An Unnecessary War? (Long)

[cavebear]

"Everyone has a brilliant idea that is completely wrong"

Given that the atomic genie cannot be forced back into the bottle, there are two kinds of nations that have them. One is restrained by polictic and social culture against use of them, the other is ruled by individuals beyond such constraints.

THe US, UK, France, etc are not likely to use such weapons in offense. Iraq and NK are quite likely to do so because the the decision is bound up in the whims of individuals.

Look at Iraq. When the US attacked it for invading Kuwait, it responded by launching missles at Isreal, which had no part in that war. NK would as easily launch missles at Japan if the US attacked it for invading SK. I hope you see a pattern here.

There is a difference between the US having nuclear weapons and Iraq having nuclear weapons.

[Sirotnikov]

Btw, I would expect criticism on Efraim Karsh from euro-lefties. After all, he's an Israeli, a pro-israeli and an anti-"new historian".

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by cavebear
"Everyone has a brilliant idea that is completely wrong"

Given that the atomic genie cannot be forced back into the bottle, there are two kinds of nations that have them. One is restrained by polictic and social culture against use of them, the other is ruled by individuals beyond such constraints.

THe US, UK, France, etc are not likely to use such weapons in offense. Iraq and NK are quite likely to do so because the the decision is bound up in the whims of individuals.

Actually, the decisions of any nation in wartime are bound up in the whims of individuals. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy didn't hold a referendum asking everyone, should we a) invade, b) threaten, c) give in? He gathered a few top generals and held private meetings.

In fact, that is a good thing. If the decision to launch nukes is up to the whims of the populace, we'd all be dead a long time ago.

Look at Iraq. When the US attacked it for invading Kuwait, it responded by launching missles at Isreal, which had no part in that war. NK would as easily launch missles at Japan if the US attacked it for invading SK. I hope you see a pattern here.

Why would Iraq want to nuke another country in a war, unless Saddam has nothing to lose and wants to go out with a fanfare?

Saddam is not stupid. He knows that if he nukes anyone anywhere, he's dead meat - unless, of course, if he's dead meat already.

Of course, we're all setting him up in a position of having nothing to lose.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The Soviet Union had free reign because of nuclear weapons.

That must explain the Soviet Union's constant invasions of other countries . . . oh wait, they didn't do that. Free reign, you crack me up.

[KrazyHorse]

Less talking, more killing.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by cavebear
There is a difference between the US having nuclear weapons and Iraq having nuclear weapons.

Yes, the US is the only country ever to have used such weapons on another country and it is the only country ever to threaten to use such weapons on another country (and has done so consistantly with ever set of hostilities since the end of WWII).

We are the only country that cannot be trusted with these weapons.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Yes, the US is the only country ever to have used such weapons on another country and it is the only country ever to threaten to use such weapons on another country (and has done so consistantly with ever set of hostilities since the end of WWII).

We are the only country that cannot be trusted with these weapons.

You know, it was these types of arguements that convinced me of the intellectual bankruptcy of the anti-war movement before reading the more sensible arguements presented in the article I posted.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That must explain the Soviet Union's constant invasions of other countries . . . oh wait, they didn't do that. Free reign, you crack me up.

Hmmm - Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, East Germany (ALL which they were supposed to leave and hold free and fair elections within). Afghanistan. North Korea and Vietnam were backed by USSR money and men.

Free reign they had and thankfully that ended in 1991.

[monkspider]

Well-stated Che.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You know, it was these types of arguements that convinced me of the intellectual bankruptcy of the anti-war movement before reading the more sensible arguements presented in the article I posted.

Spot on, DD .

I'll trust the well established countries like the US, Britain, France and EVEN China having nukes rather than smaller countries that have something to gain from blackmail with nuclear weaponry.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

You know, it was these types of arguements that convinced me of the intellectual bankruptcy of the anti-war movement before reading the more sensible arguements presented in the article I posted.

Sorry, just the chickenhawks arguments and US history together to come up with a smart-ass answer. It's not like you can deny the factual part.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

That must explain the Soviet Union's constant invasions of other countries . . . oh wait, they didn't do that. Free reign, you crack me up.

Hmmm - Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, East Germany (ALL which they were supposed to leave and hold free and fair elections within). Afghanistan. North Korea and Vietnam were backed by USSR money and men.

Romania and Bulgaria weren't invaded by the USSR nor did they invade anyone. Vietnam was fully justified in its invasion of the South and of Cambodia. It still doesn't come close to the number of wars initiated by the United States. The USSR hardly had the free reign you claim.

Unless you're talking about WWII, in which case I can say the US invaded Morroco, Algeria, Tunia, Italy, France, Luxemburg, Belgium, Holland, Germany and Austria (and I'll ignore Asia). My, what an evil aggressive country we were in throwing the Nazis out. Gosh darn those damn Commies for driving all the way to Berlin.

[Imran Siddiqui]

We actually decided to leave meaning we LIBERATED those countries and gave them back their countries. The USSR invaded and took countries.

And of course the USSR had no free reign. They were obviously restricted by what the US said . They could basically do whatever they wished because of the power of nukes.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Yes, the US is the only country ever to have used such weapons on another country and it is the only country ever to threaten to use such weapons on another country (and has done so consistantly with ever set of hostilities since the end of WWII).

We are the only country that cannot be trusted with these weapons.

The SU implicitly threatened to use nukes (ie the Cuban Missile Crises; if the US invaded N. vietnam; etc), as has China, and probably NK soon. Id be surprised if there is no instance in histroy where another nation has directly threatened to use them as well (i just do not recall any). And the scary thing is the SU might have, where as it was and is still US unofficial policy to not pre-empt a nuclear strike. Whenever we threatened, it was just that, mere threats in the game of brinkmanship, mastered by Reagan.

And that whole crap about the US being the only country ever to use nukes . So? The circumstances... there is much more to the story, and you took it way out of the context of the story.

Given that the atomic genie cannot be forced back into the bottle, there are two kinds of nations that have them. One is restrained by polictic and social culture against use of them, the other is ruled by individuals beyond such constraints.

THe US, UK, France, etc are not likely to use such weapons in offense. Iraq and NK are quite likely to do so because the the decision is bound up in the whims of individuals.

Look at Iraq. When the US attacked it for invading Kuwait, it responded by launching missles at Isreal, which had no part in that war. NK would as easily launch missles at Japan if the US attacked it for invading SK. I hope you see a pattern here.

There is a difference between the US having nuclear weapons and Iraq having nuclear weapons.

I agree

[Sirotnikov]

Bah, che, I'm losing any remaining respect for you.