Mini-nukes on US agenda

[Sava]

I disagree. It makes them less likely because theyre open to an invasion from the current superpower

Duh, this makes them more likely to use nukes in defense... D UH DUHDUHDUHDUHDUH

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by elijah
I cant see America engaging anyone like that, barring North Korea in the foreseeable future. Iran, possibly, but again, if it has N/B/C weapons, theyll be stored in similar, dispersed, discrete locations.

"Terrorists" are still the obvious target until the American people wake up and smell the cordite.

What part of

"Today we have a very different situation (from the Cold War). We have a situation where the United States may face multiple potential opponents, but we're not sure who they might be. There are multiple sources or potential sources of conflict."

is unclear to you?

You do not start a weapons program six months before you need them. They simply do not know who might be a threat 5 or 10 years from now. Proliferation, the fact that other countries are striving for their own nukes, kind of puts the boots to the 'evil Yankees are starting it', doesn't it?

'Terrorists' is a convenient straw man for you and others to use to beat on in this trhead.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Sava
Duh, this makes them more likely to use nukes in defense... D UH DUHDUHDUHDUHDUH

I love you sava Even if you are an unenlightened capitalist pigdog commie pinko liberal

[Odin]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar

Even if you are an unenlightened capitalist pigdog commie pinko liberal.

That makes no sense.

BTW, Comrade Sava still can't admit he is a Commie, and wimps out as a Social Democrat.

The meek shall inheirit the Earth!

[DarthVeda]

You know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna get myself a 1967 Cadillac El Dorado convertible, hot pink with whaleskin hub caps and all leather cow interior and big brown
baby seal eyes for headlights, yeah! And I'm gonna drive around in that baby at 115mph getting one mile per gallon, sucking down quarter pounder cheese burgers from
McDonald's in the old-fashioned non-biodegradable styrofoam containers and when I'm done sucking down those grease ball burgers, I'm gonna wipe my mouth with the
American flag and then I'm gonna toss the styrofoam container right out the side and there ain't a God damned thing anybody can do about it. YOu know why? Because
we got the bombs, that's why.

[Spoken]
Two words. Nuclear ****ing weapons, okay?! Russia, Germany, Romania - they can have all the Democracy they want. They can have a big democracy cake-walk
right through the middle of Tiananmen square and it won't make a lick of difference because we've got the bombs, okay?! John Wayne's not dead - he's frozen. And as
soon as we find the cure for cancer we're gonna thaw out the duke and he's gonna be pretty pissed off. You know why? Have you ever taken a cold shower? Well
multiple that by 15-million times, that's how pissed off the Duke's gonna be. I'm gonna get the Duke and John Cassavetes...
(Hey)
and Lee Marvin
(Hey)
and Sam Pekinpah
(Hey)
And a case of Whiskey and drive down to Texas...
(Hey, you know you really are an *******)
Why don't you just shut-up and sing the song pal!

[Ned]

There are a lot of good arguments here, but where I come down is that this is a bad idea because its premise is the continued stockpiling of nuclear weapons for deterence against terrorists. The goal should be to rid the earth of these weapons once and for all. The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty obligates the nuclear powers to negotiate mutual reduction of weapons with the goal of elimination. If nukes exist to deter terrorists, there can be no reduction to zero because all the nuclear nations would still need some stockpiles for use against terrorists.

Moreover, I simply do not understand why we cannot develop conventional weapons to deal with terrorists and "roque" states.

Finally, even though we today are somewhat of a pariah to the world because of Iraq, the actual use of nuclear weapons in any future conflict would, IMHO, totally alienate the world - so much so that the person who authorized their use would rue the day he or she ever gave such an order.

[Whaleboy]

is unclear to you?

You do not start a weapons program six months before you need them. They simply do not know who might be a threat 5 or 10 years from now. Proliferation, the fact that other countries are striving for their own nukes, kind of puts the boots to the 'evil Yankees are starting it', doesn't it?

I'm not strawmanning with terrorists, I'm merely proposing the obvious targets for the lifetime of such weapons, which at the rate theyre going is looking like terrorists and rogue states. Thats if things stay the way they are, the other way they can go is China getting more and more powerful, and Russia going in a bad way etc. If you can think of a reasonable application of these weapons that stuff you already have can't do better, I'd like to hear it. Either way, these weapons are useless. I understand the desire for the US military desire for an extra tool in their box, but it is uneconomic, and looking at current military thinking in the US government (that is laughable at best), I fear they would actually use it!

I agree with Ned, politically, it would be utterly stupid to use such a weapon.

EDIT: Possible applications would be anti-aircraft (fleets of bombers etc), anti sub, or ship-ship. All of which would only really be applicable against powers like Britain, China or Russia, and the use of them would result in severe nukage. MAD again applies. I believe these applications were considered during the cold war.

[Proteus_MST]

I agree with Elkijah.

As for Antiship-Operations:
Wasn´t even some Kind of nuclear Depth Charge or Torpedo developed for such a purpose?

[Whaleboy]

I think they tested an anti-sub nuke, detonated underwater in the late 50s or 60s. It worked quite well, but for some reason, they haven't used it. Must be some technicality or inpracticality they haven't mentioned. Besides, I dont think terrorists or rogue states are going to get their hands on subs or warships any time soon!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by elijah
sickntired: Agreed, I doubt anything will work, except changing the conditions that force people into that desperate situation. Remember its as much a social phenomenon as political.

I'd rather the USA, and the major powers have nukes, to maintain a state of equilibrium, even if that is MAD. Of course, no-one having any nukes is preferable to either!

Yea, we must make sure that Arabs are never allowed to amass huge fortunes again so that another Bin Laden will never be created by such desperate conditions.

[Whaleboy]

Yea, we must make sure that Arabs are never allowed to amass huge fortunes again so that another Bin Laden will never be created by such desperate conditions

Well.. thats sorta not what I mean, I just mean that we should stop screwing them, or creating that impression. Best way to do that is non-involvement, non-interference for a few years imo. Saying that we shouldn't allow them etc implies that we should place ourselves into a position of power over them, which is unacceptable, and counter productive.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by elijah


Well.. thats sorta not what I mean, I just mean that we should stop screwing them, or creating that impression. Best way to do that is non-involvement, non-interference for a few years imo. Saying that we shouldn't allow them etc implies that we should place ourselves into a position of power over them, which is unacceptable, and counter productive.

I was meeting your disingenuous post with sarcasm, so don't take that post seriously. The whole terrorist thing is merely a strawman argument and a waste of time in regards to the theme of this thread, which is new nuclear weapons designs. But since you brought it up...

Terrorism isn't really the problem so much as Islamic fundamentalism / fanatacism. If for instance the Muslims who hate us most (Arabs) were militarily advanced and the West wasn't, the military problems we would be trying to solve would have to do with trying to create as asymetric an environment as possible to defend ourselves. The real / persistent problem is that some of them (and no small number mind you, probably a majority in a lot of countries) want to kill us. Watching the news, reading the papers etc. the impression that I come away with is the fact of our existence is a humiliation to them. We can't retreat from existence, nor will we debase ourselves to the extent that they will no longer envy / hate us. Our only hope is to instill in them the sorts of values that the vast majority of the rest of humanity seem to have had or adopted rather easily.

This requires sticking to our guns and not retreating out of sight, as the cowardly bully likes nothing better than to strike a retreating enemy. We need to break these people down psychologically by being omnipresent where their sh!t is going on, and indefatiquable in our pursuit of our goals. Shame for them and honor for us will bring them around eventually, especially if we are magnanimous in victory and time it well.

[Q Classic]

sikander, how can we do that when the american public looks to be scared ****less by its own shadow?

the mobs buying plastic wrap and duct tape in a misguided belief that it would protect them from a biological attack.

knee-jerk reactions to reporting non-arabs as terrorists.

the ridiculously porous and ineffective security in airports: all show and very little substance.

fear of anthrax, or vx, or ebola, or...

face it: in one way, the terrorists have won. they've done their job, making the average american scared of virtually everything that doesn't fit into their tiny all-american world.

the important thing, other than sticking to your guns and being omnipresent, is to never let them see you sweat or bleed.
it's hard enough to do the latter; with the former, we don't need this embarassing ruckus here at home by idiots who buy 16 thousand dollar security systems for their homes as if it would protect them from a terrorist attack when they're at work.

national security cannot be legislated. it requires vigilance, personal responsibility, and integrity amongst the populace, all of which are in extremely short supply in the american public right now.

===

as for mini-nukes: i hate them. i think we should avoid using nukes, period, and use them only in the strategic deterrence sense, if at all.
however, it would be wise to develop them, simply because it would be foolish to refuse to use something for self-defence: one must go down every avenue possible to ensure one's own survival, and developing mini-nukes is one such avenue.
just because they are developed does not mean that they have to be used; it just sends a signal that we are not to be trifled with, because we can and will use everything in our power to ensure our citizen's safety, regardless of how deserving they are of it.

[Whaleboy]

Sikander: Your argument rests on the assumption that we are their natural enemies. That is not the case, look at any hostile situation, conservatism takes over, and you end up hating your enemy, it happened in Britain in the 40's, its happening in Arab states and its happening in America now. As soon as the West withdraws involvement from the Arab states, hatred of the West will be running on an empty tank.

We can't retreat from existence

You are taking my argument to mean my advocating giving them what they want. I would be the first to protest if that was such a proposition. I am saying we should create the social conditions required that they NEED to stop. In other words, we remove the cause of the social hatred of us, which in turn fuels the terrorism, which has generated some spurious demands based on small minded hatred, not the rational solution that the social situation requires to stop terrorism. I am proposing we provide that rational solution, which is in otherwords, a complete withdrawel of Western involvement with Arab states, no further what they might call cultural pollution, and if necessary no economic involvement (see how long they last without us etc... create a popular movement where the people WANT us to get involved to help them).

Our only hope is to instill in them the sorts of values that the vast majority of the rest of humanity seem to have had or adopted rather easily

Its that kind of cultural imperialism that is causing much of the problem, not to mention the attitudes behind it. The "Western" way, and what we percieve to be good has no holy, ultimate or infinitely good status.

Watching the news, reading the papers etc

Don't be naive, take the media with a BIG pinch of salt.

This requires sticking to our guns and not retreating out of sight, as the cowardly bully likes nothing better than to strike a retreating enemy

Pretty rhetoric, but tactically, sociologically and economically, it won't work. You have the choice of stopping terrorism in the long wrong, albeit running the risk of getting a bloody nose, or perpetuating a violent circle, in which the risk of a bloody nose is greater and longer term, although the latter may be more popular, it simply wont work.

We need to break these people down psychologically by being omnipresent where their sh!t is going on, and indefatiquable in our pursuit of our goals. Shame for them and honor for us will bring them around eventually

Sorry my man, Islam, society, and human nature simply doesn't work like that.

I agree with Q cubed, the best way of counter-acting terrorism in the very short term, i.e. preventing immediate attacks is better security and intelligence at home. Common sense really, no knee-jerk militariam, no revenge, no retaliation bull.

Terrorism is little or no tactical threat. As I have said before, 9/11 was getting off very lightly compared to a single night of the blitz in London! However, it causes terror, causes fear, and is designed to cause spontaneous, angry, vengeful actions that are supported by the supposedly wounded party. This in turn pisses off the arabs, who then have more justification for a jihad, Al Qaeda membership increases and so forth. So far, all is going to the terrorists plan.

I'd ideally like to see total global disarmament. Having said that, I'd like to see ALL militaries disbanded, the UN being the exception, followed by a world government.

They may say I'm a dreamer....

[Jac de Molay]

Its that kind of cultural imperialism that is causing much of the problem, not to mention the attitudes behind it. The "Western" way, and what we percieve to be good has no holy, ultimate or infinitely good status.

I personally don't equate tolerance or respect for differences as "cultural imperialism". When you have half of the islamic world held hostage by it's most fanatical/fundamentalist groups, I'd say it's more than just an aggravation. I don't buy the argument that challenging islam to do better is cultural imperialism.

And for the record, I agree with you on mini-nukes