This is seriously worrying

Is everyone aware that this policy is geared towards the use of a low-yeold tactical weapon akin to a dialed-down B-61, and not a full-on thermonuclear Minuteman barrage?

When dialled down they generate rather more radiation than normal…

Lowering the drinking age always leads to more road deaths… lowering the nuclear threshold will at the very least make many more countries on this planet seek nuclear weapons capability… even if they aren’t already. I think you will find these nukes won’t be used against countries that already have nukes…

Can everyone imagine the US response if any out-of-favour nation were to use “a low-yield tactical weapon akin to a dialed-down B-61” against a US interest at home or overseas? :rolleyes:

Is everyone aware that this policy is geared towards the use of a low-yeold tactical weapon akin to a dialed-down B-61, and not a full-on thermonuclear Minuteman barrage?

Scene changes to a wedding party,moves into the Bar.Three friends,shortly to be sent to Nam,see a returning Green Beret at the end of the bar.With great enthusiasm,a toast is made to him.His reply is “F++k it”
“History” repeating itself :confused:

Ahh! GWB: the greatest disaster in American History.

Sure, if he meant that missiles were actually in the process of being fueled and armed. Theoretically the US is like 40 minutes away from a nuclear strike at all times as well.

So we have established a threat time of 40 minutes or so… so to be preemptive how long is the decision making process and at what point and with how much evidence is the nuclear decision made? As I pointed out US intelligence fkd up twice… underestimating and then over estimating a threat. One was a direct result of the other. (ie the over estimation was because they’d been wrong before and they didn’t want to make that same mistake again)… (should point out I don’t blame them for the former… no body else saw 11/9 coming.. but I seriously blame them for the second as no one else saw Saddam as a threat to anyone but Iraq.)

If Country A is threatened by Country B, and Country A uses a low-yield nuclear weapon as a pre-emptive self defense measure, what does what Country C thinks about it matter, especially when they’re thousands of miles removed from the AOR?

When was the last time the US was threatened by a country?

Are you trying to reduce costs? An ICBM launch would be much cheaper than maintaining a Carrier force… Thirdly if Country A starts such a policy then other countries will also no doubt start such a policy to keep parity. Such a lowering of the Nuclear threshold is not actually a healthy thing… especially when you have the ability to effect the same result with conventional means.

I see, so one theoretical error in Iraq means that every single intelligence estimate, etc, has been rendered totally and completely false. Is that it?

TWO errors in judgement. Imagine if this current policy was in force when those two incidents occured…

Assessments are educated guesses. Expecting every assessment to be 100% irrefutable fact is ludicrous.

It certainly is, but then the Bush administration didn’t just suspect Saddam had WMDs, they were adamant he had them… though at the same time didn’t know where they were, or could not direct international inspectors to where they were… yet they still invaded…

Overestimating what? We still haven’t found the unaccounted for SCUD launchers to my knowledge.

Yes, a SCUD is a huge threat to the US… The SCUD launchers were destroyed under the agreements reached after DS.

And at least one terrorist IED has been proven to have been a WMD-filled artillery shell. Where did that come from exactly?

So Saddam has hundreds of tons of WMDs to several years of fighting leading to one confirmed case of a single WMD shell being used… can you see the problem there? I’d guess even Iran has more than one WMD filled shell in its arsenal… when do ICBMs start raining on them?

Perhaps this policy is because the airforce is afraid that Iranian S-300s and F-14s might not be an easy nut to crack afterall.

But, at the end of the day, when speaking of foreign governments the US government does not have to answer to anyone but US voters. Same goes for any other nation.

Look forward to US state department officials condemning any other country that take a similar stance and calling them rogue nations…

What a holier than thou attitude Bush has, we’re now the only country in the entire world advocating the first use of nuclear weapons. Don’t think that doesn’t notch up the tension a bit.

Once that threshold is crossed………………………………..

Good reply Sean.

Should we go back to building schools and improving the infrastructure in Iraq…?

Well, yes. You don’t have to, but if you stick to military ‘solutions’ only, you’ll be embroiled in a fight for a long time. Until you quit. Remember Vietnam? We do, in Australia. Remember Malaya? Remember Korea? Remember Algeria? There’s only been one sucessful ‘anti-terrorist’ war and that depended on hears and minds – with military backup.

Sure you have to try and deal with ‘insurgets’ – but until you have the perople of a country on side, you are going to lose. That’s why hearts and minds is vital.

I would certainly hope that the US has a better track record than the Iraqi ‘insurgents’. However, I wouldn’tget to comfortable. The USA’s human rights record isn’t very good at all (and neither is the UKs or Australia’s either).

Terrorism is the result of pressure on people who have little other choice. Until there is an exit with dignity, the fighting will continue. The ‘war on terrorism’ is an absurdity, because it’s simply not possible to kill the last terrorist. Each death creates more hate and motivation.

I resent the fact that you seem to think that all America desires to do is detonate things.

Quite right too – it’s an unfair view. I did also say that the US and Americans can and are very generous – but there is rather a view that making a big bang will finish a problem. Actually it NEVER does. It’s what you do with people after or around the big bang that counts. If the Hawks had had their way in Japan in ’46 we’d be in a nice pickle.

Speaking in nuclear terms, the US has actually ‘blown up’ more of the rest of the world than anyone else, Sean. In non-Nuclear terms you’ve dropped more bombs on more places than anyone else. There are reasons for that, good and bad, but tonnage? therms? It’s your palm.

Best wishes

If you can’t shoot it, subvert it or blow it up, American know-how seems to be exhausted.

Should we go back to building schools and improving the infrastructure in Iraq and ignore the idiots shooting at us and trying to blow us up? A great deal of work in Iraq was accomplished right after the war. Then the insurgency began to gain steam. Now we’re back to fighting a bunch of Islamic extremists. I resent the fact that you seem to think that all America desires to do is detonate things. Given the laundry list of accomlishments we’ve made in Iraq, I’d say it’s more characteristic of Islamic extremists to want to shhot, subvert, or blow up things. How many schools has Al Qaeda repaired in Iraq? How many Iraqis have running water thanks to the work of Sadr’s militant followers?

I have as much right to comment about my opinion as anyone else has.

Damn straight you do. You’re personal opinion is just as valuable as anyone else’s, regardless of the issue. But, at the end of the day, when speaking of foreign governments the US government does not have to answer to anyone but US voters. Same goes for any other nation. There’ll be consequences of such actions, sure, but the US government doesn’t have to answer to the rest of the world when formulating a new military policy.

That is not the point… if we actually believe Blair when he said Iraq was 45 minutes away from a chem or bio weapon attack wouldn’t that be grounds for pre emptive self defence?

Sure, if he meant that missiles were actually in the process of being fueled and armed. Theoretically the US is like 40 minutes away from a nuclear strike at all times as well.

After those nukes go off what level of proof would be required to show it was justified? The geiger counter proves there is radiation at ground zero so they must have had nukes…

If Country A is threatened by Country B, and Country A uses a low-yield nuclear weapon as a pre-emptive self defense measure, what does what Country C thinks about it matter, especially when they’re thousands of miles removed from the AOR?

The intelligence fkup in Iraq just proves what we feared all along. Not only does the US not know the intentions of its enemies very well, it doesn’t really have a great grasp of what its enemies assets are like either.

I see, so one theoretical error in Iraq means that every single intelligence estimate, etc, has been rendered totally and completely false. Is that it?

They have always admitted they never knew the former by the pessimistic assessments with worst case scenarios, but have always claimed their satellites and spy stuff gave them good info on the latter… but we now know that is rubbish too.

Assessments are educated guesses. Expecting every assessment to be 100% irrefutable fact is ludicrous.

The dropped the ball in 11/9 by not believing it was possible, and they dropped the ball again the other way with Iraq by over estimating. Adding Nuke preemptive strikes into the options mix is really scary.

Overestimating what? We still haven’t found the unaccounted for SCUD launchers to my knowledge. And at least one terrorist IED has been proven to have been a WMD-filled artillery shell. Where did that come from exactly? Besides, it’s rather hard to go over the entire country with a fine-tooth comb when we’re having to deal with Saudi Arabian, Syrian, and other terrorists coming across the borders to cause trouble.

Its just the radiated pile of ashes who had the most toys won, in the end…

Ah, but we must remember that the pile of American irradiated ashes are better than all those other ashes. 😉

I’d like to amend my post above. The US can be (and often is) an incredibly generous nation, and we have a lot to be thankful for from America, as well as the stuff that gets bitched about. It’s just the American millitary inneficencies and love of bigger technology rather than use of tactics which is poor (IMHO).

However, when you are an imperial power, there is a lot to worry about that other nations don’t have – but don’t expect everyone to go “Ooo. how tough it is, oh mighty one.” It’s tough at the top. So what. Others have been there before you, others will replace you.

Don’t worry John, the US empire will end, sooner or later, and you’ll be in the same position as the Greeks, Romans, Dutch, British, Portuguese, French, etc, etc moaning about how the impirialists today aren’t as respectful of old empires as they should be. 😀

All this means is that we can completely remove such a threat before the attack in the first place…pre-emptive nuclear use in this case doesn’t imply that we’ll magically wake up and nuke Syria, Iran, and North Korea “just to be safe”.

Eh? But you could remove a threat – via the use of nuclear weapons – before it attacks first, “just to be safe”, of course…:rolleyes:

Problem: at the moment there is not a state that is actually, publicly, backing the Muslim terrorists that have been causing troubles in various (Bush-backing) parts of the world. The last two terrorist attacks in Britain have mainly been caused by British citizens or British residents – who would you nuke in this event? Would you have considered carpet bombing Ireland for the terror campaigns of the IRA (apparently backed by some Americans) in Britain and Northern Ireland in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s?
Alternatively, who would you want nuked for those tragic events of September 2001 – the badlands of Afghanistan were just a training centre for a multitude of nationalities. Would you pinpoint the homelands of each individual terrorist to mete out such radiated punishment? But that would upset Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and probably several other western friendly (at the moment, anyway) Middle Eastern countries, of course.

“WMD for WMD”? Who would be around to count up and ultimately declare a winner? Its just the radiated pile of ashes who had the most toys won, in the end…

Flood

Dave, part of the problem is a desire to aproach a so called ‘war on terrorism’ (a bizarre concept itself) with military means – understandably using the biggest toys available.

‘Hearts and minds’ is the means to effectively ‘win’ but it isn’t big, it’s hard, and it’s not macho. If you can’t shoot it, subvert it or blow it up, American know-how seems to be exhausted.

Quite a few countries have a half century of terrorism experience John, with varying degrees of success and failure. Given the IRA support in the 1970s and 1980s in New York, you’d presumably be happy with a pre-empitive strike by the British on that city?

British and Australian cities are now on a new terrorist target list only because the British and Australian governments for reasons that are inexplicable, hang on the coat-tails of the US. The world has problems, John, and many of them are related to US policy.

In answer to your question, John, No. I trust no government with pre-emptive attacks – the evidence has proven again and again they cannot be trusted with that call.

Regards

John, regarding your scenario about would I use a pre-emptive nuclear strike – of course not. Such a thing is totally unthinkable. If all diplomatic means have failed, a pre-emptive conventional action might be warranted, but certainly not nuclear. Why kill thousands of civilians and ruin the land and local economy and natural resources for centuries to come? Why also risk a retaliatory massive nuclear strike from others? Such a strike, no mayyer how small intended, would be disasterous and could easily set off a chain of reactions around the world that would see total destruction. Think of just the radiation cloads – remember how Europe was affected by a small leak at Chenobyl? Would you do that to innocent people, would you be prepared to do it to someone in your back yard? It is NEVER worth it.

Garry makes some very good points in his statements above. I will also add that no matter how old the policy might be, that is not the point. The aim of the policy is the point. I find it a very dangerous and unwise move, by any country, to consider such a stance. Would you like it if Iraq had had this policy in 2003?

If you think that this is the right thing to do to save your nation, then apply the “logic” of this policy to their scenario. It means it would have been totally justified for Saddam Hussein to have decided to strike the USA with nuclear weapons back before the US invasion of his country (not that he had any, hyperthetical here), because all the intelligence told him the invasion was coming and he’d be allowed to use a pre-emptive strike against the aggressor nation. How would the world have reacted to this, when he says “Well, I thought they were going to use their massive arsenal of weaponry against us so I nuked them off the planet in self defence” – that, to me, is exactly what this policy is about.

Nuclear war affects everyone, no matter whether you’re in the Middle East, USA, Sweden or NZ. Every country and every individual has the right to comment on the use of nuclear weaponry, and the possession of them. It does not matter a jot or tittle that I’m in NZ where you so patronisingly feel we have no problems whatsoever (you’d be most welcome to visit someday and see this country is real and part of the world too, with its good and bad points just like yours. I’d gladly buy you a few beers and have a good old natter session).

If any sort of nuclear war were to erupt, we are all affected by it. So I have as much right to comment about my opinion as anyone else has.

One thing that always struck me as strange was, what they were looking for when the UN was searching for these bio/germ weapons, I mean are they looking for a warhead with a bio hazard label on it? Surely the weapons (bio/germ) themselves are kept in little vials, no doubt stored in someone’s fridge well away from the missiles themselves?

It’s not as if it was ‘conventional’ bombs that they were looking for, and germs are pretty small!

All this means is that we can completely remove such a threat before the attack in the first place. Some will argue that “it isn’t fair, you can’t arbitrarily nuke someone”, but would you rather we got slimed?

That is not the point… if we actually believe Blair when he said Iraq was 45 minutes away from a chem or bio weapon attack wouldn’t that be grounds for pre emptive self defence? After those nukes go off what level of proof would be required to show it was justified? The geiger counter proves there is radiation at ground zero so they must have had nukes…

The intelligence fkup in Iraq just proves what we feared all along. Not only does the US not know the intentions of its enemies very well, it doesn’t really have a great grasp of what its enemies assets are like either. They have always admitted they never knew the former by the pessimistic assessments with worst case scenarios, but have always claimed their satellites and spy stuff gave them good info on the latter… but we now know that is rubbish too.

The dropped the ball in 11/9 by not believing it was possible, and they dropped the ball again the other way with Iraq by over estimating. Adding Nuke preemptive strikes into the options mix is really scary.

Sorry John and SOC, I don’t want to turn this into a slinging match. But I urge you to simply put politics and nationalism aside and please look at this again.

Like SOC, this has little to do with nationalism at least on my part!
I can’t speak for you.

SOC makes an excellent point, the proposed changes are just a re-statement of existing policy…it’s just that now…during the post-Iraq Bush administration, it’s getting international media coverage.
More to the point, how many nations would even discuss their nuclear defense strategy? I dare say you probably have far less to worry about from a country so open about it than one who isn’t.

I’m sure your concern is well intentioned, but you didn’t answer my question…if a pre-emptive strike could save a city…New York, London, Paris, Madrid, Moscow…maybe even Auckland (though the chance of it being seriously menaced by terrorists seems remote) by taking out a remote WMD center…would you do it?

Remember, the atomic bombs in WWII were pre-emptive…and dropping them saved many allied lives…including many of your countrymen.

Again, it’s easy to find fault in the way other nations have to protect themselves when you’re in unthreatened and peaceful New Zealand. In the rest of the world we have more serious problems than the price of lamb and whether Peter Jackson is going to win another Oscar.

Sorry John and SOC, I don’t want to turn this into a slinging match.

That wasn’t my intention either, don’t worry. I get the impression that this could be an interesting debate, or I wouldn’t have bothered to respond in the first place!

But I urge you to simply put politics and nationalism aside and please look at this again.

I’m not being nationalistic, or taking this from a political view. I do have a rather different viewpoint being in the service myself.

This is not deterent – The US military has enough deterrent already to blow the world up 50 times over. This is beyond deterrent, WAY beyond the stalemate of the Cold War you describe. Read again

The existance of such a strategy could well be a deterrent. Obviously the purpose of developing the strategy itself is to enable warfighters to have that option. But that doesn’t discount the possibility that Joe Dictator might think twice and not do something very stupid because he doesn’t quite know if those are JDAMs or tactical nuclear weapons underneath the wings of the Strike Eagles that have been prowling around near his airspace.

“The Pentagon has drawn up a new strategy, built on the 2002 “Bush doctrine” of pre-emptive military strikes, that would allow the US to make first use of nuclear weapons”

Interesting that you didn’t cite this part: “In practice, the strategy would update existing guidelines, drawn up in 1995 under the Clinton administration.” Now who’s trying to be political? 😀

Pre-emptive has nothing to do with retaliation. Ask the Iraqis what they did to deserve retaliation…

With a doctrine such as this in place, it is obvious that nuclear weapons of this scale would be more likely to be emlpoyed in retaliation for a WMD attack. Which, in itself, is only fair in the grand scheme of things: what’s wrong with WMD for WMD? I’d rather they weren’t used in the first place, but if US troops get gassed en masse in, say, Iraq by a Syrian SCUD barrage, I have no problem with a low yield nuclear weapon being lobbed back at the launch sites. All this means is that we can completely remove such a threat before the attack in the first place. Some will argue that “it isn’t fair, you can’t arbitrarily nuke someone”, but would you rather we got slimed? As a military member I have no problem with destroying a threat before it attacks. Besides, pre-emptive nuclear use in this case doesn’t imply that we’ll magically wake up and nuke Syria, Iran, and North Korea “just to be safe”. Give us a little more credit than that. But if we were in a wartime position and WMD use was a definitive threat against us, we’d have the ability to erase such a threat and ostensibly force a much earlier end to the conflict than the other side would have desired.

As for Iraq, that’s a whole different debate, which I’d be more than happy to enter into if you’d like to start up another thread.

You seem quite happy to go back into the Cold War situation because you cannot catch a couple of a handfuls of radicals, or negotiate with a couple of countries. The Cold War of the past was bad enough – but who knows where this – if the policy were ever enacted upon – might lead.

Were we to use a low-yield nuclear weapon on a WMD stockpile in, say, Syria, it would surely not lead to a wholescale thermonuclear exchange between the US, the PRC, and Russia. Nobody is that stupid. We’re clearly talking about the Syrians, Iranians, and the DPRK here with this policy, unless Chavez finds some nuclear warheads or Vincente Fox starts passing out anthrax grenades or something. I don’t see how this could result in another hair-trigger Cold War scenario given the laughable, by comparison, military arms we’re clearly focusing on.