Okay, let me get this straight.
The US indicates (in leaked documents) that it is considering targeting nuclear weapons (still badly mispronounced by our current President) at the Axis of Evil plus China, Russia, and … oh, I forget who No. 3 was.
Well, duh. Does anyone really think we don’t have nukes aimed, officially or ready for a moment’s download, at countries that have demonstrated a possession of or interest in obtaining Weapons of Mass Destruction — be they nukes, bio-weapons, or chemical weapons. Why wouldn’t we?
109 view(s)
Actually, our strategic missile deterrent *isn’t* preset anymore. Like you said, it’s just a matter of uploading coordinates, but still…
One of the main points of the new review is that it calls for actively planning strike packages against nonnuclear states and the use of tactical warheads against them in localized warfighting scenarios… not as a strategic deterrent against WMD attacks against the US. So much for the global nuclear nonproliferation regime, as smaller powers scramble to create their own nuclear deterrents against US first-strikes… who knows when the US might feel like threatening you with utter destruction (especially with the current Administration)?
In addition, it’s basically going backwards decades in nuclear arms control, reversing the trend started when the US and Soviet Union agreed to remove medium range missiles from Europe and later abandoning their tactical nuclear delivery systems in the European theater – concentrating nuclear inventory at the strategic (and less usable) end instead of the tactical (and more inviting to use) end of the spectrum.
1. I’m not sure it’s unreasonable to extend nuclear deterrance to states which have, or threaten to have, non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
2. Use of tactical nukes … yeah, that one’s kind of ginchy.
3. I don’t think that the possibility of US nukes being used against them is going to persuade any additional countries that they should try to get nukes of their own. It’s always been a possibility. Heck, it’s always been quite reasonable to believe that a first-strike against the US, regardless of whom, would be met in kind.
Granted, we’re not talking about people who are always reasonable … but we’re also talking about people who I can’t imagine are any *more* paranoid about the US because of this leak.
Imagine you’re standing in front of someone. You raise your fist in anger, but don’t strike them. What’s the other person likely to do? Most likely they will raise their fist in return. Now, you’re both angry and who knows who will make the first strike?
‘Going Nuclear’ was probably the biggest mistake as a society we could have possibly made. Not only do we kill people with WMD, but we also destroy the planet that we live on. Heavy stuff no matter how you slice it. You know the drill, we’ve only got one planet, yada yada yada.
As a country, we’ve proven that we are perfectly capable of taking out a target with/out/ the use of nuclear weapons, so why the hell are we going to them now? By raising the fist of tyranny over any other country who *might* even *consider* upsetting us in some way, shape or form, we’re asking for further terrorism.
If we were to be the ones to put away our weapons first, we should be the ones to KEEP them put away.
This is just the path to hell.
Imagine someone is shouting, “I have a gun! I have a gun! And I’m going to shoot you!” Or, “I’m gonna go get a gun!” Or even, “Other folks ought to shoot you dead, dead, dead.” What are you likely to do? Most likely you will (a) raise your own fists (or other weaponry), and (b) make it clear that any action against you or your loved ones will mean significant personal risk to the person doing so.
We can wish that nobody pursued nuclear weapons … but, frankly, it’s not clear that we’d be better off if the US had *not* pursued such a course. Would Germany have gotten it first? Japan? Or Stalin’s Soviet Union? None are particularly promising. Frankly, while I have my concerns about the US government and its decisions at time, I think it’s been one of the better possible sole possessors of such power, given some of the alternatives.
We’ve had a case already of someone deciding that they can attack and kill thousands without impact. That could, by the same token, embolden others to unleash WMDs that could kill tens or hundreds of thousands. We need to make it clear, especially when these “someones” are states or sponsored by them, that there *will* be ramifications — possibly tit for tat.
I really don’t see anything wrong with that, per se.