U.S. Envisions Using Nukes on Terrorists

[MisterMike]

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.

I agree. And good thing we've done more than use force alone, even though I do not agree "reconstruction efforts" and "democracy building."

But what do you do with a society that does not want our trade, culture, education and technology? At last check, Islam does not look highly on American ways of life. (Nor do they appreciate our past and present policies, but going back in time or correcting them from this day on will not change the motives of a terrorist.)

 

[Andrew Green]

I don't think "Terrorists" will ever be the objective here, North Korea, Iran, and other countries the US doesn't like should be the ones getting nervous.

Iran for example, if they are honest in there not wanting nuklear weapons, just power would probably be reconsidering that now if the US might launch preemptive strikes. They might be awfully tempted to develop there own Nukes that could strike back to deter the US.

First Strike is a bad idea, threatening to do so might tempt other countries to launch first out of fear that if they don't, you will.

 

[heretic888]

But what do you do with a society that does not want our trade, culture, education and technology? At last check, Islam does not look highly on American ways of life. (Nor do they appreciate our past and present policies, but going back in time or correcting them from this day on will not change the motives of a terrorist.)

Fundamentalist nations like Iran may look down upon what you might call American culture, but don't think for a second they would turn down a genuine opportunity for economic trade or technological development.

In fact, this is one of the principal reasons why China is becoming increasingly more "capitalistic" and "like us": we entered into economic exchange with them.

 

[Xequat]

1) And why is that?

2) "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.

3) According to who?

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

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

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

Laterz.

1) It's more that your opponent/enemy knows that you would use one back on him/her if you were attacked with one, because that way, everyone knows that to nuke someone else is to get nuked yourself. That's why India and Pakistan don't nuke each other, it's why the US and USSR didn't nuke each other (well, obviously that's not the only reason) and it helps to keep countries from becoming bullies. (If you want to start another thread about how it's too late, or how the US is a bully already, etc., go ahead, but I htink it's been done.) But, it's also what made the Cuban Missile Crisis so dangerous. If we had been nuked by the USSR, then we would have to nuke back, and neither country wanted that. We may have been "capitalist pigs" and they might have been "commie red whatevers," but neither of our leaders wanted to see a nuclear war, which would have been the inevitable outcome. I recommend "Dr. Strangelove," "Wargames," and that one about the crisis, specifically (I think it was called "14 Days" ) to get an idea of where I'm coming from. And, yes, I know the first two are fictional.

2) Yes, "peaceful." The reason for the quotations was that the time was pretty stressful, but the US and the USSR never physically fought. That's what a cold war is, by definition. China, Korea, Vietnam, Tibet, etc were not a part of the Cold War. Those things happened while the Cold War was happening, but they were separate things.

3) How about every high school bully, criminal, speeder, terrorist, dictator, rapist, and plain old jerk...ever. If someone does a bad thing and gets away with it because nobody will fight back, then they will continue to do the same bad thing until they are stopped. I'm not sure what kind of proof you need.

4) I have no idea what you're talking about here...maybe I wasn't clear or I'm missing something, so I'll just rephrase. We don't negotiate with terrorists for the reasons just mentioned in #3. To give in to their demands is to breed more terrorism. Ah, maybe you thought I meant the suicide killers or something, when I meant the kind of terrorist that kidnaps people for ransom?

5) Not really. I think that's pretty well been covered so far in this post, but let me know if not. (I don't mean you have to agree, I just think you can see my point on this one so far about why so many nations have nukes, but nobody has ever used them since WWII.)

The thing is, it's not evil to want or get nuclear weapons...it's just bad when people who are already evil want to get them. Let's say one of bin laden's men ascends to power in a nation with nukes. Well, he's already willing to commit suicide just to get as many Americans as possible, so why wouldn't he just line up all of his nukes against the US and press the red button, knowing that we'll fire back? That's the thing; what makes nukes OK in some countries is that they'll never use them for fear of getting one volleyed right back, but if someone doesn't care, then that is no deterrent to him/her.

Also, I agree with Technopunk that this is merely a reiteration of policy to make sure that anyone thinking about nuking us risks getting it back.

 

[Xequat]

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".

Yeah, I'm with ya there.

 

[heretic888]

1) It's more that your opponent/enemy knows that you would use one back on him/her if you were attacked with one, because that way, everyone knows that to nuke someone else is to get nuked yourself.

This, of course, is a rather peculiar and paranoid form of ideology.

This would be like advocating that everyone should have firearms in their home. That way, if anyone tries to shoot anyone else we'll know they'll get shot at. This philosophy perpetuates exactly the type of xenophobia and sociocentrism that I have warned about in the past.

A more reasonable philosophy would advocate disarming as many deadly weapons as is pragmatically possible, and only ensuring that they are in possession of those upholding civil order and/or who have demonstrated they can use them in a rational, responsible way.

2) Yes, "peaceful." The reason for the quotations was that the time was pretty stressful, but the US and the USSR never physically fought. That's what a cold war is, by definition. China, Korea, Vietnam, Tibet, etc were not a part of the Cold War. Those things happened while the Cold War was happening, but they were separate things.

The entire concept of of a "Cold War" is a misnomer --- unless you have the very narrow definition of the arms race and competition for superior technology in mind. I take it to mean the political battle between the United States and the Soviet Union on all fronts.

The point of the "Cold War", from the American perspective, was to halt the rise and spread of communism across the globe. That is precisely what all the conflicts and wars I cited were about. The USSR was either directly or indirectly involved in every one of them.

Sure, it wasn't as violent or destructive as, say, World War II --- but it is an illusion to believe that the decades-long conflict between Western capitalism and Stalinist communism was in any way "peaceful".

3) How about every high school bully, criminal, speeder, terrorist, dictator, rapist, and plain old jerk...ever. If someone does a bad thing and gets away with it because nobody will fight back, then they will continue to do the same bad thing until they are stopped. I'm not sure what kind of proof you need.

"Fight back" does not mean "blood for blood, eye for an eye".

I'm all for self-defense, both on the personal and national level. In fact, I believe its the only time wanton violence should be engaged in. I'm also for restraining or incarcerating those that pose an obvious threat to others (whether we're talking about individuals, organizations, or nations). However, this is not a license to do whatever the aggressor has initiated. Elsewise, you are no different than them.

Rather, again, a more reasonable philosophy would advocate using only the force that is necessary to pragmatically stop the aggressor from perpetuating violence. Its not about revenge or some sort of bizarre nationalistic egotism.

4) I have no idea what you're talking about here...maybe I wasn't clear or I'm missing something, so I'll just rephrase. We don't negotiate with terrorists for the reasons just mentioned in #3. To give in to their demands is to breed more terrorism. Ah, maybe you thought I meant the suicide killers or something, when I meant the kind of terrorist that kidnaps people for ransom?

The assumption that negotiation or dialogue "breeds more terrorism" is precisely the type of paranoid ideology I was talking about before. We, of course, have no historical evidence that this is the case --- its just an a priori assumption that our culture has inherited.

Dialogue should be used when appropriate. Violence should be used when appropriate. Its not an all-or-nothing deal here.

The thing is, it's not evil to want or get nuclear weapons...it's just bad when people who are already evil want to get them.

Personally, I don't subscribe to the fantasy of "evil".

Laterz. :asian:

 

[sgtmac_46]

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


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?

I think some people have misunderstood this doctrine. It clearly 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."

This clearly implies a response to a nuclear or other WMD imminent threat posed by a foreign nation-state against the US, and the needed threat of like response being clear to the leader of said state.

It is not a response to a 9/11 style terror cell attack, that merits a conventional response. What, short of a nuclear response, is merited by a nuclear attack on a US city with the overt or covert aid of a foreign nation-state?

 

[heretic888]

What, short of a nuclear response, is merited by a nuclear attack on a US city with the overt or covert aid of a foreign nation-state?

I'd say it depends on each situation as it arises.

Preferably, the solution would be something that wouldn't kill a thousand times as many innocent lives as it would guilty ones.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I'd say it depends on each situation as it arises.

Preferably, the solution would be something that wouldn't kill a thousand times as many innocent lives as it would guilty ones.

What message is clear enough as a responsible to the deaths of millions of Americans in a nuclear attack on a major city. What "limited" response will only send the message that the US doesn't have the will to respond in kind? Granted, it is necessary to make sure that we are getting the right folks, but surgical strike seems out or proportion to a wholesale fiery holocaust.

Besides, from a practical perspective, I don't think any American administration could do anything short of a full scale response. With the deaths of millions of Americans, America would cry out for blood, and blood on such a large scale that no sane person would ever contemplate attacking America again. The world world should tremble at the thought of a nuclear attacked America.

Any American president (Or anyone else for that matter) who attempted to preach patience, tolerance and forgiveness would likely be lynched in on the White House lawn. Am I saying this should be the response? No, but I am saying it WOULD be the response. Imagine 9/11 multiplied by a factor of 50, and you might begin to remotely see New York city decimated by a nuclear blast.