Obama limits use of nuclear weapons

[dtugg]

What does the policy of most nations have to do with it? I personally hold the US to a higher standard because of our size and technological sophistication. We could annihilate any country on the face of the Earth--but for what? To prove we are the sheriff of the town? The fact of the matter is that we have the technological sophistication to respond to a nuclear attack in a precise way--moreso than any other country--that does NOT require nuclear weapons. It would be an utter shame if we retaliated with nuclear weapons--an utter shame.

I am FOR self-defense, but I am not for unmeasured self-defense.

If the US was hit by a nuclear strike by any country, it would have to respond in kind otherwise it may embolden other enemies to do the same in the future.

A civilian does not even compare. There is functionally no difference between a civilian of an enemy country and a civilian of your own country.

This is patently untrue. A civilian of an enemy country will likely contribute to the war effort of the enemy by paying taxes, building weapons, ect. A civilian of your own country will not be contributing to the war effort of your enemy (unless they are a spy in which case they should be tried for treason and executed).

The only reason to kill a civilian of an enemy country is to satisfy an aggressive urge in a way achieves maximum cognitive dissonance (after all, THEY were not like YOU, and they were surely plotting your death!)

Also untrue. I can think of at least three rational reasons (depending on the context) to kill civilians of an enemy country:

-Civilians are needed in order to support the war effort. Killing civilians reduces the enemy's capacity to wage war.
-Killing civilians may reduce the enemy's will to wage war, perhaps hastening surrender and saving more lives than otherwise would have been lost.
-In the context of a retaliation in kind from a nuclear strike, it would serve as a deterrent to others who might try it.

 

[McHrozni]

1. Does this mean you thought Bush's "mini nuke" program was a good idea? What did you think about the "RNEP" project (Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator)?

I think both are a good idea. The mini-nuke program for reasons described, and the RNEP to ensure no one is safe - especially not the ones that would order such attacks in the first place.

2. If you're going to use nukes that small, why not just use a big conventional bombing "awe" campaign instead with air raids on the given targets? What's the advantage of a nuke here? The cost, speed of deployment and effect?

In terms of a mini-nuke it is primarily the fear. One large explosion has a greater psychological effect than a large amount of small explosions, even if the small explosions have a greater total yield and do more actual damage. There is also the negative psychological effect on any force that knows it could be struck by a nuke, rather than just conventional bombs. Deterrence is much stronger in that case.
A single bomb is also much easier to deliver to a target, which could be a factor if the target is able to fight back. A conventional campaign may not always be feasible.

RNEP are a different matter, since they're supposed to penetrate deep, hardened bunkers and are intended to make digging until you're safe unfeasible. As such they represent a threat to leadership directly. Knowing your nation will be destroyed in a nuclear war, but you yourself and your loved ones will survive may not be a sufficient deterrence for some maniacs. Knowing you and everyone you care about are also certain to die can be a stronger deterrent in some cases. They also have other uses in taking out bunkers designed to otherwise sustain nuclear strikes, such as nuclear silos. I think this is an entirely different category of weapons and shouldn't be mixed with the mini-nukes in general, even if it uses much of the same technology. It's purpose is different, it's objectives are different and it's (potential) uses would be different.

Wouldn't such a "total annihilation" response cause the "nuclear winter" scenario just mentioned? In which case you'd be killing people that had nothing at all to do with the "enemy".

Not necessarily, especially because the scenario I mentioned is not necessarily a total annihilation one. A few nuclear strikes, 5-10 targets, will bring most nations to their knees. For example, taking out a few largest military targets (e.g. the largest naval base, two largest air bases and two largest troop formations) plus the leadership would be quite catastrophic for the target, but wouldn't cause a disastrous nuclear winter. It's even doubtful it would have any meaningful effect on the climate.
The said military targets are much easier to take out with a small nuke than with a fleet of bombers, especially if the enemy is able to fight against the fleet of bombers.
Furthermore, a nuclear winter is a much smaller concern with a smaller nuke.

A strike with WMDs against civilian targets causing mass casualties warrants an adequate response. Having only large nuclear weapons limits you to either using those, potentially causing catastrophic events worldwide, or a conventional response - which may be both unfeasible and inadequate. Having something to fill the gap in between is desirable.

McHrozni

 

[JihadJane]

Except that Pakistan's leadership is not making statements about wiping Israel from the face of the earth with nuclear weaponry, even at the cost of hundreds of millions of lives to the arab world. Iran's leadership is.

No, it isn't.

 

[barrymore]

If the US was hit by a nuclear strike by any country, it would have to respond in kind otherwise it may embolden other enemies to do the same in the future.

With the technology the US has, it can cause the same amount of damage that a nuclear weapon can with much more precise weaponry. The use of nuclear weapons is belligerent and, as far as I am concerned, only used by the weak.

If the US wants to inflict a damage of x units, it can do so a number of ways--why would it use nuclear when it inflicts the most collateral damage? Personally, I care about the slaughter of innocent citizens, and I suppose that most people do as well. If anything, countries would want to come at the US even harder if they started ******** all over countries with nukes.

This is patently untrue. A civilian of an enemy country will likely contribute to the war effort of the enemy by paying taxes, building weapons, ect. A civilian of your own country will not be contributing to the war effort of your enemy (unless they are a spy in which case they should be tried for treason and executed).

Oh, please. That is such BS, and you know it. I guess we are all complicit in the Iraq War then, huh? Might as well be slaughtering innocents ourselves.

99% of people in countries could care less about any perceived conflict or foreign tensions. Do you think Israelis sit around a table at supper and plot the death and destruction of Palestinians? No, because they want to live their lives. Arabs get along just fine in Israel for the most part. Just like any "movement" there is a vocal minority movement that somehow becomes perceived to speak for the populace at large when it is pretty much the opposite.

To relate it to the US--do you think 99% of Muslims walk around all day hating the US, our "freedoms" and "ideals"? No--they could care less. Maybe there is some distrustful sentiment among the general populace, but to imply that citizens are complicit when they just want to live their lives is just foolish and dangerously presumptuous.

Also untrue. I can think of at least three rational reasons (depending on the context) to kill civilians of an enemy country:

-Civilians are needed in order to support the war effort. Killing civilians reduces the enemy's capacity to wage war.
-Killing civilians may reduce the enemy's will to wage war, perhaps hastening surrender and saving more lives than otherwise would have been lost.
-In the context of a retaliation in kind from a nuclear strike, it would serve as a deterrent to others who might try it.

Again, I am not sure how to refute this using a rational argument. If you truly believe that slaughtering innocents because they indirectly and most likely unwillingly contribute to a war effort is justified, then we will have to agree to disagree.

The only case where I am willing to concede that is OK to intentionally kill civilians is if they are working with for a government agency that is related to war efforts (intelligence agency, DoD, etc.)--not the EPA or the town hall; or if they are working in a factory/complex that is directly related to producing weaponry (such as a complex that is building nuclear weapons). I am not OK with bombing the offices of Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics. These are people just trying to make a living and could care less about an act of aggression that some two-bit politician wages in order to make up for his small manhood.

 

[dtugg]

With the technology the US has, it can cause the same amount of damage that a nuclear weapon can with much more precise weaponry. The use of nuclear weapons is belligerent and, as far as I am concerned, only used by the weak.

If the US wants to inflict a damage of x units, it can do so a number of ways--why would it use nuclear when it inflicts the most collateral damage? Personally, I care about the slaughter of innocent citizens, and I suppose that most people do as well.

If the US can cause the same amount of damage with nuclear weapons as without, why does it even matter if it uses the nukes or the conventional weapons?

Anyway, what you said has nothing to do with my point. Do you think that an enemy of the US would be more likely or less likely to launch a nuclear strike against the US if the US had in the past shown it was unwilling to use nuclear weapons in retaliation of a nuclear strike? I think the answer is clear.

I would rather not see a bunch of innocent people die. But I think in the event of a nuclear strike against the US that it would be necessary to level a few cities in order to convince anybody else who might want to try it that it would be an extremely bad idea.

If anything, countries would want to come at the US even harder if they started ******** all over countries with nukes.

Only if they want to be annihilated.

Oh, please. That is such BS, and you know it. I guess we are all complicit in the Iraq War then, huh? Might as well be slaughtering innocents ourselves.

99% of people in countries could care less about any perceived conflict or foreign tensions. Do you think Israelis sit around a table at supper and plot the death and destruction of Palestinians? No, because they want to live their lives. Arabs get along just fine in Israel for the most part. Just like any "movement" there is a vocal minority movement that somehow becomes perceived to speak for the populace at large when it is pretty much the opposite.

To relate it to the US--do you think 99% of Muslims walk around all day hating the US, our "freedoms" and "ideals"? No--they could care less. Maybe there is some distrustful sentiment among the general populace, but to imply that citizens are complicit when they just want to live their lives is just foolish and dangerously presumptuous.

Are you intentionally missing the point or what? Because nothing you said has anything to do with it.

Again, I am not sure how to refute this using a rational argument. If you truly believe that slaughtering innocents because they indirectly and most likely unwillingly contribute to a war effort is justified, then we will have to agree to disagree.

The only case where I am willing to concede that is OK to intentionally kill civilians is if they are working with for a government agency that is related to war efforts (intelligence agency, DoD, etc.)--not the EPA or the town hall; or if they are working in a factory/complex that is directly related to producing weaponry (such as a complex that is building nuclear weapons). I am not OK with bombing the offices of Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics. These are people just trying to make a living and could care less about an act of aggression that some two-bit politician wages in order to make up for his small manhood.

It's not necessarily justified. It depends. I was just pointing that you were wrong. There are, in fact, reasons for doing it that have nothing to do with satisfying an aggressive urge.

 

[barrymore]

If the US can cause the same amount of damage with nuclear weapons as without, why does it even matter if it uses the nukes or the conventional weapons?

Because using nukes is like trying to butter a roll with a machete when a butter knife would do.

Anyway, what you said has nothing to do with my point. Do you think that an enemy of the US would be more likely or less likely to launch a nuclear strike against the US if the US had in the past shown it was unwilling to use nuclear weapons in retaliation of a nuclear strike? I think the answer is clear.

I doubt the leaders of a government care what types of weapons are used against them. What they care about is how much power they have and whether they are still alive.

Unless they are weapons aficionados and are offended that nukes were not used.

I would rather not see a bunch of innocent people die. But I think in the event of a nuclear strike against the US that it would be necessary to level a few cities in order to convince anybody else who might want to try it that it would be an extremely bad idea.

Again, leaders care about their power and their lives. If the US can prove that it can take away power and life whether it uses nukes or conventional weapons, then that is what matters for deterrence. Might it make a marginal difference if nukes are used? Of course, but it is not worth the killing of thousands, hundreds of thousands, and millions of innocent citizens.

Only if they want to be annihilated.

Unrestrained aggression has never worked in the history of...anything. It will always come back to bite you in the ass down the line. Just look at the terrorism activity in the Middle East now compared to 10 years ago.

Are you intentionally missing the point or what? Because nothing you said has anything to do with it.

It has everything to do with it. Just because someone is vaguely and indirectly involved with a war does not mean they should be fire-bombed. War should be from self-defense; killing innocents is not self-defense no matter how many degrees of connectivity you use to justify it.

Where do you stop killing people. What about the farmer who provides food for the worker that makes bearings that go into the machines that workers use to manufacture casings for nuclear weapons? Does he die?

It's like saying you are related to your brother's cousin's uncle's step-mother's niece's 2nd cousin. Well, yea maybe technically. But does that make you incestuous if you find her just a little cute?

It's not necessarily justified. It depends. I was just pointing that you were wrong. There are, in fact, reasons for doing it that have nothing to do with satisfying an aggressive urge.

Look, if you believe that intentionally bombing innocents is worth any deterrent effect, then so be it. My cost/benefit analysis comes out a little different.

 

[barrymore]

Also, I should note that nuclear weapons do NOT cause collateral damage. Nuclear weapons are used as a means of killing both high value targets (due to their inherent value) and citizens (implicating them as enemies, or as a deterrent effect). The nature of nukes is they kill a ******** of people and cause a lot of damage--that is the point.

So the killing of innocents cannot be brushed off as "collateral damage" (as if that made it OK to begin with). Using nukes on a city is no different than taking a gun and killing each resident individually. Of course, nukes are favored among the cognitively dissonant among us.

ETA:

To further hit home:

U.S. looks to nonnuclear weapons to use as deterrent
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/07/AR2010040704920.html

As the White House pushes for cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal, the Pentagon is developing a weapon to help fill the gap: missiles armed with conventional warheads that could strike anywhere in the world in less than an hour.

U.S. military officials say the intercontinental ballistic missiles, known as Prompt Global Strike weapons, are a necessary new form of deterrence against terrorist networks and other adversaries. As envisioned, the conventional missiles would give the White House a fresh military option to consider in a crisis that would not result in a radioactive mushroom cloud.

....

Nuclear arms have formed the backbone of U.S. deterrence strategy for six decades. Although the strategy worked during the Cold War, military leaders say they need other powerful weapons in their arsenal to deter adversaries who assume that the United States would refrain from taking the extreme step of ordering a nuclear strike.

"Deterrence can no longer just be nuclear weapons. It has to be broader," Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a leading proponent of Prompt Global Strike, told a conference last month.

Some U.S. military officials say their current nonnuclear options are too limited or too slow. Unlike intercontinental ballistic missiles, which travel at several times the speed of sound, it can take up to 12 hours for cruise missiles to hit faraway targets. Long-range bombers likewise can take many hours to fly into position for a strike.

 

[dtugg]

Because using nukes is like trying to butter a roll with a machete when a butter knife would do.

Since you said that conventional weapons can cause as much damage, your analogy makes no sense.

I doubt the leaders of a government care what types of weapons are used against them. What they care about is how much power they have and whether they are still alive.

Unless they are weapons aficionados and are offended that nukes were not used.

Again, leaders care about their power and their lives. If the US can prove that it can take away power and life whether it uses nukes or conventional weapons, then that is what matters for deterrence. Might it make a marginal difference if nukes are used? Of course, but it is not worth the killing of thousands, hundreds of thousands, and millions of innocent citizens.

Who says that the US could prove it can take away the power and lives of the aggressor of a nuclear attack using conventional methods? Sure, it would be relatively easy against a country like Iran. But Russia or China or possibly an alliance of those two? I doubt it would even be possible to mount a successful invasion, and if it were, there would be massive causalities.

Unrestrained aggression has never worked in the history of...anything
It will always come back to bite you in the ass down the line.

Sure it has. It worked during WW2 for example.

Just look at the terrorism activity in the Middle East now compared to 10 years ago.

I would hardly call anything that has happened in Middle East unrestrained violence.

It has everything to do with it. Just because someone is vaguely and indirectly involved with a war does not mean they should be involved in it. War should be from self-defense; killing innocents is not self-defense no matter how many degrees of connectivity you use to justify it.

Where do you stop killing people. What about the farmer who provides food for the worker that makes bearings that go into the machines that workers use to manufacture casings for nuclear weapons? Does he die?

It's like saying you are related to your brother's cousin's uncle's step-mother's niece's 2nd cousin. Well, yea maybe technically. But does that make you incestuous if you find her just a little cute?

I was just pointing out that you were demonstrably wrong when you said that there is no difference between a civilian in an enemy country and one in your own. You responded by rambling on about how those people don't care about the conflicts. Which had nothing to do with the point.

Whether or not it is justifiable to kill enemy civilians is an entirely different issue. I think it may be depending on the situation.

Look, if you believe that intentionally bombing innocents is worth any deterrent effect, then so be it. My cost/benefit analysis comes out a little different.

Two other reasons you missed. And like I said it depends.

 

[dtugg]

Also, I should note that nuclear weapons do NOT cause collateral damage. Nuclear weapons are used as a means of killing both high value targets (due to their inherent value) and citizens (implicating them as enemies, or as a deterrent effect). The nature of nukes is they kill a ******** of people and cause a lot of damage--that is the point.

So the killing of innocents cannot be brushed off as "collateral damage" (as if that made it OK to begin with). Using nukes on a city is no different than taking a gun and killing each resident individually. Of course, nukes are favored among the cognitively dissonant among us.

Nuclear weapons are made to destroy stuff and kill people? Wow! I had no idea.

ETA:

To further hit home:

U.S. looks to nonnuclear weapons to use as deterrent
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/07/AR2010040704920.html

So? The nukes are still there as a deterrent against those who might otherwise try to nuke the US.