Care to explain any of that? I don’t see the US using the nuclear bomb in the near future at all.
We’ve never used it anger, never threatened to use it for non-nuclear aggression save for chemical weapons against our forces, and I don’t know of a “sizable community” that thinks the US would welcome their use.
What the hell are you writing about?
You’ve used two nuclear weapons, in 1945, causing between 150,000 and 250,000 fatalities. Oh, that doesn’t count does it…
So you have…again with the exceptions, we haven’t..oh..oh..except that one time.
The glass parking lot brigade, who would cream their jeans at the sight of a mushroom cloud over the Middle East.
Opinions only follow, not facts…I think the circumstances of the 1st & 2nd atomic bomb use by the USA were quite different from today. The world was at war; not just a few backworld countries tussling over a border dispute. Many of the effects, especially long-term effects, were not known or appreciated at the time (radiation). And the threat, even promise, of massive atomic attack by one or another nation lingered for decades after 1945.
Today, we have the unfortunate knowledge of what atomic bombs mean. They are not just bigger bangs than other big bangs; they are a giant step up in destruction. While nuclear winter isn’t likely, a single atomic explosion would wipe out a half-century of caution. It would change the nature of the game in somewhat the same way 9/11 did. Think of the reaction – invasions, retaliations, etc. that one event caused.
That’s why most of the rational world considers a future use of atomic weapons to be “crossing the line.” France may be mad at Germany over trade agreements or deficits, but neither nation is threatening the other with atomic weapons, not even as a joke (and France could certainly deliver one). North Korea, while possibly impotent, is vociferously and recklessly threatening anyone within earshot with horrors the rest of the world has carefully put “in quarantine”. That’s what’s scary – if their impotence can ever be cured, will they act on their threats to save face or dial it back to stay alive?
ETA: The world isn’t always run by rational people, but sometimes by madmen. It’s not the many rational ones we have to worry about, but the single madman with an itchy trigger finger.
We’ll thanks for clearing that up with your well thought out, factually based coherent argument :rolleyes:
I seem to remember the two bombs that were dropped in WWII. It was the anger statement that you made that I have issue with. As to the rest of your post, I’m still waiting for an explanation.
Do you not understand the phrase ‘in anger’?
It means that you used them as intended, not for testing or research…
The US is pretty much the only country that flaunts its nuclear weaponry and has a chance of getting away with actually using them.
Talk of using nuclear bunker busters a few years ago is a case in point.
Threatening the use of nuclear weapons against population centres for the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield is another.
So if a nuclear weapon does get used, odds are it’ll be a US one.
Yes I am familiar with the idiom “used in anger.” It’s a bit odd though, and it wasn’t clear (to me at least) that you mean it in that way. I though you mean it in the more common meaning which is “a strong feeling of displeasure and belligerence aroused by a wrong.” I had issue with that. I don’t read the dropping of the Atomic bombs in WWII as vindictive. I viewed their use as the most expeditious and humane way to stop a world war that had gone on for six years.
Angry repetitive posts aren’t convincing. The United States has had nuclear capability for 67 years and hasn’t used once (in anger) for the 67 years since.
President Truman who used the bomb in WWII elected not to use it in Korea. I believe it was this decision which made the bomb something special that should not be used, as opposed to just another big bomb. There were also argument to use the bomb in Vietnam which did not lead to their use. And since then, we haven’t come close.
I’d like a site for the US government’s threat of using an atomic bomb against a population center in response of the use of chemical weapons.
Flaunting, talking and threatening (which I don’t concede) does not make a country more likely to use a certain weapon.
I’ll hold off on more hijacking. If you start a thread (with more than your anger) I’ll play.
I doubt that. The US political climate at the moment is very strongly against any such action unless the country is attacked by something much, much larger than 9/11.
I think the chances of a rogue (state or pseudo-state) using it next are much greater, possibly with religious justifications. Such a government (or group) is less dependent (or even immune) from world opinion. We know that religion has been used as justification for many serious, military actions in the past (think Crusades for starters).
I think we need to worry more about such groups obtaining the weapons than “conventional” governments that already have them. If nuclear weapons can be had, they will be used. What’s holding them back right now is the difficulty of obtaining them.
Can you elaborate on this more?
Has the U.S. itself (I’m talking about a duly appointed representative of the U.S. government, not some self appointed “expert” on cable news) threatened a country with a nuclear strike unless they comply with our desires?
I disagree from a tactical view point. The U.S. has a wide array of weapon systems available to achieve some military goal.
Special forces, carrier air strikes, drone strikes, cruise missles, B-2/B-52 bombers, just to name a few, can be launched within a fairly short time span with conventional weapons.
Give the U.S. enough time, and they can bring a couple USMC and US Army divisions (with their assorted party favors) to bear.
Why would the U.S. choose to use nukes and have to deal with the diplomatic baggage when we have other options?
How’d that work out in Afghanistan, 10+ years and victory in sight?
Do you believe that the U.S. is about to resort to a nuke in Afghanistan?
Are you suggesting that the President was threatening with nukes, specifically, as opposed to the usual conventional military options the U.S. has employed since Nagasaki?
To be fair: the only direct threat I can recall [from the USA] was JFK, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, declaring that a [nuclear] missile launch from Cuba at any target in the Western Hemisphere was going to be considered an attack by the Soviet Union on the U.S.A.
Pretty spooky stuff…
I am uncertain of the provenance of this document, but the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, (Pdf) dated 2005, had within it:
EDIT: Crap, forgot the permitted targets, elsewhere in the document:
Cities count, provided they have these other goodies within them.
This has been superseded in 2010 by the Nuclear Posture Review, which rejects the use of nuclear weapons in response to a chemical or bacteriological threat. FTA:
My personal opinion is that talk is cheap—and that no one really knows what the response will be if, e.g., an aerial tanker dumps a slurry of pneumonic plague spores over San Francisco—but that’s the official position of the U.S. Government.
Re, the OP: I am surprised that a nuclear weapon has not been used in anger since Nagasaki. However the logic mentioned by Dissonance in another thread, I’m sure is equally applicable.
The corollary to this observation is that your actors had better not already be in freefall, with nothing to lose. Especially since the current reward for a deposed tyrant is not exile and Swiss bank accounts, but a noose. (Or sodomy with a bayonet.)
Even non-state actors would have to realize that the use of such weapons would mean the loss of everything they held dear. And if they didn’t realize that, their paymasters probably do. I have to conclude that the sets of: (a) terrorists with the technical sophistication to acquire and use nuclear weapons and (b) willing to lose everything to strike at their enemy, don’t intersect. The controls on fissionable material and implosion device design help keep (a) fairly small. If WMDs become as ubiquitous as RPGs or the AK, that’ll change.
I think they are fluffy pussycats.
Nope, just that the US’ overwhelming, technologically superior force has been thwarted by a bunch of AK wielding, Land Cruiser driving, cave-hiding religious nut jobs. Iran is none of those things, for one it has modernish antiaircraft defences.
The President was clearly stating that no options, including nuclear weapons, we’re off the table.
And if the Iranians have been clever, the only strike weapons that will be able to eradicate their ability to produce a bomb will be nuclear, as in the bunker busters that GWB was keen on developing (and some say are still being developed under a different name).
That’s exactly my point. Despite having our destardly plans for global domination thwarted by these plucky little freedom fighters, the U.S. is not even threatening to escalate to nukes, let alone dusting them off and deploying them.
I don’t believe he was or is considering using Nukes. IMO, “options” means conventional military ones (instead of the diplomatic ones he is trying).
I believe you are assuming the nuclear option is in the cards.
I also believe that (because of the election crap going on), there’s no way he would give a straight “yes or no” to anyone who asks him to clarify. Mores the pity.
IMO, and its only IMO, I don’t think the U.S. will use a nuclear bunker buster. I think, instead, the President would recognise that the genie is out of the bottle on this one, and would issue Iran a warning like “OK, you have them [nukes]. If you use them offensively, we will hit you with ours.”, falling back on a sort of MADD policy. I don’t have any cites for you.
Wanted to add this little 2003 survey of nuclear first-use policies. It had some info as to how India, and other nuclear weapons possessing countries, came to their official policy of no first-use. It also strongly advocates a no first-use policy for the U.S. that seems, at first glance, to be similar to that adopted in the 2010 Review I cited above.
As to Szlater’s points about Afghanistan, I’ll just point out that the Afghan militants have not used a WMD in the United States (or at all, really.), and that the degree of thwarting would probably change if one had been used. It has been sufficient to prevent Afghanistan from developing a nuclear weapon though, which is all I think **mlees **was trying to point out with respect to Iran.
True, the alleged hardening of Iranian nuclear material enrichment sites might require a nuke to collapse them. A technical problem with doing so—beyond breaching the nuclear taboo—is that such collapse requires a groundburst. Groundbursts produce hideous local fallout that is unlikely to remain with Iranian borders, no matter how “clean” the weapon. (Yes, the bunker-buster that would be used would be a lot smaller than Castle Bravo; still, 1000 rads accumulated over 4 days within 150 miles+ of Ground Zero is one hell of a an irradiated area.) Bushehr, where Iran’s main reactor is located, is on the Persian Gulf, about 175 miles from Kuwait City. Even if you get the wind right, use a clean warhead, you’re still killing hundreds of innocents. Thousands if we count cancer. At best.
Consider this study from Physicians for Social Responsibility. Now, they aren’t LLNL, and they definitely have an ax to grind (among other things, using a 1.2 Mt warhead, when the likely warheads are going to be much smaller), but just look at the projected fallout plumes. A whole lot of ordinary people are going to be irradiated, and they won’t know that they’ll need to take shelter. I cannot see Iran’s neighbors accepting irradiation in exchange for a certain collapse of Iran’s various nuclear production facilities.
More likely, IMHO, is that all of the entrance points to the buried complexes would be bombed, with an unknown likelihood of sealing those points. Perhaps exotic warhead compositions like thermobaric mixtures (Maybe the fuel-air explosive will be dusted off the shelf?) would be used to try and get the explosive material deep within the complex. Worse comes to worst, declare war and drop a Ranger regiment on the damned thing. The point is that there are plenty of choices before breaking out the nukes.
Or, the U.S. will ignore Iranian attempts to produce a bomb, and remind them that use of such a weapon, or negligent loss of same that results in use, comes with grave consequences. I hope that this will be the result. I realize though, that the greater that these weapons proliferate, the greater likelihood that one of their owners will miscalculate and conclude that their existence is threatened. And then they will be used.
Who exactly are they going to target with nuclear weapons in Afghanistan? There are no troop concentrations, no enemy cities, nothing. Even if the US wanted to, it couldn’t. And I never suggested that it did.
Iran on the other hand will make the US pay in blood and treasure for every mile of captured ground, and they will fight on like the Japanese would have. An invasion of Iran won’t be like Iraq, there hasn’t been a decade of crippling sanctions and a war that destroyed the military or purges of command staff. The invasion of Iran will be costly. But I still don’t think it will result in nuclear weapons being used against civilians, not to say that civilians are safe from US attack (drones and cluster munitions are terror weapons regularly deployed by the US against civilian populations).
Right, so when the President says one thing you have to interpret it, because He would never. Rubbish. Nuclear weapons are an option, He said no options are off the table, ergo, nuclear weapons would be considered in a conflict with Iran. You can try to duck and weave but He said what He said.
And nuclear bunker busters were intended for EXACTLY this kind of strike… So, if the Union of Concerned Scientists is right and the US is still pursuing NBBs, then they may be deployed before Iran has fully constructed a nuclear weapon of its own.
I couldn’t tell you exactly when, but, yes, there will come a time when it is “old news” and the reaction will be “so what?” Remember the Alamo? Remember the Maine? How much effect does either historical event have upon our current national policy?
Fifty-four forty or fight!
Okay, that knocks me right out of the saddle!
Next you’ll be asking for pictures.
