Real life fallout at hand ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Guest
Probably not, but read this :

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-031102nukes.story

What do you think about all this ? They keep saying that they're not planning on a war, but things like these are expensive, and a government doesn't spend such an amount of money "just in case". Also, I think by developing low-yield nukes, they'll have less problems with deploying them. Anyway, I'm working on this for school, so please give me your opinions.
 
I don't think European Union or America's Asian partners will like that, for many different reasons.

[a href=//www.aptyp.f2s.com/megaton/][img src=//www.aptyp.f2s.com/megaton/images/megaton_banner.gif" border=0 onMouseOver="this.src='//www.aptyp.f2s.com/megaton/images/megaton_banner_glow.gif'" onMouseOut="this.src='//www.aptyp.f2s.com/megaton/images/megaton_banner.gif][/a]​
 
well another campaign promise broken, from the words of Charleston Heston "never trust anyone over 30" =]
 
>Probably not, but read this :
>
>
>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-031102nukes.story
>
>What do you think about all
>this ? They keep saying
>that they're not planning on
>a war, but things like
>these are expensive, and a
>government doesn't spend such an
>amount of money "just in
>case". Also, I think by
>developing low-yield nukes, they'll have
>less problems with deploying them.
>Anyway, I'm working on this
>for school, so please give
>me your opinions.

I have to wonder who we'd even attack if we were hit again with something like the WTC attacks. The situation surrounding September 11th proves that these attacks won't come from organized nations, or even people we can target and destroy. We took the Taliban and al Qaeda out of commission, but it isn't like we know they were really responsible for the attacks; Osama certainly never admitted to it. We did it just to prove that we *could* retaliate, to make us feel better.

I seriously have to wonder who we'd launch tactical nukes at... if the next "war" is ambigious as this one, we'll probably be attacking the wrong people.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Mar-17-02 AT 11:32PM (GMT)[p]This has hardly news. If you live in the US, shame on whomever taught you about the Cold War.

First-strike and rollback have been standing US nuclear policy for around half a century now. You hit us, we hit you back. If soviet tanks start pouring into West Germany or Greece, we'll turn Moscow into a parking lot. Personally, I would be more worried if the US didn't have any sort of contingency plans for nuclear attacks and decided to just wing it when the time came. Just as an aside, I'd also be a hell of a lot more worried if a middle-aged child that doesn't even know who he is and is still experiencing delusions of grandeur(such as being the inventor the internet) was in charge of anything as deadly serious as nuclear weapons.

The point of low yield weapons is to make nuclear arms that won't cause catastrophic collateral damage to anything near the target. A 10kt device would destroy a bunker but also level anything nearby. A subkiloton weapon could be used with a ground penetrating assembly and destroy a small bunker with negligible fallout. Low-yield weapons are meant for surgical strikes, not a new millenium version of the "Davy Crockey" and nuclear artillery shells of the 60s. Having low-yield weapons doesn't mean the military will use them, it just means they'll have the option. What will probably happen is we'll nuke some bunker, the press and Eurocrats will have a feeding frenzy, the Chinese will issue a statement using the words imperialism, hegemonism, and unilateralism then everything will die down after there is no pretty picture of a mushroom cloud to plaster all over the evening news with the caption "American imperialist pigs kill Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar in unilateral nuclear strike; innocent 7 year old refugee Achmed Mohammed's kitten slain in the blast; France and China Outraged."

Though honestly I believe these small-yield nukes will meet the same fate of the Davey Crocket bomb and all be dissassembled within a decade of their manufacture (if they get that far). Even if there is no fallout or significant collateral damage the word "nuclear bomb" just has too much of a PR shock factor.

They keep saying that they're not planning on a war, but things like these are expensive, and a government doesn't spend such an amount of money "just in case".

All military hardware is expensive. The reason one builds a military in a democracy is because one doesn't want to go to war. Would you rather the military and Congress not prepare and then get caught with their pants down? That is the alternative to not spending money on the military or developing new technologies to counter new threats.

If you want to read more about nuclear weapons, I'd suggest www.fas.org. The website is decidedly liberal, but their data on nuclear arms is credible and very well presented. alt.war.nuclear is also a good resource, but don't believe everything you read. If you don't have a NG reader go to www.deja.com. It links to google but that's easier to explain. Good luck on your paper.
 
My only complaint is when America kicks up a fuss because Russia, China or some country other than the US has/builds/tests Nuclear weapons of some sort. Like when the USA complains to Russia about Nuclear arms reduction, then goes and increases their own stockpile or builds a new nuclear weapon or builds a missile defence shield.

I think if China got its' economy moving and started building a Missile Defence Shield, someone in the USA would crap their pants and kick up an international fuss. Then complain some more and try and get some sort of sanctions or other action of some sort against China.

I just don't like the hypocrisy.

[link:users.senet.com.au/~dbschah/|DarkUnderlord]
------------------------------------------
http://server3003.freeyellow.com/darkunderlord/images/interplay_cow.gif
------------------------------------------
Moo..... Moo.... I'm an Interplay Cow. (Ready to be milked with a Fallout style MMORPG with aliens!)
 
I disagree. If anything, this war has proven that states sponsor terrorism and the best way to combat terrorism is to aggressively go after it. Destroy regimes harboring terrorists, destroy support for terrorists, and destroy their ability to finance their operations via banks. bin Laden didn't ever confess he was behind the attacks? So what? Is that the only way that one can possibly link another to doing something bad, a confession? I've seen sufficient evidence in the news reports that al'Quada was behind the attacks, and, obviously, the Taliban harbored them.

I have more faith in the integrity of the Bush Administration and the 535 men and women on Capital Hill(both republicans AND democrats) than to think that they would launch a war on false pretenses or "to make us feel good" as your ridiculous assertion states.

There is also a great difference between "launching tactical nukes" at another nation because of an attack and using ground penetrating low-yield nuclear arms against bunkers. Low-yield devices are exactly what the name implies: low yield. In the 60s we had a bazooka-fired "Davy Crocket" nuclear bomb with a yield of 10 to 20 tons. This is about the level of yield the bombs they are talking about developing would be. Maybe even less. The USAF has ordered 3 "Big BLU*" bombs, which have 15 tons of explosive in them. That would probably be more than the low-yield bombs being designed. All nuclear weapons do not fall within the multimegaton city-killer category.

*I can't remember the HTML for making a link offhand, so here is the Big BLU story.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020315-16818189.htm
 
My only complaint is when America kicks up a fuss because Russia, China or some country other than the US has/builds/tests Nuclear weapons of some sort. Like when the USA complains to Russia about Nuclear arms reduction, then goes and increases their own stockpile or builds a new nuclear weapon or builds a missile defence shield.

When in the past 10 years has the US increased it's nuclear stockpile? Cite me just one case. The ONLY talk that has been coming from Washington in either Bush administration or the Clinton administration has been nuclear *reduction* save the low-yield devices. The US doesn't "complain" to Russia about nuclear arms reduction, the two nations sign treaties such as SALT or START that promise *bilateral* reductions in both nations' stockpiles.

I think if China got its' economy moving and started building a Missile Defence Shield, someone in the USA would crap their pants and kick up an international fuss. Then complain some more and try and get some sort of sanctions or other action of some sort against China.

Ah. So this is why we offered to let the Russians and Europe in on the missile sheild. The US doesn't 'kick up an international fuss' when we don't like something. You're thinking of France.

Honestly this statement is so ridiculous I don't know where to start. A missile sheild like what the US is going to build wouldn't even be worth deploying against the US or Russian arsenal. I'm not even going to touch the practical barriers to China making a missile sheild in the next century.

I just don't like the hypocrisy.

And I don't like people that don't do their homework before sounding off. I don't mind a difference of opinion, but please have it at least based on logic.
 
>When in the past 10 years
>has the US increased it's
>nuclear stockpile? Cite me
>just one case.

I admit, I can't.

>The US doesn't "complain" to
>Russia about nuclear arms reduction,

You're arguing over the definition of a word.

>the two nations sign treaties
>such as SALT or START
>that promise *bilateral* reductions in
>both nations' stockpiles.

America also signed some treaty about not building a missile defence shield.....

>I think if China got its'
>economy moving and started building
>a Missile Defence Shield, someone
>in the USA would crap
>their pants and kick up
>an international fuss. Then complain
>some more and try and
>get some sort of sanctions
>or other action of some
>sort against China.

>Ah. So this is why
>we offered to let the
>Russians and Europe in on
>the missile sheild.

What do you mean? America offered to build a missile defence shield to protect China and Europe?

>US doesn't 'kick up an
>international fuss' when we don't
>like something.

Ummmm.... Yeah you do.

>Honestly this statement is so ridiculous
>I don't know where to
>start. A missile sheild
>like what the US is
>going to build wouldn't even
>be worth deploying against the
>US or Russian arsenal.

Then why is America building it? For fun?

>I'm not even going to
>touch the practical barriers to
>China making a missile sheild
>in the next century.

A century is a LOOOOOOOONG time......

>I just don't like the hypocrisy.
>
>
>And I don't like people that
>don't do their homework before
>sounding off. I don't
>mind a difference of opinion,
>but please have it at
>least based on logic.

That was a general statement. I don't like America's hypocrisy when it takes the moral high ground on certain issues. Weapons of Mass Destruction, Saving the World, Free Trade etc.....

[link:users.senet.com.au/~dbschah/|DarkUnderlord]
------------------------------------------
http://server3003.freeyellow.com/darkunderlord/images/interplay_cow.gif
------------------------------------------
Moo..... Moo.... I'm an Interplay Cow. (Ready to be milked with a Fallout style MMORPG with aliens!)
 
Um, Id just like to say a few things...
Firstly, I think your deffinitions of "tactical nuke" were a little conservative on the side of yield. I think the brief flirtation with sub kiloton yield weaponsm proved that those kinds of warhead will not be either useful or economical on the battlefield (as the only benefit of a 100 ton yield nuclear weapon has over a 100 ton yield non-nuclear weapon is that it is relativley small and produces more heat, which will damage metal ordanance upto a faily high range, probably around two times is blast radius). The largest tactical nuke Ive ever read about was a 1 megaton weapon which was designed to be fired into water to produce a massive wave capable of sinking an enemy fleet, the reason it needed to be so large was that fleets of ships dont all stick close to each other all the time, so the power of the wave had to be massive.
I do not know the actual definition of a tactical nuke, but I assume it is any nuclear weapon that can be used on a batlefield with minimal risk to friendly troops.


Secondly, I feel that the US should spend a lot more time researching the nuclear arsenal they already have, as well as increasing the number of small yield weapons they have. This is because no one knows the "shelf life" of a nuclear weapon and a number of Americas stockpiled warheads are known to not be functioning and a large number have not been tested and so are left as unknowns.
 
Welcome to the modern age of warfare, if you can call it that. In this day and age, no country (except a "superpower") can dare think about mounting an offensive against any other country, unless that other country is severely less powerful in military force. Even then, they would have to expect world opinion to turn against them, and then run the chance of a military crackdown by outside forces.

Now I am not saying a country can't make the attempt to defend itself (Afghans & Soviets, for example), but no one can do it by making a public display of force. Look what happened with Iraq in the early 90's. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule; take Russia & the various fractioned states of the former USSR. By symantics alone, you could say that this is nothing more than an extended civil war.

Anymore, countries have to go through various types of terrorist groups to make a violent political statement; one that can't be traced back to their doorstep. The days of finger-pointing in a specific direction are probably over for good. How often, for example, do you see an article saying "A Palestinian did..."? More often than not, it'll say something to the effect of "A Palestinian extremist did...".

The next century won't be counrty against country, it'll be extremist group, religious faction, or terrorist fanatics against country. An established country won't be anything more than a sitting target.

"Did we give up when the GERMAN'S bombed Pearl Harbor?"
 
**When in the past 10 years has the US increased it's nuclear stockpile? Cite me just one case. The ONLY talk that has been coming from Washington in either Bush administration or the Clinton administration has been nuclear *reduction* save the low-yield devices**

you really think the american president knows everything that is going on? He is a political person, changed regularly. I dont think he is told everything (or tells us everything)...
 
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Oct-09-02 AT 05:58PM (GMT)[p]>**When in the past 10 years
>has the US increased it's
>nuclear stockpile? Cite me just
>one case. The ONLY talk
>that has been coming from
>Washington in either Bush administration
>or the Clinton administration has
>been nuclear *reduction* save the
>low-yield devices**
>
>you really think the american president
>knows everything that is going
>on? He is a political
>person, changed regularly. I dont
>think he is told everything
>(or tells us everything)...

I'm pretty sure he's well informed.

Anyway, I do not doubt that the nuclear stockpile has been reduced. There's no need for many of the nukes. Big old megaton warheads and the many outclassed ICBMs are worthless when the modern 20kTon MIRV nukes and cruise-missile nukes are much more effective. Reducing the nuclear stockpiles kills two birds with one stone: ending maintenance on out-classed Cold War-era nukes and good PR in the international arena because it looks like we're reducing arms.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

[table width=200" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0][tr bgcolor=#000000] [td style=font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 8px]  [/td][td align=left" valign="middle" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 36px; font-weight: bold; color: #FF0000; text-decoration: none]PAS:[/td][td align=left" valign="top" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-weight: normal; color: #FF0000]  [/td][td align=left" valign="middle" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-weight: normal; color: #FF0000]People Against Stupidity[/td][/tr][tr bgcolor=#000000" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 8px][td] [/td][td align=left" valign="top" colspan="3] [/td][/tr][tr bgcolor=#000000" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; color: #FFFFFF] [td] [/td][td align=left" valign="top" colspan="3]"Ignorance is excusable. Stupidity is not."[/td][/tr][/table][/div]
 
>>Honestly this statement is so ridiculous
>>I don't know where to
>>start. A missile sheild
>>like what the US is
>>going to build wouldn't even
>>be worth deploying against the
>>US or Russian arsenal.
>
>Then why is America building it?
>For fun?

We just don't want to have to retaliate with our own nukes if a small nuclear state goes haywire, nor simply "take the burn." The purpose is to knock off nukes that young nuclear states might accidentally launch perhaps because of revolutions, terrorists, or shock value. These small states don't have huge stockpiles of nukes and can't lob a whole lot of them at us, or at least enough that can't be intercepted by the shield. Mature nuclear states like the USA, China, and some former-Soviet republics as well as some European states, have enough and sophisitcated-enough nukes, like MIRVed nukes with decoys and other tactical measures, that the small missile shield would be overwhelmed.

>>And I don't like people that
>>don't do their homework before
>>sounding off. I don't
>>mind a difference of opinion,
>>but please have it at
>>least based on logic.
>
>That was a general statement. I
>don't like America's hypocrisy when
>it takes the moral high
>ground on certain issues. Weapons
>of Mass Destruction, Saving the
>World, Free Trade etc.....

Hey, like it or not, we can. We're not about morals as much as we'd like you to think we are. There is only one goal in our actions: look out for #1, ourselves. You can't blame us, every country does it, and it is a fact of life. The "moral higher ground" is merely a PR tactic to make our actions look good to ourselves and possibly anyone else who wants to believe it. There are political, practical, tactical, and at times, moral concerns that affect the decisions. Some concerns have greater weight than the others and often the moral concerns lose out.

We're not the good guys, we're just making our own trails.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

[table width=200" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0][tr bgcolor=#000000] [td style=font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 8px]  [/td][td align=left" valign="middle" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 36px; font-weight: bold; color: #FF0000; text-decoration: none]PAS:[/td][td align=left" valign="top" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-weight: normal; color: #FF0000]  [/td][td align=left" valign="middle" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-weight: normal; color: #FF0000]People Against Stupidity[/td][/tr][tr bgcolor=#000000" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 8px][td] [/td][td align=left" valign="top" colspan="3] [/td][/tr][tr bgcolor=#000000" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; color: #FFFFFF] [td] [/td][td align=left" valign="top" colspan="3]"Ignorance is excusable. Stupidity is not."[/td][/tr][/table][/div]
 
I like that it says that the "Big News" is that Russia is no longer considered an enemy. Well Duh. Yet the russians seem to feel that releasing the report was meant to intimidate them. What are we trying to do? Make them enemies again? And why do all our scenarios seem to have to do with other countries fighting other countries. Why have we elected ourselves as peacekeepers of the world?
 
>^
>|
>|
>
>Yep, what he said. Why?

I probably didn't see it the first time. Plus it is more interesting than some of the other conversation.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

[table width=200" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0][tr bgcolor=#000000] [td style=font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 8px]  [/td][td align=left" valign="middle" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 36px; font-weight: bold; color: #FF0000; text-decoration: none]PAS:[/td][td align=left" valign="top" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-weight: normal; color: #FF0000]  [/td][td align=left" valign="middle" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-weight: normal; color: #FF0000]People Against Stupidity[/td][/tr][tr bgcolor=#000000" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 8px][td] [/td][td align=left" valign="top" colspan="3] [/td][/tr][tr bgcolor=#000000" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; color: #FFFFFF] [td] [/td][td align=left" valign="top" colspan="3]"Ignorance is excusable. Stupidity is not."[/td][/tr][/table][/div]
 
Indeed this is a more interesting stream than some of the other conversations.

A good book on the nature of modern warfare is by VanCrevald, The Transformation of War. He also makes the argument that in the future wars will not be fought by states but by transnational groups that use violence to settle grievances. There is a lot out there now about the changing nature of warfare and some of it relates to the globalization debates. But remember the primary definition of a nation-state rests with its organization, ability to repress and its monopoly on the use violence within its borders. For another good read on war and the state- check out Charles Tilly's essay, "State making and War making as organized crime."

However, the idea that only big states can go to war is not quite true. While most war since the World War 2 has been intra-state (insurgency or civil war) there have been quite a few wars between countries. Tanzania invades Uganda, Confrontation in South East Asia, Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia, Even the Argentine's invasion of the Falklands against the Nuclear Armed Brits, are just a few without even going to the Middle East.

Are the Russians our friends? Yes, kind of. No, kind of. The Russians were perfectly willing to blame the US for the Kursk's sinking on allegations of a collision at sea. The American submarines were there because they were observing Russian naval manuevers. This occurs almost a decade after the end of the Cold War. Two countries with enough weapons to wipe each other out still need to watch each other. Be friends, but carry Theodore Roosevelt's big stick just in case.

While I agree that there is a difference in military use between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons, I wouldn't make much of a difference in political utility. If Pakistan where to a tactical nuclear weapon against an airfield in India which supposedly has atomic weapons- would it be a tactical use or would it be a counterforce strategic strike? Or if the US were to take out a Russian ballistic missile sub, thereby depriving them the ability to take out a dozen US cities and other targets, is that tactical or strategic? By crippling the other side's nuclear deterrence one undertakes both a tactical operation- attacking the enemies military, but also a strategic dimension- their ability to hit your cities, government, industry and strategic resources. Politically, nuclear yield is less important than purpose.

Nuclear weapons can be used for both offensive or defensive goals, but primarily they are to be a detterent. You prevent another country from hitting you by threatening them with so much punishment that a first strike just isn't worth it. Of course the problem is that every defensive system creates incentives for new ways to attack. There is also the moral dimension, the big taboo against nuclear weapons. In fact many countries consider nuclear weapons, like bombing civilian targets to be illegal and subject to war crimes sanctions (as if that would stop their use).

Alternatives have included the Fuel Air Explosive which I've heard was used against Iraq during the Gulf War.
 
"But remember the primary definition of a nation-state rests with its organization, ability to repress and its monopoly on the use violence within its borders"

Monopoly on the use of violence within its borders, organization as a central (and decentralized) administration with a burocracy, or in another way of puting it institutions with real administrative and jurisdisctional powers, the control over the territory (with 70% control you got a week state, with less you got a failed-state), and the way the ruling powers are perceived by the general population within those borders are the modalities first proposed by Weber in the 30`s to find a description of what are the charateristics of a nation-state.

Nowadays they are of the upmost importance to understand what are the concepts of fragile or failed-states, in a time when they`re a big thing to the media(Afghanistan, Somalia, Colombia with less intensity, Sri Lanka again with a diferent intensity, Rwanda et coetera).

The same way i started the day seems to be the way i`m going to finish it, discussing these matters :-). But i guess Xotor is right, this thread is better than the others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top