What the @!%# is wrong with America??

[Jim]

Apparently they gave up:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9820682/

 

 

The alleged policy cited by the article in the OP was something broader' date=' supposedly:

 

“While it has long been a U.S. policy to use nuclear weapons in order to respond to a nuclear attack,” said Hirsch, “the new policy allows the U.S. to use nuclear weapons against states that do not have nuclear weapons and for a host of new reasons, including rapid termination of a conflict on U.S. terms or to ensure success of the U.S. forces.”

[CPL.Luke]

yeah the program in question was just an attempt to make a bunker buster that would be far more effective than the ones used in iraq (which didn't work to well), The DOD was only requesting permission to change their nuclear policy in order to use the weapon. There was never going to be a change in international law, or even the laws of the US.

 

 

Jim, The US has already used the threat of nuclear weapons against states that did not have them (see the korean war) in order to ensure a rapid termination of conflict on US terms. The fact is that any country would use nuclear weapons in the face of defeat (israel was about to when the 6 day war ended, and again in the first gulf war if a single WMD landed in Israel), and why shouldn't they? what good are the weapons if even in the face of defeat a country can't use them.

 

also note that nuclear weapons have saved far more lives than they've ever taken, by having the duel effect of stopping wars between large powers, and reducing military spending as a country can just sit back and say that if their attacked they'll use the bomb. Everyone knows what the effect of a nuclear war would be so it never happens. In fact a nuclear war negates the purpose of war as it would set both countries back by decades and no additional resources can be gotten out of it.

[Dak]

also note that nuclear weapons have saved far more lives than they've ever taken, by having the duel effect of stopping wars between large powers, and reducing military spending as a country can just sit back and say that if their attacked they'll use the bomb. Everyone knows what the effect of a nuclear war would be so it never happens. In fact a nuclear war negates the purpose of war as it would set both countries back by decades and no additional resources can be gotten out of it.

 

That's pretty much along the lines of what nobel said when he developed TNT (iirc) for field artillary. he was wrong.

[CPL.Luke]

Nobel was correct when he said that, the combination of tnt and the machine gun made war an exercise in futility, as noted by the first world war. however later advances in the warfare (namely mechanization) made it so that it was once again "useful" to wage war. Nuclear weapons just set the clock back on war and made it so that it is no longer "useful" to wage war. The only way for nuclear weapons to take on the role that TNT has would be if someone were to make a missile shield, which I sincerely hope never happens. But even if it does I still think that because a single nuclear warhead can devastate an entire country (unlike a single TNT bomb) that war between two large countries both armed with nuclear weapons can never be "useful" and because everyone knows that by the very rapid devastation that nuclear weapons bring that no one will ever engage in a nuclear war (where both sides are armed with nukes).

[padren]

I am glad the bunker buster plan is dying.

 

I do think tactical nukes could have a place - if we had a full size nuclear warhead go off on US soil, it doesn't mean we should kill every man woman and child in the original country with full-scale nukes. If we could respond with non-nuclear force and win, or failing that tactical nukes for a precise tactical plan, it would be far more advantageous for us and everyone else than using full size overkill nukes. There may even be resources left that our favorite campaign contributors could exploit in that case.

 

However, I do think a policy of reserved right to nuclear first-strike puts us in the idealogical category that we were claiming Iraq was in, and pretty much what we call any rogue state.

 

I don't believe there is any good reason for the strongest nation in the world to need to resort to nuclear weapons in anything other than nuclear defense.

 

If we need them to fight our conventional battles, how can we even pretend anyone else should not develop them for the same purpose?

 

We loose the idealogical battle, and go straight to intimidation to prevent other nations from going atomic.

 

This worried me back when we went into Iraq without finishing our work in afghanistan - that we'd over extend our conventional military, and people within the strategic department would try to use nuclear options to get some freed up teeth back.

 

No one is scared of a dog's bite when it has a mouth full and is almost choking, and it was inevitable we'd look at nuclear options to maintain muscle-cred with unpleasant nations. I still think it would be a wrong move, because of the sheer degree of poltical fallout (NPI) that would follow.

[CPL.Luke]

in the event of a nuclear strike the only option is to hit back with even more nuclear force.

 

It has to be known as an unspoken rule that if you hit the US with nukes than were going to hit back with more. The same goes for any other country, to do anything less is to invite more attacks.

[padren]

in the event of a nuclear strike the only option is to hit back with even more nuclear force.

 

It has to be known as an unspoken rule that if you hit the US with nukes than were going to hit back with more. The same goes for any other country' date=' to do anything less is to invite more attacks.[/quote']

 

For the countries that would consider hitting us, even the use of tactical nukes would be a larger nuclear response than what hit us.

 

If N. Korea hit us, for instance, we could either bury the whole nation in large scale anti-city nukes, causing much grief for S Korea, or we could totally obliterate the regime with tactical nukes, sparing much of the civilian population without loosing any strategic advantage from the form of the strike, and not cause massive fallout from messing up S Korea and our neighboring allies.

 

In that case, we would actually be more frightening to our enemies, as some may feel they are close enough to our allies that we could not destroy them without hurting our allies as well.

 

When you use the least amount of force to completely decimate your enemy with the maximal crushing effect, it is more fightening than the use of even more blanket force - I would be more afraid of a guy that can kill with a finger than can kill with a gun. Especially when you know Mr. Death Fingers also has guns to use if he wants.

 

In that regard, I think tactical nukes could play a role in MAD defense, but I shudder to think of them used in conventional combat.