Nukes: No Longer Defensive Only

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 12,009

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3221conplan_8022.html

The highlight:

The Bush Administration has quietly put into place contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons in pre-emptive attacks on at least two countries—Iran and North Korea.

I did like this part:

For 25 years, up to the inauguration of George W. Bush, U.S. policy was that there would be no American first-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear armed states. George Shultz, **** Cheney, John Bolton and company have fulfilled their impulse to hold the world hostage to unilateral nuclear weapons use in the hands of a President who shows increasing signs of madness.

Typical, blaming Bolton for crap he has no control over, and that was developed and put in place before he was invited to the table as a player :rolleyes:

Original post

Member for

19 years 1 month

Posts: 451

So I guess we could still yet see World War III? Great,I was begining to think that we had missed that.Right as I am getting ready to go back into the Army too.Always wanted to see a nuclear holocaust upclose.Bet it'd make a hell of a pay per view special.Wonder if it'll be like "The Day After"?That movie scared the hell out of me.Pretty cool though.A Nuclear War would be pretty exciting for about the first 20 mins then it would start to suck pretty quickly thereafter.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 12,009

"The Day After" was a pretty decent movie, I found it on DVD not too long ago.

Member for

18 years 11 months

Posts: 9,683

So I guess we could still yet see World War III? Great,I was begining to think that we had missed that.Right as I am getting ready to go back into the Army too.Always wanted to see a nuclear holocaust upclose.Bet it'd make a hell of a pay per view special.Wonder if it'll be like "The Day After"?That movie scared the hell out of me.Pretty cool though.A Nuclear War would be pretty exciting for about the first 20 mins then it would start to suck pretty quickly thereafter.

WWIII is generally associated with a significant nuclear exchange. Even China doesn't have enough to qualify. We're talking thousands of nuclear detonations. One nuke dropped on North Korea hardly equates to WWIII. I love it though the way they say Bush is holding the world hostage. As if that isn't North Korea's threat from the get go. And Iran's. No? If "give us concessions or we'll build nukes" isn't blackmail I don't know what is.

Member for

20 years 5 months

Posts: 120

So who is a greater threat - Someone who has hundreds of nukes and will use it for a preemptive strike, or someone who 'will develop' nukes and 'may' use?
Gurus please clarify :)

Member for

19 years 4 months

Posts: 362

So who is a greater threat - Someone who has hundreds of nukes and will use it for a preemptive strike, or someone who 'will develop' nukes and 'may' use?
Gurus please clarify

Stupid judgement.
The country that "will develop' nukes" and "may" use (NK) attacked SK in 1950 without any reason, provoking a war that result in ~2 million deaths. Now, this make good credentials for NK in your eyes?

Member for

18 years 11 months

Posts: 352

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3221conplan_8022.html

The highlight:

I did like this part:

Typical, blaming Bolton for crap he has no control over, and that was developed and put in place before he was invited to the table as a player :rolleyes:

Soc,

I seem to be missing your point.

Whether you approve or disapprove of it (that is another matter), the Bush administration did amend the US nuclear doctrine, starting with the Nuclear Posture Review of 2001, and altered the US position in terms of first use (as far as I can recall, the US renunciation of first use prior to 2001 was seen as a way to support non-proliferation).

Sure, this review was not conducted by the State Department. But it is unlikely that the State Department has not been consulted, and that someone like Bolton in charge of arms control at the State Department did not play a role in this!!!

Member for

20 years 5 months

Posts: 120

Stupid judgement.
The country that "will develop' nukes" and "may" use (NK) attacked SK in 1950 without any reason, provoking a war that result in ~2 million deaths. Now, this make good credentials for NK in your eyes?

May be that NK and SK have 'K' in common was reason enough for them to attack. Baad baad N koreans. :mad: Lets nuke em 'pre-emptively' and wipe em out before they invade others without any reason at all. Just like we pre-empted saddam and his cronies from nuking amrika ;) so what if a million or so die in the pre-emptive nuke stirkes and precision strikes, the world will be a safe place.

Member for

19 years 4 months

Posts: 362

May be that NK and SK have 'K' in common was reason enough for them to attack

yeah sure...

Member for

20 years 5 months

Posts: 120

yeah sure...

The point is that, if NK is bad because it attacked SK without any reason, then US will be equally bad for going to war with North Korea, except for defending itself or allies (in a war started by NK). Now pre-emption is one way of defense, but the major drawback of such a policy is that it 'assumes' that the enemy is going to attack. Now this assumption may be based on intelligence, behavior of country in the past or whatever, but still the outcome will be the same - a war based on an assumption. Iraq has proved that such assumptions can be wrong. And if nukes are involved, then pre-emption will not be a defensive policy any more, it will be aggression.
There is nothing in this world that can justify a nuclear first strike in a war, leave alone a nuclear pre-emptive strike.

Member for

20 years 5 months

Posts: 4,674

That stuff is not news!

Starting after the first U.S. Golf war, then-SecDef Cheney issued a new "Nuclear Weapons Employment Policy." It included pre-emptive nuclear strikes against "rogue nations" seeking to acquire WMD capabilities.

Then in 1996 there was document JP 3-12.1 "US Joint Chiefs of Staff Doctrine for Joint Theater Nuclear Operations", which gave a doctrinal frame to that pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons, including use against non-state actors. And: In that document the use of nuclear warheads is delegated to regional and even local commands if they get to know about an imminent attack against them by NBC weapons.

That was again reworded after 9/11 in the "Nuclear Posture Review", stating a list of potential target countries - China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. And the document specified the potential targets: (i) Targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack; (ii) in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or (iii) "in the event of surprising military developments (which again brings in regional and local commands). Additionally it outlined the use of nuclear weapons to prevent the proliferation of NBC weapons to other states or non-state groups.

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 600

So I guess we could still yet see World War III?

Actually we already have World War III with 3,5-4 million victims and dozens of countries involved in the DRC.

Member for

20 years

Posts: 1,574

So I guess we could still yet see World War III? Great,I was begining to think that we had missed that.Right as I am getting ready to go back into the Army too.Always wanted to see a nuclear holocaust upclose.Bet it'd make a hell of a pay per view special.Wonder if it'll be like "The Day After"?That movie scared the hell out of me.Pretty cool though.A Nuclear War would be pretty exciting for about the first 20 mins then it would start to suck pretty quickly thereafter.

The Third World War by Humphrey Hawksley http://www.ffbooks.co.uk/n12/n64634.htm is a disturbing fictional account of how a nuclear situation can get out of hand.

Member for

19 years 1 month

Posts: 451

First let it be known I was being sarcastic,however,the fact is while China may not have many,the ones it does have can reach the CONUS plus Alaska and Hawaii.Iran,say what you will,cannot target or hit targets in the US or Europe and therefore,it matters little to me.The US shouldn't be imposing its will of "Only we can have nuclear weapons". Interesting considering after the first Gulf War,AF General Horner called nukes "Obsolete".Yet the US is getting pretty worked up over "obsolete" weapons.And by the way,as far as Iran,North Korea or China not having enough to be considered WWIII,I'm pretty sure at some point Russia would get pulled into it.Plus if North Korea starts shooting off,its probbley going to be followed closely by an invasion or attemped invasion of South Korea.Also,my favorite fiction book about it is Arc Light,pretty realistic .

Member for

18 years 11 months

Posts: 9,683

First let it be known I was being sarcastic,however,the fact is while China may not have many,the ones it does have can reach the CONUS plus Alaska and Hawaii.Iran,say what you will,cannot target or hit targets in the US or Europe and therefore,it matters little to me.The US shouldn't be imposing its will of "Only we can have nuclear weapons". Interesting considering after the first Gulf War,AF General Horner called nukes "Obsolete".Yet the US is getting pretty worked up over "obsolete" weapons.And by the way,as far as Iran,North Korea or China not having enough to be considered WWIII,I'm pretty sure at some point Russia would get pulled into it.Plus if North Korea starts shooting off,its probbley going to be followed closely by an invasion or attemped invasion of South Korea.Also,my favorite fiction book about it is Arc Light,pretty realistic .

What would Russia stand to gain by involving themselves in a NUCLEAR war that doesn't have anything to do with them? Guarantee if Russia and China started tossing them back and forth the US would just sit back and watch. Oh we might huff and puff but we'd never start dropping them ourselves.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 3,131

[QUOTE=Iranian F-14A]US shouldn't be imposing its will of "Only we can have nuclear weapons".QUOTE]

First of all, it isn't just the US that's advocating non-proliferation. So, please don't pile this one on us. It just seems to me that between Russia, China, France, and the US, we are the least of the "evils" that comes to nuclear proliferation. You're just bitching because we actually did quite a lot to follow through on non-proliferation goals. Sure, there are singular cases of alledged proliferation (maybe Israel) but that's no where close to what others have done.

Ok, now let's just extend your theory of everybody can have theirs if they so desire. I don't know about where you live, but in the event that nuclear proliferation is rejected, many countries will start to develope this in order to satisy nationalistic or other sad self-esteem issues...i.e., Iran (things like its a duty of a Muslim to attain nuclear weapons :rolleyes: ). Then the whole world will be screwed, BUT the one that gets screwed big time is the one that's militarily weak in other fields. If this doesn't get through, understand this, if US loses one city, an entire country will disappear and their land will become toxic for hundreds of years. I don't think this is what anyone wants (including us), so next time please respect those who demands nuclear non-proliferation. :rolleyes:

Pre-emptive nuclear strike is just an extension of MAD toward rogue countries that have extreme and OPEN virulent desires to destroy another country (you don't see the US threatens the existing country, even China, with such a policy). You don't see people (in any meaningful numbers) in the US openly demand the government to "Down with Iran" (or any other country) do you? Why such things happens in certain other countries? Now, if one goes off....you bet that demand will happen here, no matter what's right or not, much like what's going on in those certain countries right now. I don't know why some have this desire to go there just to satisfy their primal urges. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Member for

18 years 11 months

Posts: 352

Vortex,

I both agree and disagree.

I agree with you in the sense that the US is certainly not (by far) the worst offender in permitting the export of nuclear technology that could enable some countries to develop a nuclear capacity. In this domain, Russia, Pakistan (and to an extent China) are much more to blame, together with the French (the difference being however that the French stop contributing to this proliferation in the early 1980s, while the Russians, Pakistanese and Chinese are still at it - and btw, the development of the Israeli nuclear capacity is owed to the French, who build both Dimona (the Israeli nuclear plant) and provided Israel with the Jericho 1 and 2 missiles (Dassault)), before the cooperation was halted by De Gaulle).

I disagree with you however on two counts:
1) when the US reinforces the role of nuclear weapons in its military doctrine (including by saying that it is ready to use nuclear weapons against states that do not possess such weapons) and when it states that it may want to develop new nuclear weapons (so-called mini nukes), it magnifies the role of nuclear weapons for the years to come and put the have-nots at such a disadvantadge that it gives them a strong incentives to develop some capacities. I may also add that considering the superiority of the US in conventional armaments, I fail to understand why the US is willing to take such a risk in magnifying the role of nuclear weapons.
2) I also have to disagree with you when you state that you do not see people in the US openly asking government to "down in Iran". It takes a different name in the US, it is called "regime change", and in many circles it is quite virulent.

I also may want to add that for a country like Iran, the question of acquiring a nuclear capacity is not a mere nationalistic issue or one based on self-esteem. If you are willing to see it from their point of view, you can only conclude that it makes sense and is fairly rationale. Two of their biggest neighbors (Pakistan and India) have recently acquired a nuclear capacity. On two other borders, they have a nuclear capable country (the US in Iraq and in Afghanistan) intent on promoting regime change. I am certainly not saying that we should allow Iran to become nuclear, but just stressing that their willingness to get there is not owed to the fact that they are a bunch muslim extremists bent on holding the world to ransom!!!

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 3,131


I disagree with you however on two counts:
1) when the US reinforces the role of nuclear weapons in its military doctrine (including by saying that it is ready to use nuclear weapons against states that do not possess such weapons) and when it states that it may want to develop new nuclear weapons (so-called mini nukes), it magnifies the role of nuclear weapons for the years to come and put the have-nots at such a disadvantadge that it gives them a strong incentives to develop some capacities. I may also add that considering the superiority of the US in conventional armaments, I fail to understand why the US is willing to take such a risk in magnifying the role of nuclear weapons.

What the US is doing with nukes and defenses make no difference to the "plans" of those countries that already have them. For example, even if the US don't developed any new types of offensive or defensive ones, Russia will continue to upgrade their ballistic missiles and defenses and China will continue to mobilize newer versions of missiles and decoy technologies. So, this point you're bring up is quite mute. In fact, i would say the US's nuclear arsenal is getting quite behind others in delivery and arming (although plenty of warheads, we don't want that, most American "nuke people" acknowlege that number should come down to at least 1/5th).


2) I also have to disagree with you when you state that you do not see people in the US openly asking government to "down in Iran". It takes a different name in the US, it is called "regime change", and in many circles it is quite virulent.

I said not "in any meaningful numbers". Besides, the difference is many of these "countries" want to kill ALL Americans, not a "regime change". That is an extremely signifcant difference. Just like many in the Arab world want to see Israel wiped out, not simply change their leaders. So, there is a HUGE difference. Instead of replying, notice i said "many", not "all". So there's no stereotype here. It's a fact.


I also may want to add that for a country like Iran, the question of acquiring a nuclear capacity is not a mere nationalistic issue or one based on self-esteem. If you are willing to see it from their point of view, you can only conclude that it makes sense and is fairly rationale. Two of their biggest neighbors (Pakistan and India) have recently acquired a nuclear capacity. On two other borders, they have a nuclear capable country (the US in Iraq and in Afghanistan) intent on promoting regime change. I am certainly not saying that we should allow Iran to become nuclear, but just stressing that their willingness to get there is not owed to the fact that they are a bunch muslim extremists bent on holding the world to ransom!!!

I was afraid someone might bring this up before i wrote the previous post because this is just plain biased. So, if you're welling to see our point of view, then why can't we develope bunker busting nukes? Basically this point is NO POINT at all because it leads nowhere with the "see their point of view" excuse. Just like if you can see the point of view of some Nazis then they are not bunch of extremists..... :rolleyes: We can live with the existing nuclear powers even though many often are our global competitors. However, there are some that are just too extreme and irresponsible to have them...i.e., North Korea and to a lessor extent, Iran. To them, most people (like the Europeans and Eastern Asians who totally agree on this issue) are trying to end such ambitions. However, these days there are always those in the "public" that have this widely virulent case of romanticization of "big bad bully US means their target MUST be weak victims". This is the sad state of the world and its people. :(

Member for

18 years 11 months

Posts: 352

"What the US is doing with nukes and defenses make no difference to the "plans" of those countries that already have them. For example, even if the US don't developed any new types of offensive or defensive ones, Russia will continue to upgrade their ballistic missiles and defenses and China will continue to mobilize newer versions of missiles and decoy technologies. So, this point you're bring up is quite mute. In fact, i would say the US's nuclear arsenal is getting quite behind others in delivery and arming (although plenty of warheads, we don't want that, most American "nuke people" acknowlege that number should come down to at least 1/5th)."

I am certainly not denying this (and you may not have fully understood my previous post - when I was speaking of the have-nots, I was referring to those that do not have nuclear capacity, not to Russi, China et al). The fact that the five official nuclear powers fail to live up to their NPT obligations by reinforcing their nuclear capacities (notably in terms of doctrine) create a situation that, in the long term, is unbearable and will be detrimental to non-proliferation. Having a nuclear capacity gives a country an important edge international relations (ask the French and the Brits) that if further importance is given to that capacity some countries will unavoidably seek to possess it.

"I said not "in any meaningful numbers". Besides, the difference is many of these "countries" want to kill ALL Americans, not a "regime change". That is an extremely signifcant difference. Just like many in the Arab world want to see Israel wiped out, not simply change their leaders. So, there is a HUGE difference. Instead of replying, notice i said "many", not "all". So there's no stereotype here. It's a fact."

That is a question of perception. For you, regime change may sound trivial and unimportant. It is certainly not seen as such in some parts of the world. And just as you believe that many in muslim countries want to kill all americans, many in the Islamic world perceive that the US is waging a war on the entire Muslim world and want to destroy or at least enslave it. This is not the intention of the US but certainly is the perception of many muslims.

"I was afraid someone might bring this up before i wrote the previous post because this is just plain biased. So, if you're welling to see our point of view, then why can't we develope bunker busting nukes? Basically this point is NO POINT at all because it leads nowhere with the "see their point of view" excuse. Just like if you can see the point of view of some Nazis then they are not bunch of extremists..... :rolleyes: We can live with the existing nuclear powers even though many often are our global competitors. However, there are some that are just too extreme and irresponsible to have them...i.e., North Korea and to a lessor extent, Iran. To them, most people (like the Europeans and Eastern Asians who totally agree on this issue) are trying to end such ambitions. However, these days there are always those in the "public" that have this widely virulent case of romanticization of "big bad bully US means their target MUST be weak victims". This is the sad state of the world and its people. :(

1) Sure you can develop mini nukes. I am just stressing that if non-proliferation is one of your aims, it doesnt make sense (because it lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons and gives them a new lease of life and new incentives for other to acquire it). I am simply arguing that in the long term the US would be better off by developping a conventional alternatives to mini nukes.
2) To see the viewpoint of the other party does not mean to agree with it or condone it, but to seek to understand what motivates it and takes steps accordingly. But I guess it is easier to brand all foreign nations that are not willing to bend over backwards as a bunch of nazi extremists than to try to rationnally and fully understand the situation. Adopting such an approach, however, gives you such results as the Iraq and WMDs episode.
3) In my view, to dare ask whether some options selected by the current administration in the nuclear field are constructive in the long-term is not anti-american. But it seems that many in the US are not even to have a dialogue on options with their long-standing partners (ie you are with us or against us)!!!

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 3,131


3) In my view, to dare ask whether some options selected by the current administration in the nuclear field are constructive in the long-term is not anti-american. But it seems that many in the US are not even to have a dialogue on options with their long-standing partners (ie you are with us or against us)!!!

that's very ironic...who here said that? This is another propaganda that's so widespread. You just said to understand other's point of view, now understand that Americans belive it's the other way around. It's the "partners" thats ACTING, not saying, You are with us or against "all people" :rolleyes:
I've always said this whole Iraqi episode is good for Americans in the long term....there are many types of "friends". American people need to see this, many are simply just too ignorant and naive due to historical connections rather than today's reality.

Member for

19 years 1 month

Posts: 451

Vortex,I am an American,live in Ohio near one of the largest bases still active and am a former member of Ohio Army National Guard.Now while I respect your opinions,I will say that I can see why countries would want these weapons.But heres the million dollar question.In over 60 years since nuclear weapons came into being,when have they been used? Only once,by the US at the end of WWII.When you consider of the hundreds of thousands of warheads made in the US,Russia,China,France and England,not to mention India,Pakistan and Israel,none have even been used in combat.Think about it,not even India and Pakistan have used them against each other.I think that says alot.