Poster Danalan: The whole point of testing nukes is to prove you have them, so you can threaten to use them. If you have a revolver, and you point it at someone, and tell them to do something, you have used the revolver just as surely as if you had fired a bullet.
that may be one reason. however, since it’s been abudently clear since the end of WWII that the US does indeed have nukes, why, pray tell, would we continue to test them, unless, well, there’s like other reasons to test 'em?
Hersh was on FreshAir yesterday, and covered most of these points. First, the first strike moved from a contingency plan to operational. This is not saying that there is an intent to do it, but this is a higher level. Second, he said that the military does not want to ever use nuclear weapons, especially in this situation, and requested that the option be removed - which the White House refused to do. So your comment on the generals seems pretty much on the money. Hersh said that there would be lots of resignations before this got further.
The reason it was leaked, he said, was to put pressure on the WH to abandon this possibility - in other words to make their nice statement a few days back on the remoteness of this happening a reality.
This said, the fact that Bush, Rummy and Cheney wanted this on the table scares the crap out of me. One General J.D. Ripper in power and we’re screwed.
I listened to that too.
First, Hersh clearly said that considering all the options is a standard procedure.
Second, Hersh said that nuclear option was presented to WH by the military. Later, some commanders went back to WH and asked to remove it from the table. WH decided to keep it ‘on the table’.
Third, Hersh said if nuclear option is used there will be some resignations.
Clearly, military is not unanimous on this and those potential resignees (and/or leakers) represent a minority group.
Here is someone else who wants to keep the nuclear option ‘on the table’: