Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Summer Wine]

This article about changes to US use of nukes raises a shade of doubt in my mind. I always believed that pre-emptive use of nukes was probably not a good idea for our world, but I guess they are probably thinking of using mini-nukes.

Its just that the only way to really be sure you took out a North Korean nuke arms dump may be to use the mini's. I just hope that they consider the negatives before using them preemptively.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/11/news/nuke.php

[rapier]

I see a greater danger from within: enemies smuggling nuclear weapons into America.What if islamic extremists have already assembled a nuclear device to detonate in America itself?
I've already seen a couple of reports of this.

Also...how many American soldiers are actually in-country guarding the U.S? More seem to be posted overseas on peacekeeping etc- leaving America open to attack.

[Bulsajo]

[rapier]

[Bulsajo]

Fess up: you write this stuff cause you like me and want me to tear you a new asshole, don't you? Admit it.

Calling you a halfwit would be an insult to halfwits- you are a quarter-wit, or perhaps absolutely witless.

Such as scenario has been around for as long as tactical nukes have existed. Perhaps even before.
There have been a half dozen freaking hollywood movies on such a subject- I'm amazed you didn't reference "The Peacemaker" and cite George Clooney as an expert.

[Nowhere Man]

Read this in the IHT today.

The above posts aside, this is seriously f-ed up.

I don't see it as liberal or conservative:
NO NUKES

Is that terribly hard to understand?

Why?

1) If you're liberal, any comment would be superfluous.

2) If you're conservative, wasn't that what you missile defense shield was all about?

3) If you're an expat, do you really want little Chernobyls being tossed about the world in the name of "eliminating WMD"?

Finished.

[Bulsajo]

Yes back on track
(I apologize on Rapier's behalf for his not being able to read, comprehend, and answer the simple question I had for him),
it is totally screwed up, it throws out the whole M.A.D. concept!

You're going to pre-emptively strike other nations?
Some other nations might come up with the same thoughts about you!

You're going to preemptively strike Terrorists with nuclear weapons?
But everyone knows terrorists aren't tied to a particular geographic location, so WTF are you going to do?

Level most of Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan and hope that A) you don't kill any civilians B) you actually kill some terrorists, and C) you don't set off armageddon?

This is so obviously insane that those policy makers and Generals who are well versed in nuclear strategy MUST know that is the nation-state equivalent of putting a loaded shotgun in your mouth!

This won't deter terrorists. On the contrary it could embolden them- "Look how scared we have made the Americans, that they are going to throw away 55 years of nuclear deterrence doctrine and threaten others with possible nuclear attack!"

The more I think about, the more it sounds like Osama's wet dream....

[Nowhere Man]

2 things on that note:

1) Taiwan must be a very raw candidate for pre-emption.

2) Wouldn't it have been much easier to nuke "Saddam's secret bunkers" and let a commission in the year 2025 find the evidence which was "obviously" there?

Scary.

[Summer Wine]

Quote:

2) Wouldn't it have been much easier to nuke "Saddam's secret bunkers" and let a commission in the year 2025 find the evidence which was "obviously" there?

That is probably the thinking of some individuals today. Its become a morass in Iraq, rather than an in and out surgical strike change of government. We don't want to make that mistake again. Lets just burn the danger spots out.

In consideration, this may be just a bit of (propaganda?, maybe wrong word to use) on the part of the US Government. Example, don't piss us off or think we won't do it, we are considering changes to our nuke strategy, now we've told you. Don't step over the line.

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

I think the US ought to invest in "nuke lite" cause otherwise countires will feel that they can hide weapons or terror leaders in underground bunkers.

No one who is building nuclear weapons would give up their nuclear program if the US gave up its program to build small nuclear weapons.


The US ought to also invest heavily in Rods from God and the space bomber.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH18Aa01.html

[Bulsajo]

[rapier]

Bulsajo- you're going to be over there in October, right?

Does al-Qaeda pose a new type of nuclear threat?

http://cfrterrorism.org/security/nuclear.html

WASHINGTON – Pentagon officials have confirmed human smuggling rings in Latin America are attempting to sneak al-Qaida operatives into the U.S.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37133

Americas way of debunking its fears is to make movies. Doesn't mean that the danger goes away after the hollywood release date.

[mindmetoo]

I love it. Just in case you don't believe this guy:

[mindmetoo]

Would seem to me the USA has two major threats that are cheaper to deal with via nukes:

1) massive underground complexes for making WMD. The Libyans before they became everyones new friend constructed some massive canyon complex. Short of a nuke, no bombing would touch it. The entrance even was at the end of a winding canyon and no cruise missile could navigate down that trench (although Red 5 could!)

2) huge future Chinese submarine fleets those could sink a carrier group. Nuclear depth charges would be the easiest way to deal with them.

If the US can move the perception that using nukes in either two cases isn't at all like dropping a nuclear bomb on a city, well, that's great for the Pentagon.

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]