Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"Taboo Lifted" - A New Age Of Nuclear Warfare?  
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8760 posts, RR: 42
Posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1557 times:

Apparently, Pentagon strategists are seeking to redefine American nuclear warfare policies, as you can read here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1864173.stm

In the first moment, I simply thought "this is sick" - the use of nuclear weapons by the USA might very well encourage others like India and Pakistan to use theirs, the result being nuclear contamination of large portions of the planet's surface.

Then, I thought that this might be intended to be a clear warning to dictators and rogue states across the globe. But that's when I read "The report clearly referred to nuclear arms as a "tool for fighting a war, rather than deterring them", he added."

Together with "According to the paper, the report lists three situations in which the weapons could be used[:] [...] "against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack"." I imagine the following situation: US forces are to attack the bunker of Kim Jong Il, leader of North Korea. They will not be able to harm the building using conventional "bunker buster" bombs, so they will resort to "mini nukes", breaking the taboo of "using them first". With that, they disestablish the "balance of horror" that kept the cold war cold and provide an example for others that think they're now entitled to use nuclear weapons whenever their targets cannot be achieved using conventional weapons.

Chinese nuclear weapons erasing Taiwan? "We don't have enough bombers to fight the threat to our country any other way."

North Korean nuclear bombs exploding over the DMZ? "South Korean soldiers were firing into our direction, and we did not have anything else to push them back." Poor roe deer that stepped on a landmine.

Israeli nuclear weapons killing the population of Ramallah? I don't want to imagine.

Considering what these new plans might set off, I'm quite sure many people would wish for living back in the cold war once the "it" has started.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Now, what do you think? Is developing a new nuclear warfare strategy a right thing to do in these times of globalized threats and terrorism, or is it too dangerous considering the possibility of large-scale nuclear wars?


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1534 times:

For anyone to seriously advocate the use of nuclear weapons they'd have to be loopy.

User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1537 times:

This is NOT new! The United States along with every other nuclear power has always had lists of possible targets. More anti-American tripe from the BBC. U.S. nuclear weapons are defensive. In other words, they won't be used unless someone else uses some kind of WMD against the United States or our Allies.


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8760 posts, RR: 42
Reply 3, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1529 times:

@ B757300:
"The report clearly referred to nuclear arms as a "tool for fighting a war, rather than deterring them", he added."

Defensive, huh? Please reconsider.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1526 times:

"The report clearly referred to nuclear arms as a "tool for fighting a war, rather than deterring them", he added."

Defensive B757300???


User currently offlineRacko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4857 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1519 times:

Pre-emptive wars, guys. Are you damn liberals not listening to the news?

User currently offlineMxCtrlr From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 2485 posts, RR: 35
Reply 6, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1498 times:

I don't believe that any rational leader of any Western or other country would advocate the use of nukes lightly. Remember that the news media often quotes only sections of what a person really says, and that can change the entire course of the person's statement.

As an example of the above, look at how the media might "quote" my previous statement...

"Remember that the news media often quotes what a person really says". Now, didn't that just drastically change what I said? Of course and THAT sells newspapers! These people are in the business of selling themselves. Think I'm in left-field with this? Take a gander at this little article...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/05/10/ny.times.reporter/index.html

The New York Times has been a trusted news source for many, many years. Now, if they can have a reporter who "misrepresents" his stories, what's to stop someone at the BBC from doing the same?

The point is to take these stories with a grain of salt. Keep tabs on the Congressional http://www.congress.gov and Senate http://www.senate.gov record and the White House site http://www.whitehouse.gov for information on upcoming bills, and news releases. When you see something on those sites that is as scary as this could be, THEN start the letter/e-mail campaign against it!

MxCtrlr  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
Freight Dogs Anonymous - O.O.T.S.K.  Smokin cool



DAMN! This SUCKS! I just had to go to the next higher age bracket in my profile! :-(
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8760 posts, RR: 42
Reply 7, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1479 times:

"...what's to stop someone at the BBC from doing the same?"

Is the BBC funded by the government? If so, than that would be a matter of keeping it far from having to sell itself. As for what you've said about the media selling its products by all means, that's quite true. Do you know "Tomorrow Never Dies"? That's a nice view of media influence for the hell of it.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1451 times:

Much as I'm against nuclear weapons... if you're going to keep an NBC arsenal, it would be silly not to plan how to use it in a genuine crisis.

I really think this is innocuous compared to, say, Rumsfeld trying to find ways to use NBC weapons in Iraq. Scary prospect.




Cunning linguist
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1449 times:

"China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria as potential targets. "

Guess who these guys war game against.




Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13736 posts, RR: 61
Reply 10, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1442 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Aloges, you're quoting an article that's over a year old. Mighty white of ya.  Insane


"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 11, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1429 times:

Nuclear weapons have for decades been a weird thing.
To the military people they're effectively just very powerful bombs but their political masters have turned them into something else, something beyond the military implications of using them.




I wish I were flying
User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1383 times:

Nuclear weapons have for decades been a weird thing.
To the military people they're effectively just very powerful bombs but their political masters have turned them into something else, something beyond the military implications of using them.


Bingo! Not until the advent of the ICBM and push button annihilation were nuclear weapons viewed as political tools instead of military ones.



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8760 posts, RR: 42
Reply 13, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1375 times:

"Nuclear weapons have for decades been a weird thing.
To the military people they're effectively just very powerful bombs but their political masters have turned them into something else, something beyond the military implications of using them.

Bingo! Not until the advent of the ICBM and push button annihilation were nuclear weapons viewed as political tools instead of military ones."


It's like that with all WMDs, just as a recently provided example drastically showed. Personally, I consider it an advance that WMDs are no longer simply considered very powerful weapons - since that sounds like "Wow, cool, we can kill a million of them with just ONE bomb!"



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineDc10guy From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 2685 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1370 times:

That scares the crap out of me ... Dubya with a free hand and nukes... If anyone would he would.


Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
"Spellings" New US Secretary Of Education posted Wed Nov 17 2004 18:28:59 by JoseMEX
New Trend: "freeping" Of Polls To Help Bush posted Mon Mar 8 2004 19:23:09 by Zak
New Remix Of "Heaven" posted Fri Jun 28 2002 20:24:16 by Pilot1113
Continuing The "Age Of A.NET Users" Topic posted Sat Jul 21 2001 20:10:31 by SIA_B777
Bush's New Office Of "Faith-based" Blah Blah Blah posted Tue Jan 30 2001 21:32:09 by TWFirst
Cessna "Cleared For Takeoff" Kit For Sale (NEW) posted Thu Nov 16 2006 19:36:13 by L-1011Alpha
Anyone Here Heard Of Old Computer Game "Lotus"? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 13:08:01 by Thom@s
How Much Of "Borat" Is Staged? (spoiliers) posted Thu Nov 9 2006 18:24:41 by Braybuddy
Pronunciation Of "lieutenant"? posted Thu Oct 19 2006 19:11:40 by Kaitak
YYZ Spotters Beware Of Heat From "Sun" posted Tue Sep 12 2006 20:32:04 by 808TWA