U.S. Envisions Using Nukes on Terrorists

[MisterMike]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050911/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/nuclear_doctrine

"A broader array of capability is needed to dissuade states from undertaking ... courses of action that would threaten U.S. and allied security," the draft says. "U.S. forces must pose a credible deterrent to potential adversaries who have access to modern military technology, including WMD and the means to deliver them."

It says "deterrence of potential adversary WMD use requires the potential adversary leadership to believe the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective."

It says "this will be particularly difficult with nonstate (non-government) actors who employ or attempt to gain use of WMD. Here, deterrence may be directed at states that support their efforts as well as the terrorist organization itself.

"However, the continuing proliferation of WMD along with the means to deliver them increases the probability that someday a state/nonstate actor nation/terrorist may, through miscaluation or by deliberate choice, use those weapons. In such cases, deterrence, even based on the threat of massive destruction, may fail and the United States must be prepared to use nuclear weapons if necessary."

YeeHaw. What do y'all think? Under this doctrine, we may never have had to put boots down in Iraq. Less casualties on our side, less money spent. Maybe it'll be used on Iran? Think it'll happen before '08?

 

[michaeledward]

The function of the military is to kill people and capture territory.

When the decision is made that the military needs to be employed, all available weapons, technologies and personnel should be brought to bear on the objectives reached by the decision makers. If the correct weapon is nuclear, then it should be used.

Our current situation in Iraq, demonstrates the flawed 'decision making' process. The decision never clearly spelled out what the objectives were; which has allowed for a movable goal post. Now we find ourselves involved in the creation of a Theocratic State. Nation Building a New Iran ... Great

It would seem to me, that the problem with nuclear weapons, is that they are not the correct weapon for targeting terrorists, or even their state sponsors. There were 19 terrorist that attacked on September 11. How often were these 19 people in the same city, so they could be effectively targeted by such a weapon? How many other people would be killed by a nuclear detonation to eliminate the 19 targets we want?

The thinking "We destroyed the city to save the city" has, I think, been not a very effective policy. Even if the war-mongers like the idea.

 

[TonyM.]

Oh great. Yet another policy designed to make us look like the A holes of the world. Gee I'm proud.

 

[arnisador]

They're obligated to consider the option.

I don't know what I'd think if we were staring at an invasion of Iran or N. Korea...but I do agree that this'll make us look bad in the international press.

 

[OUMoose]

They're obligated to consider the option.

I don't know what I'd think if we were staring at an invasion of Iran or N. Korea...but I do agree that this'll make us look bad in the international press.

Consideration is one thing. Acting on those thoughts is another. Given the short-sightedness of this administration, I really hope it doesn't come down to a nuclear action, or we're all through.

 

[Xequat]

The thing about nukes is that if one gets used on you, you absolutely have to use one back on your attacker if you can. I agree that it could be hard to find your attacker, but that's what kept the cold war so "peaceful." If one entity uses a nuke and the victim doesn't use one back, then everyone will try to use nukes as initial attacks. Kind of the same philosophy as why we don't negotiate with terrorists. I think that we were just reiterating the long-standing policy that probably every nation has regarding nukes.

 

[heretic888]

The thing about nukes is that if one gets used on you, you absolutely have to use one back on your attacker if you can.

And why is that?

I agree that it could be hard to find your attacker, but that's what kept the cold war so "peaceful."

"Peaceful"??

Yeah, I suppose there were maybe little pockets of "peace" between the Korean War, Vietnam War, Cuban Missile Crisis, the USSR's annexing of half of East Europe, China's annexing of Tibet, and the ever-present conflict between East Germany and West Germany.

Then again, maybe not.

If one entity uses a nuke and the victim doesn't use one back, then everyone will try to use nukes as initial attacks.

According to who?

There is no historical precedent for this claim, just ideological assumptions.

Kind of the same philosophy as why we don't negotiate with terrorists.

Yes, because countering one political extremism with another political extremism has historically been so successful.

I think that we were just reiterating the long-standing policy that probably every nation has regarding nukes.

That's one hell of an assumption to make. Not to mention slippery logic in the Appeal To Common Practice variety.

Laterz.

 

[ginshun]

How is this a change from the way things are righ now, or have been since the thing was edited 10 years ago? What actaully changed here?

Are people up in arms over the fact that it says we could pre-emptively attack?

 

[heretic888]

Are people up in arms over the fact that it says we could pre-emptively attack?

Personally, I'm concerned about the idea of using a nuclear device that can destroy the property and lives of thousands (possibly millions) just to stop a few dozen people.

Outside of the obvious moral wrinkle concerning the situation, there is also retaliatory concerns to take into account. What if an American terrorist group forms up in New York and a foreign power takes it upon themselves to, in essence, "do what America did"??

Slippery, slippery slope.

 

[Tgace]

If the best way to knock out an underground bunker or a mountian cave network is with a nuke then let em have it... The US isnt going to nuke a city in any situation short of nuclear war.

 

[Andrew Green]

If the US can use Nukes on it's enemies, what grounds does it have to claim that other countries are "evil" if they do the same?

Nukes are a very bad idea, from any country not wanting a whole bunch of other countries really annoyed with them.

 

[heretic888]

If the US can use Nukes on it's enemies, what grounds does it have to claim that other countries are "evil" if they do the same?

Nukes are a very bad idea, from any country not wanting a whole bunch of other countries really annoyed with them.

Yup. Just like I said...

Slippery, slippery slope.

 

[Cryozombie]

I really feel this is just a "public announcemnet of policy" as opposed to anything new... Are we really naive enough to believe we would not Pre-emptivly strike a target with Nukes if we thought there was a reality that they were about to Nuke us? Have we trusted our government that much in the past? I think that much of the fact people are up in arms over this is because of their dislike of Bush... had this been anounced under the reigns of clinton (The one coming up in 2008 *rolls eyes*, not the previous one) I think a lot of people would go... "Hmmm. Makes sense" instead of seeing it for the evil it really has been all along, Starting at WWII.

 

[heretic888]

Are we really naive enough to believe we would not Pre-emptivly strike a target with Nukes if we thought there was a reality that they were about to Nuke us?

If you'll actually re-read some of the posts on the thread, I don't believe anyone is saying that at all. The problem others and I have brought up is the idea of using nuclear devices to fight terrorists. In fact, its becoming increasingly clear that conventional military tactics (in the sense of direct confrontation) are having very little impact on global terrorism ---- outside of inadvertantly strengthening it and bolstering its ranks, that is.

This is a fact that traditionalists like Cheney and Rumsfeld seem to refuse to accept.

I think that much of the fact people are up in arms over this is because of their dislike of Bush... had this been anounced under the reigns of clinton (The one coming up in 2008 *rolls eyes*, not the previous one) I think a lot of people would go... "Hmmm. Makes sense" instead of seeing it for the evil it really has been all along, Starting at WWII.

Sorry. Not a Democrat, nor am I supporter of the Clintons. My argument still stands. :supcool:

Laterz.

 

[MisterMike]

Axly, if everyone wants to read what is posted, it does mention using nukes on states that we would presume to stike us with wmd's. Not 1-2 terrorists.

Conventional warfare is responsible for the last 400 insurgent arrests. Looks like it is working to me. But it would be self-destructive to rule out pre-emptive strikes with any weapon we have.

While we're tossing around facts, maybe we should also toss around some evidence.

 

[heretic888]

Conventional warfare is responsible for the last 400 insurgent arrests. Looks like it is working to me.

If by "working" you mean "imprisoning 400 terrorists", then sure.

If by "working", however, you mean "actually stopping or even slowing the insurgency or global terrorism as a whole", then no. Its not.

 

[MisterMike]

One little bit at a time.

There will be many factors that inspire insurgency and terrorism. To not engage them on the grounds it will do the same is self destructive, or should I say, suicide.

 

[Cryozombie]

If you'll actually re-read some of the posts on the thread, I don't believe anyone is saying that at all. The problem others and I have brought up is the idea of using nuclear devices to fight terrorists.

Well, I dont think this specifically refered to terrorists...

"A broader array of capability is needed to dissuade states from undertaking ... courses of action that would threaten U.S. and allied security," the draft says. "U.S. forces must pose a credible deterrent to potential adversaries who have access to modern military technology, including WMD and the means to deliver them."

But don't get me wrong, I don't think this is a good idea, Im just saying that I think it's silly to believe this CHANGES our policy... I think it just admits it.

 

[heretic888]

There will be many factors that inspire insurgency and terrorism. To not engage them on the grounds it will do the same is self destructive, or should I say, suicide.

Perhaps I should amend my statement by saying that confrontational force by itself has been less than productive. Historically, economic trade and cultural exchange of ideas, education, and technology has proven more fruitful for "spreading democracy" than things like "economic sanctions" and "regime changes".

Personally, I don't see any trend in global terrorism taking an early retirement. If anything, its growing in strength and pervasiveness.

 

[heretic888]

But don't get me wrong, I don't think this is a good idea, Im just saying that I think it's silly to believe this CHANGES our policy... I think it just admits it.

I would agree with this.

I would also posit that this philosophy of "deterrance" is a holdover from the Cold War. While it seems pragmatic in some sense, I feel it ultimately advocates a spirit of aggression and competetiveness with foreign nations.

It really does make us look like The Enemy. The problem being, of course, that the Soviet Union has long since collapsed.

Again, I think the best solutions for this stuff are economic ones.