Obama limits use of nuclear weapons

[JJM 777]

should our response and the number of people we kill, in retaliation to an attack that killed 3,000 people, only kill an equal amount of people?

no. that is not a good deterrent. taking out 10,000 of them..when they kill 1,000 of us, is a much better deterrent.

it sends the message to the world: "if you **** with us, we will **** with you 10x harder"

Um, sounds like collective death penalty, and that without trial to randomly chosen people, who most probably had nothing to do with the decision to press the Red Button, which always is in the hands of an oligarch. The mindlessness of weapons of mass destruction is in the obvious fact that the penalty goes to others than those who were guilty for a deadly offense. The great masses don't really ever start wars, neither do the great masses decide to launch a weapon of mass destruction.

On top of this I would love to hear your opinions about death penalty given not so casually to 10,000 but only to one person, and not randomly chosen but indeed guilty of a deadly crime?

 

[332nd]

I think it's a great idea to let our enemies know that we won't over-react to biological or chemical weapons attack. We should bomb them with flowers.

Awwwww... Who wants to crush their enemies, see them driven before him, and to hear the lamentation of their women? You do! Yes you do!

 

[McHrozni]

Hm, incidentally, suppose that a country organizes a terrorist attack against US targets with WMDs, causing mass casualties. We'll also say the country can't be invaded easily.

For the sake of the argument, we'll say that it was North Korean agents who had a few agents inoculated with Ebola wander the New York subway and JFK airport, sparking an epidemic killing two million US citizens and two million others in two weeks and forcing a complete shut down of New York for months, and general chaos in North America, Europe and elsewhere. North Korea denies involvement, China condemned the attacks but maintains North Korea is innocent, despite overwhelming evidence of their guilt. They also say they would be willing to come to their aid in the event they got invaded as a result.

What would be the appropriate response?

The scenario is unlikely, I agree, and I hope nothing similar ever happens, but what kind of response could US (and allies) give in such a case?

McHrozni

 

[DC]

Hm, incidentally, suppose that a country organizes a terrorist attack against US targets with WMDs, causing mass casualties. We'll also say the country can't be invaded easily.

For the sake of the argument, we'll say that it was North Korean agents who had a few agents inoculated with Ebola wander the New York subway and JFK airport, killing two million US citizens in two weeks and forcing a complete shut down of New York for months. North Korea denies involvement, China condemned the attacks but maintains North Korea is innocent, despite overwhelming evidence of their guilt. They also say they would be willing to come to their aid in the event they got invaded as a result.

What would be the appropriate response?

The scenario is unlikely, I agree, and I hope nothing similar ever happens, but what kind of response could US give in such a case?

McHrozni

Bomb the North korean military and Government infrastructure.

Nukes would not help the USA one bit. in contrary, the world would be very upset if the USA choose to answer Nuclear. i think.

 

[Chaos]

Um, sounds like collective death penalty, and that without trial to randomly chosen people, who most probably had nothing to do with the decision to press the Red Button, which always is in the hands of an oligarch. The mindlessness of weapons of mass destruction is in the obvious fact that the penalty goes to others than those who were guilty for a deadly offense. The great masses don't really ever start wars, neither do the great masses decide to launch a weapon of mass destruction.

On top of this I would love to hear your opinions about death penalty given not so casually to 10,000 but only to one person, and not randomly chosen but indeed guilty of a deadly crime?

Actually, I would love to hear the opinion of all these great American patriots about whether or not other countries, say Iran or North Korea, or even Iraq or Afghanistan, have the same right to institute "you kill one of us, we kill 10 randomly chosen of you" policy against the US. Fair´s fair, after all.

 

[DC]

Actually, I would love to hear the opinion of all these great American patriots about whether or not other countries, say Iran or North Korea, or even Iraq or Afghanistan, have the same right to institute "you kill one of us, we kill 10 randomly chosen of you" policy against the US. Fair´s fair, after all.

that is only for the Good guys.

 

[PogoPedant]

if a non-nuclear state is part of a biological or chemical weapons attack against the USA, in which hundreds or thousands of people are killed, we should indeed reserve the right to retaliate with a small but highly destructive nuclear weapon.

should our response and the number of people we kill, in retaliation to an attack that killed 3,000 people, only kill an equal amount of people?

no. that is not a good deterrent. taking out 10,000 of them..when they kill 1,000 of us, is a much better deterrent.

it sends the message to the world: "if you **** with us, we will **** with you 10x harder"

It's an awful deterrent if the people ******* with you hope to drown the world in fire and seriously believe that all humans should be happy to die for the greater glory of some cloudfather.

 

[Darat]

This means nothing. It's not a law, just a policy position adopted by the President. Given that, it can be reversed at any time and for any reason, including no reason at all.

For once we agree and I don't think there will ever be a time when the USA would not consider using nuclear weapons if it was under serious attack, well not until they've developed something better that is!

 

[Captain.Sassy]

This means nothing. It's not a law, just a policy position adopted by the President. Given that, it can be reversed at any time and for any reason, including no reason at all.

Well, the policy on the circumstances under which the US would use nukes can be reversed at any time and almost instantly, but the policy on halting development is a real change. When you stop developing new weapons, you kind of freeze the technology in place. you can reverse this, but then you still start from where you were before, so it has real effect.

Anyways, I read an interesting article on the need for the US to maintain a posture of potential nuclear escalation. I don't know what to make of it, since I like the idea of nuclear disarmament, but it seems well reasoned.

For succinctness:
1) If the US comes under attack from a low-yield nuclear weapon or a nuclear strike on its forces (say a carrier group), then it has to respond.
2) If the US only has strategic nuclear weapons, the response to a tactical nuclear attack on US forces has to be either a conventional reprisal or a strategic nuclear reprisal.
3) Given that the latter would be a significant escalation, opponents of the US may feel that the US would not resort to this option. These opponents may also feel that they can withstand a conventional attack, and indeed the use of tactical weapons on a US target may weaken the ability of the US to respond conventionally.
4) Therefore, by abandoning the tactical nuclear option, the US makes use of nuclear weapons against it more likely.

I'm not sure if the article in question was in response to something Obama had said or if it was going at a strawman, but I found it interesting. The article was in FA a while back.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Actually, I would love to hear the opinion of all these great American patriots about whether or not other countries, say Iran or North Korea, or even Iraq or Afghanistan, have the same right to institute "you kill one of us, we kill 10 randomly chosen of you" policy against the US. Fair´s fair, after all.

I suppose they can try.

Based on the latest Israeli fun in Gaza last year, they seem to "kill a hundred for each of ours you kill" so maybe the US is being far too soft, if this strawman you created were something akin to policy ...

Go back to Desert Storm, and you find something over 10,000 Iraqis killed, best as I recall, with about 128 Americans dead. The hundred to one deal on that one was ... what factor in the final outcome? *shrugs*

Guess what, Chaos? It isn't about body count.

I prefer a completely flexible response:

"We reserve the right to respond in whatever order of magnitude we bloody feel like, so take your chances. You might get flowers, might get a few air raids, or maybe get a shower of nukes.

You can add 'Hope the US aren't in a PMS moment' into your warplan, if you like."

On a more practical note, it is consistent with the general policy of deterrence to target other nuclear powers with nukes, and leave others off the SIOP.

Maybe what Pres Obama is saying, between the lines, is

"Iran, you are not targeted if you don't make nukes. You will be if you do."

Not sure, but I'd like it if that were the message he is trying to send.

DR

 

[Chaos]

I suppose they can try.

Based on the latest Israeli fun in Gaza last year, they seem to "kill a hundred for each of ours you kill" so maybe the US is being far too soft, if this strawman you created were something akin to policy ...

Go back to Desert Storm, and you find something over 10,000 Iraqis killed, best as I recall, with about 128 Americans dead. The hundred to one deal on that one was ... what factor in the final outcome? *shrugs*

Guess what, Chaos? It isn't about body count.

I prefer a completely flexible response:

"We reserve the right to respond in whatever order of magnitude we bloody feel like, so take your chances. You might get flowers, might get a few air raids, or maybe get a shower of nukes.

You can add 'Hope the US aren't in a PMS moment' into your warplan, if you like."

On a more practical note, it is consistent with the general policy of deterrence to target other nuclear powers with nukes, and leave others off the SIOP.

Maybe what Pres Obama is saying, between the lines, is

"Iran, you are not targeted if you don't make nukes. You will be if you do."

Not sure, but I'd like it if that were the message he is trying to send.

DR

That doesn´t answer my question.

Is the policy "if someone kills our innocent civilians, we kill a lot more of their innocent civilians" justified for nations other than the US, too?

More directly put... the next time some terrorist attacks the US and kills a lot of innocent US civilians, will you consider that justified escalated retribution for innocent civilians killed by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

[Drysdale]

Stupid.

If that's the policy he wants to implement that's his call.

But why announce it? Has he never played poker in his life?

Is this somehow going to make N.Korea,Russia,Iran etc love us?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

But why announce it?

Well, ostensibly it could be seen as an effort to limit nuclear proliferation. Reassuring non-nuclear states that the US wouldn't use nuclear weapons against them even in the case of war, if this is deemed to be a credible commitment, could help convince non-nuclear states that there is less of a reason to develop nuclear weapons.

 

[Darth Rotor]

That doesn´t answer my question.

Is the policy "if someone kills our innocent civilians, we kill a lot more of their innocent civilians" justified for nations other than the US, too?

I am now asking you to show me where that is US policy. Please cite the policy document. You have asserted that this is policy. I think you are full of crap.

More directly put... the next time some terrorist attacks the US and kills a lot of innocent US civilians, will you consider that justified escalated retribution for innocent civilians killed by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan?

No, since it has NEVER been our intent to kill innocent civilians anywhere. Ever. THAT is policy. That they sometimes get killed as we fight with the non innocent, and sometimes make gross errors, is not the equivalent of deliberately killing innocent civilians, which is what terrorist attacks do by design.

Raise your game, I know you can do better than this.

DR

 

[mike3]

In an air burst the residual contamination of the area is considerably lower than in a ground burst, as most of the radionuclides be sucked in the stratosphere and become a part of the global radiation background. Not ideal, but not that concerning either. Local fallout is a long-term health concern. I checked and a person living in Nevada in the period where atmospheric tests were done there (1955-61) would receive the yearly dose which would still be acceptable for a worker in a nuclear power plant, or perhaps slightly more. Not ideal, but hardly the top concern. If you got pneumonia and need 3 chest X-rays as a result you'll receive more radiation from that. It'll also be more concentrated in time and a greater health concern.

Overall, the residual fallout from an airbursting nuclear weapon is one of the least concerning things. Breakdown of law and order is much more likely to kill or seriously injure you if you made it through the blast.

McHrozni

What about "Nuclear winter" theories, some of which suggest even a relatively small number of targets could cause an unprecedented global cooling catastrophe due to fires injecting tons of stuff way high in the atmosphere?

 

[Pardalis]

Anything to limit the use of nuclear weapons is a good thing. Those devices should not exist.

Good for Obama.

 

[dudalb]

Actually, I would love to hear the opinion of all these great American patriots about whether or not other countries, say Iran or North Korea, or even Iraq or Afghanistan, have the same right to institute "you kill one of us, we kill 10 randomly chosen of you" policy against the US. Fair´s fair, after all.

So American has no right to take action against the people who launched 9/11 against us, right?

 

[dudalb]

I am now asking you to show me where that is US policy. Please cite the policy document. You have asserted that this is policy. I think you are full of crap.

No, since it has NEVER been our intent to kill innocent civilians anywhere. Ever. THAT is policy. That they sometimes get killed as we fight with the non innocent, and sometimes make gross errors, is not the equivalent of deliberately killing innocent civilians, which is what terrorist attacks do by design.

Raise your game, I know you can do better than this.

DR

He is just mouthing the usual defacto apoligitics for Al Qaida and other Islamic entermetist that is currently popular among Anti American Euros.

 

[Chaos]

I am now asking you to show me where that is US policy. Please cite the policy document. You have asserted that this is policy. I think you are full of crap.

Could you perhaps point out to poor clueless me in which bizarre parallel universe I asserted that this is US policy? In this particular universe you and I inhabit, I am referring to the policy that several posters in this thread suggest the US should have.

And now answer my question.

No, since it has NEVER been our intent to kill innocent civilians anywhere. Ever. THAT is policy. That they sometimes get killed as we fight with the non innocent, and sometimes make gross errors, is not the equivalent of deliberately killing innocent civilians, which is what terrorist attacks do by design.

Raise your game, I know you can do better than this.

DR

So nuking a city full of innocent civilians in nuclear retaliation is not deliberately killing innocent civilians?

Tell me, what kind of drug do I have to take in order to think that, for example, Kim Jong-Il´s victims in North Korea are guilty of whatever insanity he might commit with his nukes, that you think it is not killing innocent civilians when the US nukes them in retaliation?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Could you perhaps point out to poor clueless me in which bizarre parallel universe I asserted that this is US policy? In this particular universe you and I inhabit, I am referring to the policy that several posters in this thread suggest the US should have.

And now answer my question.

DR never asserted that as a policy. For any country. Ask someone who posits it as a good policy to answer your question; DR has given his take -- and IMO a good one -- on the subject.