Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
United States

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

U.S. Works Up Plans for Using Nuclear Arms

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Good thing (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10, 2002 @02:54PM (#3138481)
    "Dessert Storm"? What did they do - fling strawberry pies at each other? :D

    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 ;)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10, 2002 @02:58PM (#3138500)
    Well, but there are also a few bad points about their plans. First of all, the alliances may break over this (China, Russia), and if you like it or not, the USA isn't alone on the whole planet, and the USA cannot do everything alone, they need alliances.

    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
  • by isaac ( 2852 ) on Sunday March 10, 2002 @03:02PM (#3138522)
    The Russians built a "doomsday device" as a deterrent to nuclear aggression - but they kept it secret. Dr. Strangelove points out (as it becomes apparent that the world is, well, f*cked) that "the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost if you keep it a secret!"

    Same principle here. The message is being sent through an orchestrated leak.


  • Justified Usage (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Knunov ( 158076 ) <eat@my.ass> on Sunday March 10, 2002 @03:04PM (#3138534) Homepage
    I suppose this is where I'm supposed to be apologetic for my desire to live and distrust of nations that have shown time and time and time again that they aren't really very nice people.

    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.


    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.
  • by TheBracket ( 307388 ) on Sunday March 10, 2002 @03:13PM (#3138580) Homepage
    I studied with several people who have been involved (at differing levels) in this policy shift. In particular, Undersecretary of Defense J.D. Crouch and several of his former students from the Department of Defense & Strategic Studies at SMSU. Unsurprisingly, this is an extremely right wing department; its founder, Van Cleave, was basically rejected for SecDef by Reagan on the grounds that he was too much of a militant extremist!

    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)

    by dj28 ( 212815 ) on Sunday March 10, 2002 @03:17PM (#3138599)
    The posts I have seen so far are completely rediculous to me. They contain catch-phrases such as "Bush Domination." A lot of these posters fail to face reality. The nations listed have a vested interest in destroying the USA. China wants Taiwan and the others are self-evident. The second part of the article just explains that Bush wants to develop SMALLER nuclear weapons to use in tactical situations (i.e. to use on cave conplexes akin to those found in Afghanistan). These tactical nuclear weapons are far less destructive and can be used in smaller areas to reduce the amount of unintended deaths. I see this as a good thing personally. I think the slashdot community is going to take an anti-defense/anti-american stance on any controversial issue without even thinking about the ramifications of said issue. Please think this out rationally without resorting to the typical anti-american knee-jerk reactions.
  • by Knunov ( 158076 ) <eat@my.ass> on Sunday March 10, 2002 @03:29PM (#3138649) Homepage
    The long-term effects of radiation aren't as bad as some people would have you think. It doesn't take thousands of years to make the area liveable.

    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.

  • Re:First off.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jeremi ( 14640 ) on Sunday March 10, 2002 @03:48PM (#3138744) Homepage
    Do you like the idea of people who HATE us and our allies having nukes and us (and our allies) not? I sure don't

    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.

  • by cprael ( 215426 ) on Sunday March 10, 2002 @03:55PM (#3138777)
    Then you don't know very much about nuclear weapons targetting and policy. Short version. For every country, there exists a nuclear targetting package. Or packages. Sometimes LOTS of them. Hell, there are contigency nuclear targetting packages for Canada and Mexico, for ghods sake.

    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)

    by earlytime ( 15364 ) on Sunday March 10, 2002 @04:04PM (#3138820) Homepage
    "North Korea ... is developing weapons of mass destruction."
    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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10, 2002 @04:22PM (#3138928)
    They were perhaps doing this when the nagasaki bomb was droped, but not publically.

    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)

    by grunchman ( 563340 ) on Sunday March 10, 2002 @04:26PM (#3138947)
    The US gov has always considered using the Bomb on non-nuclear powers. (Japan wasn't nuclear) In Korea in the 1950s the American government considered the use of the Bomb really early in the war (it was already being discussed two weeks into the conflict), even before Chinese "volunteers" got involved. In December 1951 MacArthur was begging to use the bomb. later in life we said "I would have dropped between 30 and 50 atomic bombs... strung across the neck of Manchuria." He then claimed that he would have "spread behind us -from the Sea of Japan to the Yellow Sea- a belt of radioactive cobalt... For at least 60 years there could have been no land invasion of Korea from the North." The Joint Chiefs of Staff and even Truman were all considering the use of the bomb. Their major problem was not having anything big enough to point it at (guerrilla fighters generally don't bunch together). Probably another reason for building smaller bombs. The US gov has always considered nukes an option, even if the enemy is non-nuclear. If they feel they could do it without severe repricussions, they would.
  • Re:Japan (Score:1, Interesting)

    by grunchman ( 563340 ) on Sunday March 10, 2002 @04:56PM (#3139085)
    History: The US wasn't willing to accept negotiation. They demanded UNCONDITIONAL surrender. Japanese peace feelers had been extended to Russia (by a Japanese prince, I believe) but no one was willing to talk. Japanese moderates were waiting for assurances that they could have peace before attempting the difficult task of overthrowing the radical militants. And even if a bomb did have to be used, why wasn't a Japanese entourage invited to watch the detination of a Bomb on some deserted island. The sight of a detination should have been enough to frighten them into peace without slaughtering thousands of civilians.
  • Re:Ugh (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Wyatt Earp ( 1029 ) on Sunday March 10, 2002 @05:19PM (#3139182)
    The United States also consuled with NATO, Australia and South Korea about using tactical nukes during the sieges of Hue City and Khe Sanh and recently it's come out that Nixon wanted to use them in to bring North Vietnam to the Peace Talks.

    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)

    by teakillsnoopy ( 516514 ) on Sunday March 10, 2002 @05:20PM (#3139189)
    By your logic...The US has weapons of mass destruction, so if China wants to point nukes at the US, that's fine, cause China is just detering the Americans. Also, we should set up an international alliance against the US, and have UN weapons inspectors allowed to see everything the pentegon is doing. Sounds crazy? It sure is, so why do so many agree with it when it's done against Iraq. Oh yeah, Sadam eats babies.
  • Re:Insanity. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by lohen ( 122373 ) on Sunday March 10, 2002 @05:50PM (#3139363) Homepage
    I agree with the crux of your judgement, which is that actually using nuclear weapons will be of no benefit to the US. The only possible scenario in which it makes sense for any leader to use nuclear weapons is in response to nuclear weapons. In fact, even that would be disastrous in the event, but as a deterrent it's worked very well so far.

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10, 2002 @05:57PM (#3139402)
    uuh..dude...hate to break it to you but if the US alone or china and russia alone used just the nukes they have in their arsenals the world would be reduced to glowing dust 4-5 times over. never underestimate the power of a fission boosted fusion weapon. A-Bombs are passe compared to the 20 megaton MLRS H-Bomb packages loaded on ICBMs today.
  • by Dr. Spork ( 142693 ) on Sunday March 10, 2002 @06:04PM (#3139437)
    OK, this is pretty horrible. Apparently, the US wants to once again nuke countries that are unable to respond in kind. As an American, I am totally disgusted with these policies. To be honest, the world was much, much safer during the cold war, when every US nuclear attack (against anyone) would draw a nuclear response from the USSR. Because we knew it, we behaved. China, Russia, India and other nuclear powers apparently don't have the balls to say "we will nuke those who launch a first nuclear strike." Basically, the rule now is: every country for itself. This is the only reason that the US thinks it's again a good idea to fire off nuclear weapons.

    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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10, 2002 @06:09PM (#3139460)
    Wow, I never thought about that before. I guess targetting civilians isn't such a bad thing after all. Makes me feel kinda different about September 11...
  • Re:!st post? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by markbark ( 174009 ) on Sunday March 10, 2002 @07:26PM (#3139816) Homepage
    Reminds me of the oddly prophetic lyrics of Randy Newman's "Political Science"

    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.....


  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10, 2002 @08:05PM (#3139971)
    was not required of Germany in 1918, and by 1936 (the Ruhr valley and the later Austrian "Anschluss") Germany was back in the business of grabbing territory, prequels to Czechoslovakia, Poland and as much else as they could grab by force and terror.

    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)

    by ShieldWolf ( 20476 ) <jeffrankine@nets[ ]e.net ['cap' in gap]> on Sunday March 10, 2002 @09:24PM (#3140254)
    "The west" would suddenly find itself reduced to "US, Canada, UK"

    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)

    by Squeeze Truck ( 2971 ) <xmsho@yahoo.com> on Sunday March 10, 2002 @10:14PM (#3140435) Homepage
    You mean like Japan, who after having 2 Made in the U.S.A. nukes dropped on their heads, are one of our best business partners as well as political allies?

    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.
  • by DABANSHEE ( 154661 ) on Sunday March 10, 2002 @11:18PM (#3140669)
    Arround August '95, the British Home Office & Foreign office, released many 1000s' of documents (classified under the official secrets act),pertaining to the war, as their 50 year status had expired - There maybe many other secrets about the war, we have yet to find out about, as apparently there are many other documents that were classified for 100 years.

    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.

  • by SysKoll ( 48967 ) on Monday March 11, 2002 @12:07AM (#3140905)
    Accordingly, the NPR calls for new emphasis on developing such things as nuclear bunker-busters and surgical "warheads that reduce collateral damage," as well as weapons that could be used against smaller, more circumscribed targets--"possible modifications to existing weapons to provide additional yield flexibility," in the jargon-rich language of the review.

    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.

    -- SysKoll
  • Re:Yesterday's News (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 11, 2002 @12:48AM (#3141068)
    I know that because I can read your posts. I also like the fact that you insult me because I don't have an account. It lends a great amount of credence and respect to your argument. Here is my email address: jb@deadinternet.org. Now I am not so anonymous.

    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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 11, 2002 @05:19AM (#3141741)
    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.

    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?

Experience varies directly with equipment ruined.