them that. :-|
Readiness. Americans, and the American military, are not prepared for the horrors that could accompany a nuclear war. Indeed, most brances of the US military tend to regard the idea of nuclear use as being so "out there" that they refuse to even plan for it. The Navy's nuclear policy used to consist of stating that "in the event of nuclear war, all bets are off". It is important to persuade planners that nuclear use is possible (even likely, as more and more groups gain access to basic fission weapons), and at least come up with some form of credible, planned response. 9/11 was bad, but it does not even approximate the devastation that a 220kT warhead would have inflicted if detonated above the WTC; likewise, the Navy needs to recognize that it doesn't take many nukes to stop an entire Carrier Battle Group.
There will also be some interesting in-Pentagon dynamics associated with this. There are some very strong anti-nuclear movements within the Pentagon, and a policy review of this type represents early shots in what can be expected to be a protracted political conflict. During the Gulf War, Dr. Crouch was instrumental in persuading the Pentagon to perform a feasability study regarding the use of Tactical Nuclear Weapons against Iraqi forces; the report that came back was drafted by anti-nuclear elements, and claimed that more than 2,000 nuclear weapons would be needed to soften up the Republican Guard, with unspeakable consequences. The report itself was badly written, but it did the trick: Bush Snr. removed the nuclear option from the table.
Expect similar infighting on this issue. In particular, remember that the services don't like nuclear weapons. Navy ships with nukes on board are a fast-track to fewer cushy officer jobs (because one slip-up means end of career). Likewise, the Navy hate the fact that their big ships in blue water policy is very vulnerable to nuclear attack. The Air Force don't like nukes because a recognition of possible attack requires strip alerts for bombers (or extreme vulnerability - take your pick). Additionally, the Air Force dislike ballistic missiles because it means fewer pilots. The Army and Marines would be expected to run through the immediate results of nuclear strikes in some cases, so its easy to see why they don't like it very much!
Craziness.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Radiation not that bad (Score:3, Interesting)
It would be nice if there was a conventional explosive without any long-term residuals, but unfortunately there isn't (yet).
Check this [rerf.or.jp] out for a study done by the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare on the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Basically, people in the initial blast zone are (obviously) fucked. Survivor's offspring will show a huge spike in cases of leukemia, and small spikes in other cancer types. The grandchildren of survivors show close to baseline birth defects, meaning nothing statistically significant.
And these are people living on the actual ground that is contaminated.
This study could be bullshit, but it's done by a Japanese organization, along with the U.S.
Knunov
Re:First off.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Me neither, but concentrating solely on our defense ignores the larger and important issue of why do they hate us? Sure, some of their reasons aren't justified, but others are. So instead of spending billions on helping our neighbors and making the world a better place, we think only of our own short-term interests, piss everyone off with our exploitation, and then end up spending trillions on self defense. Everybody loses in the end.... they end up destitute, miserable, and hate-filled, we end up poorer and insecure despite our massive military spending, and the world ends up polluted, unfriendly, and in constant danger of terrorism and nuclear destruction.
The US's refusal to see beyond its own commercial/political interests and become a true citizen of the world comes back to haunt it in a thousand different ways. Maintaining a huge nuclear arsenal and pretending that it will make us 'safe' is a dangerous distraction that keeps us from focussing on the real solution -- helping the rest of the world solve its problems and improve its lot, so that we are no longer hated, and thus we no longer need vast mililtary capabilities. Every dollar we spend helping the world improves our security more than a thousand dollars spent on weaponry.
Re:Didn't you ever see Dr. Strangelove? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, it's common knowledge amongst policymakers worldwide that US policy is "You use a WMD (weapon of mass destruction) on us, we use one on you - and all we have are nukes. So to us a nuke is a radiological weapon is nerve gas is a biological. Remember that." We've only been saying it for _40 years_.
This was intentionally leaked. To make clear to SH that the same rules still apply, and that use of chem/bio weapons on US troops really _will_ be met with nuclear weapons.
Go read the background before you make statements like the above, please. You really don't know what you're talking about.
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't it a lovely contradiction that America (the fisrt to develop, and only to use atomic/nuclear weapons) goes around talking about how these "rogue regimes" are developing weapons of mass destruction. We've proven our willingness to use them, so how do we get off saying that countries with similar strategies are terrorists?
If we simply go around threatening any country developing "WOMD", it will just encourage them to work harder so that the 800Lb gorilla will get off their backs.
Re:Japan (Score:1, Interesting)
Before hiroshima, there was almost no possible way for the Japanese to surrender, as half of the cabinet was completely against any form of surrender. It took the unprecedented role of the emperor to finally end it.
But then again with an issue like this why bother with accuracy, its far better to just do it with emotion.
Re:Ugh (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Japan (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Ugh (Score:2, Interesting)
The United States was ready to use atomic weapons in Taiwan if Communist China invaded in the 50s and 60s, the Soviets nearly used them during the '59-'60 border war with China and China nearly used them during the 1980 invasion of Vietman.
The Reagan administration offered to use a nuke to "warn" the Soviets in oh, '81-'82.
And the best non-use of nuclear weapons was when the Soviets asked the United States for permission to nuke the Chinese nuclear facilities and even offered to have a joint nuking of the site. Nixon declined.
I'm sure there were more events than these that the Americans, French, Chinese and Russian talked about using nukes, but I can't think of anymore.
Re:It is a good plan (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Insanity. (Score:2, Interesting)
The points on which I differ are as follows:
China is unlikely to start a cold war with America as it's making too much of a profit from the present circumstances.
Russia is equally unlikely for the converse reason - it is too poor, and has become heavily dependent on the US-influenced IMF.
North Korea, however, is a definite possibility. But then it just about qualifies as being in a cold war as matters stand.
But what this would trigger would be a global political backlash against the US administration, both outside, and I would like to believe, inside the US itself. Nobody wants nukes to be used except in the utmost extremity. It sets a terrifying precedent.
I would like to believe that even the UK and Canada might pull out of backing the US should it take such action. Fortunately, even with the Toxic Texan at the controls, the odds of nukes being used are still very slim as I see them.
Re:We need to plan ahead (Score:1, Interesting)
Scientists: please help arm Iraq, Iran & N. Ko (Score:1, Interesting)
Unfortunately, there is only one way to prevent this sort of a global catastrophe, and it's pretty counterintuitive: Iraq, Iran, North Korea must develop a large arsenal of nuclear warheads and ICBMs ASAP. If the Pentagon understands that the deaths of millions of its people, and trillions in damages, are the price of unchecked agression, it will think twice. It appears our government understands nothing else--for example, diplomacy.
If you are a nuclear or rocket scientist and you want to do something profoundly good for the world, please help out the bomb programs in underprivilidged countries. I'm serious. In North Korea, for example, a defector with nuclear secrets would be treated like a king. You'd be in a position to protect the lives of millions of innocent people.
Though not all history textbooks recognize this yet, the handfull of spies who passed nuclear secrets from Los Alamos to the Soviet Union are some of the world's most important heros of the last century. I can't think of anyone who has done more to protect the world's security. (WWII heroism is peanuts in comparison.) Without the balance of mutual assured destruction, nuclear bombs would have certainly been used at some point in our conflict with Communism.
We are now in the same situation we faced before the USSR developed a bombs program. One side (ours) has the power, and obviously the will, to sterilize entire countries. It's quite clear they are prepared to do it if there is no deterrance. I hope that the people qualified to build such a deterrance understand it is their moral duty to do so. I assume some of them even read Slashdot.
Re:Japan (Score:0, Interesting)
Re:!st post? (Score:2, Interesting)
No one likes us, don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
All around, even our good friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens
We give them money, but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us, so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them
Asia's crowded, Europe's too old
Africa's far too hot and Canada's too cold
South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one, there'll be no one left to blame us
We'll save Australia... Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All-American amusement park there
They got surfin' too.
Boom goes London, Boom Paree.
More room for you and more room for me
And every city, the whole world 'round
Will just be another American town
Oh how peaceful it'll be, we'll set everybody free
You wear a Japanese kimono, babe it'll be Italian shoes for me
They all hate us anyhow, so let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now
Of course with the "Shadow Government" and spaces in an atomic bunker for all the "important folks" I guess us plebes have nothing to worry about.... Our government will survive..... as for the REST of the planet, well.....
MAB
Unconditional surrender (Score:0, Interesting)
So, Japan was run by a bunch of military invaders who had in 1930 invaded mainland China's Manchuria (and by 1945 a "happy" part of Japan's Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere", notwithstanding the bayonetting, live mass burials and such) and had been able at Port Arthur in 1905 to launch and win a sneak attack against a naval base (this time belonging to Imperial Russia). Do you think anything less than "unconditional surrender" would have prevented a subsequent post-war successor to the Empire of Japan from another war? Even with a US occupation after WWII, the Japanese never taught their school children about the wartime atrocities of Japanese Imperial troops, and even today are in massive denial (look at their school history texts describing the "expansion" of Japan onto the mainland in the 1930's, rather than the truth of such actions, or the use of prisoners of war for lethal medical experimentation).
Unconditional surrender of the Axis powers was necessary to avoid what was expected to be yet another war in a few decades, as "The War To End All Wars", subsequently renamed WWI had been followed by "WWII: New! Improved! Nuclear!"
Aggressive militaristic dictatorial superpowers do not co-exist well with children and other living things. That's why we had the Cold War, and why the best thing that's happened since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 is the People's Republic of China following the traditional slogan of Chinese New Year (literally: "Let's all get rich!").
Anything less than unconditional surrender of Japan, which had followed the unconditional surrender of Fascist Italy and the Nazi Third Reich, would have planted the seeds for just another war another generation later, at least in the eyes of the people who were winning WWII after having fought and won WWI.
Re:Insanity. (Score:3, Interesting)
You honestly think that Canada would back the US use of nuclear weapons? NO FREAKING WAY. We are currently undecided about ANY attack on Iraq, and we are FAR more liberal up here than either the US or Britain.
Re:Japan (Score:5, Interesting)
Japan and the US are allies because one nuked the other???
Japan is our ally only because it is in their (our) political interest, because it is treated with relative respect by the US, and becuse it still believes that the US is a force for peace and stability in the world.
But the Japanese have never forgotten or forgiven the use of the atomic bomb. People are still dying from the aftereffects, and these people (the bakugaisha) are still major news items here.
If Bush is looking to scuttle the US-Japan relationship, use of ANY KIND of nukes is a perfect way to accomplish this. Don't get any illusions that Japan is the US's permanent ally.
Why the Yanks really dropped the bomb (Score:4, Interesting)
What happened was that when the Germans invaded Poland, the Russians moved in & took the Eastern half - Mad Adulf & Uncle Joe had got Ribbentrop & Molotov to work this senario out, when they were together signing their little non-agression pact, earlier on. After the invasion the Poles formed a 'Goverment in Exile' in France, which later moved to the UK. The Western allies recognised them as the official Polish goverment. Meanwhile the Russians had made their own Polish Communist cronies form their own Polish Goverment in Eastern Poland, which they had intergrated into USSR as another Soviet Republic (well what was left of Eastern Poland after they gave a bit to the Belarus SSR, & another bit to the Ukrainian SSR). Well after Operation Barbarossa (the German invasion of Russia), these Polish communists were forced to run back to Uncle Joe in Moscow, & form their own Polish 'Goverment in Exile' in Russia proper. So now we had 2 Polish Goverments in exile.
Well any way, during their many pow-wows together, FDR, Winnie & Uncle Joe finally agreed that the post war Polish Goverment should include representitives from both Polish pretenders, in London & Lublin. By arround the Summer of '44 Hitler's panzers were in full retreat & there were already Soviet T34s' rolling into the suburbs of Warsaw, across the Vistula from Warsaw proper. The Russian radio stations were beaming across the frontier telling the Poles to revolt, to speed up their liberation from the Nasis'. The Polish exiles in London saw their chance & ordered the Home Army in Poland to revolt against the German occupiers. A funny thing then happen, the Red Army all of a sudden ground to a halt at the Vistula, thereby giving the Germans a free hand to crush the Warsaw Uprising. Once the Uprising was over the Russian T34 tanks then moved forward again & 'liberated' Warsaw. Stalin then 'forgot' about his agreament, & had his Lublin exiles form a goverment on their own. When some of the London exiles flew over to join them, having no Home Army to protect them, they promptly dissappeared. Winnie & FDR (& later Truman) were enraged.
Meanwhile in the Pacific, things weren't going well for the Japanese, & by the early Summer of '45 & the German defeat, they knew there time was up. So the Imperial Goverment started to send out surrender feelers to the allies, via the Russian & Swiss Embassies (Russian did not enter the war with Japan till August) - this was 3 months before Hiroshima. They included only one condition amongst their surrender terms - that they be aloud to keep their Emporer. These were rejected, even though (as the secret war ministry documents show) the US had already decided that the Japanese could keep their Emporer after the war; as it would then be less likely for a communist Goverment to form there. Seeing as Stalin had agreed years earlier, that he would enter the war against Japan, 3 months after Germany surrended, you can see why Truman & Churchill were so concern. Especially when you considered what happened with Poland.
Well any way beacause of what Stalin did to Poland, Churchill & Truman decided to show that they had 'Mojo' to equal Stalins red Army 'Mojo' (you got to remember that the Western Armies were nothing compared to the Red Army then - to every German Soldier fighting the Western allies, there were another 10 fighting on the Eastern front - there was no way even D-Day would have been successful if the Russians werent tying down so many German men. Plus the allies had nothing to compare with the 1000s' of Russian T34, KV & JS tanks, other than almost obsolete Shermans, & much smaller numbers too.). So Churchill obliterated Dresden with his 'Mojo' - RAF's Bomber Command, & Truman was advised by Stimson or paterson (I forget which) to reject Japans surrender feelers, so he could demenstrate his 'Mojo', through nuking Hiroshima & Nagasaki.
The War Ministry papers also show that the nukes, were not even the main reason for their unconditional surrender to the US, but just a face saving way out, as the Russians had by now entered the war against Japan & Marshal Zukhov's Red armies had just Blitzkreiged the whole of Manchuria & Korea, & also crossed over & taken Sakhalin & the Kuril Islands, so were now within sight of Japan itself. After taking 2 million Japanese prisoners, including over 150 generals & 'liberating' more land from Japanese occupation than the Americans, Australians & British had in the previous 4 years of war. There was one thing the Japanese top brass feared more than unconditional surrender to the Americans, & that was an invasion by the Red Army.
Another swaying facter in the droping of the bomb was that it cost 2 billion to develop, & Truman was worried what the publics reaction would be if the secret of the bomb (& its cost) ever came out, without him actually using it. Afterall news of the Baatam death march, etc, had just filtered through to the American public in the preceeding months.
War is war, & the reality is there's no rules in war but the rules of the victors. Afterall Dresden, Hiroshima & Nagasaki was just as bad as any of the 'war crimes' of the Nasis or the Nips - mind you, revenge is sweet.
Thats why I dont beleive Japan should have to pay compensation for war crimes (such as what the British veterans & the Korean woman want), otherwise the US should have to pay compensation for the nukes, & the Brits for Dresden etc. Also it was up to the goverments of the day to set reparation claims when Japans signed formal peace traeties with the 48 allied nations in '52. In other words the Korean Women & the British veterans etc should really be now sueing their own goverments now & not Japan, as those govts signed over those rights in 52.
BTW, this is not revisionist history as I'm not trying to put todays slant on past events, using modern attitudes. As I said before this all came out when the British war ministry released many documents that were classified under the 50 year rule.
The return of battlefield nuclear artillery (Score:3, Interesting)
The Soviet have 150-mm nuclear tactical warhead to be fired from a regular 150-mm artillery gun. These warheads are supposed to have a yield of less than a kiloton. The Soviet forces also have nuclear landmines, presumably to blow up large infrastructures.
The US have 155-mm nuclear artillery, such as the W-48 warhead [brook.edu], with a very low yield (less than 0.1 kiloton).
So I fail to see what's so new, exciting and dangerous about deployment of tactical, low yield nukes. Such dangerous gadget have been deployed since the fifties. Just because the poster did not know about it does not make it new.
To be exhaustive, NATO claims that all nuclear artillery shells and tactical surface warheads (anti-ship and anti-submarines) were eliminated between 1991 and 1993 [nato.int]. So this article merely suggest that these weapons are returning to the Western arsenal.
Re:Yesterday's News (Score:1, Interesting)
To continue:
A. Nuclear weapons are simply the easiest way to deter an attack, and to halt a possibly ongoing attack. (Does Japan ring a bell?)
B. The report was leaked. I do not know whether or not the leak was intentional, but our "allies",
especially Russia and China have known we have always had contingency plans like this, and they would have to be stupid to not have their own.
C. You got me on that one.
D. The attack on 9/11 was incredibly effective!
Around here (Madison, WI), there is a lot of sentiment that we should just stop influencing events in the Middle East, and I imagine most cities have a similar point of view. That is what Al-Qaeda wants. Do not get me wrong, though. I do not agree with what they did at all. I merely understand why they did it. I'm also willing to bet there is a lot of support for what they did in the Muslim-dominated countries. To them, it was 100% right, to us, 100% wrong. Can you tell me who has the right opinion and who doesn't?
As for me being part of the problem, I'll agree with you on that. People who accept certain realities, like me, are not going to fix anything.
I am unfortunately no idealist.
Feel free to email me if you want to continue!
Re:Ugh (Score:1, Interesting)
I think the U.S. developed nuclear weapons because it was believed the Nazis were trying to build an atomic bomb to win the war and take over the world. What reason does North Korea have?