I need to express some Pitty feelings...

[SPOOFE]

Beagle…Just what do you think NK’s response to a nuke attack would be?

Vaporization.

You are saying that killing NK troops with a nuke is worth the destruction of Tokyo or Taiwan??

I think he’s saying that if North Korea decides to storm South Korea, all bets are off and we can’t take any risks anyway. By telling the North Koreans “We’ll use nukes if we have to,” that’ll stymie any desire to invade in the first place. On the other hand, an attitude of “We’ll never use nukes, no matter what,” that tells the NK’s, “Hey, as long as we don’t use nukes, we can do whatever we want!”

[Reeder]

Remember that NK has stormed SK before. Got their butts wiped until the Chicoms decided to join the party. Granted it was a stalemate. But no nukes were needed.

[SPOOFE]

On the other hand, Reeder, there was a huge loss of life among US troops. In my opinion, the loss of one or two nukes would be preferable to the loss of another 50,000 of our men and women.

Or are you concerned that it’s not fair for us to have so few casualties while the enemy takes so few?

[SPOOFE]

“While the enemy takes so many”, rather. Oof, can’t type today.

[Michael_Ellis]

*Originally posted by Reeder *
Remember that NK has stormed SK before. Got their butts wiped until the Chicoms decided to join the party.

Yeah, they got beaten after Inchon, but before that they had taken over almost all of the Korean Peninsula except Pusan and had rolled over the ROK (the South Korean Army).

[Jackmannii]

Thank God this is “Amerika”, where we can say “fuck…fuck…fuck…fuck…fuck” like demented chickens.

[Reeder]

You people talk like throwing nukes is just another day at the office. What if they can reach Fairbanks? Is that a fair swap? How about Anchorage? Seoul for Anchorage?

While we faced down the USSR during the cold war, it was “no first use”. It still should be.

[Rhum_Runner]

*Originally posted by Reeder *
**While we faced down the USSR during the cold war, it was “no first use”. It still should be. **

Really? So we would have let the red army tanks roll through all of Europe and never would have been the first to use nukes huh? magic eighball says “Signs point to no”

[Reeder]

The point is…if you use nukes in Beagle’s scenario there are going to be repurcussions way beyond the immediate battlefield.

Rhum Runner…Agree with it or not…official US policy during the cold war was “No first Use”.

[Scylla]

You all need to stop worrying so much and learn to love the bomb.

[Beagle]

You are saying that killing NK troops with a nuke is worth the destruction of Tokyo or Taiwan??

The war is completely out of control, with NK launching missiles in every direction and I’m supposed to contemplate one where they don’t go ahead and target Japan? I thought most strategic experts agree that North Korea will target US bases in Japan as well as other targets.

To answer your shrill questions with an answer in the form of a shrill question:

Is South Korea expendable??? (I’ll up the question mark ante)

Once it hits the fan on the KP (Korean Peninsula) I doubt Japan is safe.

[Rhum_Runner]

*Originally posted by Reeder *
**Rhum Runner…Agree with it or not…official US policy during the cold war was “No first Use”. **

I disagree.

No first use refers to a pledge not to use nuclear weapons unless attacked by them. The former-Soviet Union now Russia and the People’s Republic of China have both pledged no first use, while the United States did not and has not. The reluctance of the United States to pledge no first use during the Cold War resulted from the numerical superiority of Warsaw Pact conventional forces and the belief that the use of tactical nuclear weapons would have been essential in defending against a Soviet invasion.

and here…

Germany’s new left-wing government is facing its first serious clash with the United States by proposing that NATO break one of its central strategic doctrines and pledge that it will never be the first to use nuclear weapons.

…should I go on???

NATO’s policy on nuclear weapons, one of the last standing Cold War monuments, is showing cracks. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer’s public statements last November – that NATO should give up the option of using nuclear weapons first – broke a virtual taboo. NATO’s nuclear powers, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States, rushed to oppose any changes in the Alliance’s strategy. They portrayed Fischer’s call for change as an attack against the fundamental credibility of NATO. Nevertheless, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder backed Fischer’s call for a thorough review of nuclear policy. Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien expressed his support as well.

[Guinastasia]

WHAT??? We’re seriously considering using nukes?

Stop the Earth-I want to get off. Right now.

[Reeder]

Beagle…You are the first to throw the nukes.

The insults are not welcome. I have not insdulted you.

[Reeder]

My bad Rhum Runner.

[Beagle]

US nuclear policy undergoes changes under Clinton. This has background on US first use doctrine.

In this context, Bell explained that it is U.S. policy not to use nuclear weapons first against any state except in three cases. First, “if a state that we are engaged in conflict with is a nuclear-capable state, we do not necessarily intend to wait until that state uses nuclear weapons first—we reserve the right to use nuclear weapons first in a conflict whether its CW [chemical weapons], BW [biological weapons] or for that matter conventional [weapons],” he said. Under the second scenario, Bell said the United States reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first “if a state is not a state in good standing under the Non-Proliferation Treaty or an equivalent international convention.” Finally, he said if a state attacks the United States, its allies or its forces “in alliance” with a nuclear-capable state, then the United States reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first, even if that state is not a nuclear-capable state and is in good standing under the NPT. Because these three exceptions have existed for some time, Bell said “there is no policy change whatsoever in this PDD with respect to fundamental U.S. position on no first use of nuclear weapons.”

Bush

The purpose of the Bush administration’s new strategic triad is to integrate defenses (i.e., missile defense), nuclear weapons and “non-nuclear strike forces” [1] into a seamless web of capabilities to dissuade and deter adversaries and to fight and win wars if deterrence fails. The NPR notes that the strike elements “…can provide greater flexibility in the design and conduct of military campaigns to defeat opponents decisively. Non-nuclear strike capabilities may be particularly useful to limit collateral damage and conflict escalation. Nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack (for example, deep underground bunkers or bio-weapons facilities).” [2]

I started a GD topic on those nuclear bunker busters, and first use, BTW.

Here’s some stuff on the Cold War that is interesting. Deterrence and such.

This book summary does a good job of shedding light on the complexity of Cold War theorizing.

One of the central dilemmas of Alliance politics during the Cold War was that the US security guarantee given to European members of the NATO Alliance created a sharp conflict with US national security interests as the US became increasingly vulnerable to Soviet strategic nuclear forces. The result were long drawn out negotiations to develop a strategic concept that would at least appear to reconcile the differences between European and US security interests. This article, based on declassified documents detailing intense discussions between West Germany and the United States on this issue, shows the differing perceptions on the requirements for deterrence in Europe and assesses the nature of the compromise which resulted in the adoption of the doctrine of ‘flexible response’.

The presumption behind having nuclear weapons is that under certain circumstances they might be used. When allies enter the picture it gets even more complicated.

Reread the first quote in this post. Sorry, Guinistasia, every POTUS since Harry Truman has tacitly endorsed a first use policy under some circumstances.

Reeder I was joking about your using multiple question marks. I did not insult you. But, if I did, this being the Pit: noodle noggin. Booty breath. Pencil proboscus. Silly, silly, silly poster person thingie.

[gobear]

I suspect I am the only person in this thread who has actually lived in South Korea, so I will point out that Pyongyang is only a 90 minute drive from Seoul (if the roads were open, that is.) The fallout and devastation would not be limited to the North, but would devastate the South as well.

Idiot.

[Beagle]

Gosh. You’re right. I’ll quickly go to therapy for my unrequited love for nuclear weapons.

Did any of the peanut gallery bother to read anything I posted, or are your brains all set in concrete?

[Cheesesteak]

First off, having a “no first use” policy is nonsense anyway. When push comes to shove, when desperation hits, we (just like every other country) will use every weapon we have available, regardless of any particular policy. All a first strike policy means is that we publicy reserve the right to use them as we see fit, which is really exactly what we would do anyway. Nukes are the last option we have in war, but they should remain an option.

Stoid, I really don’t get why you’re so mad after ONE reply in that other thread… Nobody is advocating just dropping a bunch of nukes willy nilly, and you know that. Of course your ridiculous blind hatred of Bush probably has polluted your brain so much that you actually think he’s itching to make some Koreans radioactive, and a ‘no first use’ policy is the only protection we have from his obviously insane desires.

[Derleth]

Possible outcomes:
[ul]
[li]NK invades SK. We do nothing, not wanting to risk American lives. East Asia is destabalized in the favor of two gangster states, China and NK, and we lose. Very unlikely, as we’ve pledged to defend SK.[/li][li]NK invades SK. We attempt to help SK, and NK launches on Tokyo and Anchorage. We, displaying the same moral outrage we showed after Pearl Harbor, nuke NK repeatedly. We all end up losing, but NK and SK lose much more, not to mention the Japanese who were simply caught in the middle. Rather likely, if it gets to that point.[/li][/ul]Ok, so much for no first use. NK is a highly credible nuclear threat, and it would be ignorance to think they wouldn’t use them if they felt the Imperialist Pigdogs closing in.
[ul]
[li]NK invades SK. America nukes Pyongyang immediately, lopping the head off the NK armies and stopping the war. America ends up salvaging what’s left of NK and rebuilding it, postwar-Japan-style, into something more amenable to basic sanity. Fallout affects both NK and SK, but American medical expertise does the best it can to limit the damage. Not a good scenario, and nobody is pretending it is, but it would result in less loss of life than losing four or five cities to an exchange.[/li][li]NK doesn’t invade SK. NK sees America’s nuclear missiles and decides that tossing insults are better than tossing grenades. The optimal scenario, only plausible if America has a first-use policy.[/ul]That’s how brinksmanship works. That’s how MAD prevented war for 50 years: You only count on your enemy being sane enough not to commit suicide.[/li]
I’m sorry if it grates on you, but we’re living in a different world.