Others have already addressed Korea and Vietnam. So Iraq?, WTF?, the US destroyed their entire army and airforce and captured Baghdad in roughly two weeks. At what point would you have used Nukes and why? What possible benefit would it provide that makes up for turning the entire world against the US?
I know Trump has issues with the obligations of the NATO Treaty. Are you suggesting we also ignore the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as well?
Treaty, schmeaty. All we gotta do is hit them first!
It’s not entirely clear, or what WWIII would have looked liked at that point. The Soviets tested a non-deliverable copied version of the bomb the US dropped on Nagasaki, in 1949. But their own deliverable version failed in a test after that and they had no deliverable weapon in 1950 (the wikipedia entry for that is not correct), no operational capability till perhaps a handful in 1952, by which time the US had built an inventory of more than 1,000, as opposed to its own possession of only a handful up to the late 40’s. Although the US probably didn’t know the Soviet situation with certainty.
That said, use of nuclear weapons in Korea, which was seriously considered (at least more seriously than in any later war), would have had potentially wide ranging, unpredictable, and perhaps extremely negative results for the US.
And that’s the basic reason not to use nuclear weapons in limited wars against apparently non-nuclear powers. We know what the world looks like where we don’t do that, not a very nice place necessarily but tolerable. We don’t know what it looks like some years after we set that precedent*. In particular with Islamist terrorism it would obviously place a higher priority in their minds on eventually smuggling a nuke into NY or DC. That’s something they’d probably like to do anyway, but if it were easy it would have happened by now. But the whole environment of support, including active or passive state support, for them doing it might become more favorable if we start using them as normal weapons.
*nuclear weapons in limited wars, obviously there is the one off precedent of using them to help end an all out global conventional war, but that’s never been the situation again since their invention.
Just to explain the nature of this; what you do with a nuclear bomb is eviscerate tens of thousands of normal people who aren’t the people in power. It’s like invading Iraq, not finding Saddam or his sons and shooting everyone that moved for 10 years.
Korea was much the same. It isn’t talked about much now, but the USAF embarked on a coldly deliberate policy of winning the war by killing as many Koreans as they could; by war’s end at least ten percent of the North Korean population had been killed by USAF bombing. Essentially all North Korea’s cities were destroyed. Some estimates go much higher (including that of the guy in charge, Curtis Lemay, but one suspects he was inflating his success rate) but, obviously, a conservative guess is the best you can do.
How using nuclear weapons would have made the world a better place I am not sure.
I read recently that people tend to fact check the things they hope are wrong but not the things they hope are true. I’d like to see something other than second or third hand reports on this one.
There are still small tactical nuclear weapons for battlefield use.
Of course, then the other guy uses one a little larger, and things get very, very much worse.
I think he was more commenting on the use of zeroes when "O"s would have been more appropriate:
Si02 (not correct)
SiO2 (correct, leaving aside subscripts)
Korea and Vietnam are two good examples.
It’s that last word which is the important one.
I disagree. The USSR had very limited exposure in Korea. Pilots, planes, and logistics. And the first were under cover, thus providing plausible deniability. Officially, to the USSR it was not their fight.
Again I disagree. Remember that the US had recently seen off the USSR over the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Bullies back down.
Ahh, I missed that. I wsan’t sure what he was getting at, but now that makes sense.
“Unprovoked?” And what, to you would provoke a nuclear retaliation? I would personally only condone the use of nukes in direct response to another’s use of nukes on ourselves or our allies.
As long as everyone goes with that playbook, then the nukes don’t get used, and we get to live in a non-radioactive post-apocalyptic wasteland.
How sure are you? How willing are you to subject America to the risk of total destruction, even if it’s a very small chance? And what’s the tradeoff? Even if the world isn’t destroyed, what are the chances that the US becomes an international pariah and treated as an enemy of humanity? Hell, if we started a nuclear war, I’d consider us an enemy of humanity, and I’m a veteran.
Or NukeMap for more options (including multiple detonations).
You can waste a lot of time on that site, if it’s your cup of tea.
This is not a school yard fight and reducing it to a bloody nose and black eye means you have not thought this through.
Actually, those were two wars fought the way they were *because *both superpowers respected the other’s determination/thought the other might just be crazy enough to fuck it all up. Hence why the Russians (and Chinese) stayed far enough away to not risk getting nuked rather than heeding to Gary Oldman’s timeless advice and sending EEEEEVERYYYYOOOOONE.
Also, two examples of civil wars meddled with by the US when it didn’t have to, need to, nor was asked to but decided to anyway because REDS ! And democratic votes not having the “right” results in the case of Viet Nam.
So, no, not really good examples, no. Not as such. More like… the opposite thing.
The Cuban Crisis was actually a lone cunt hair away from actually kicking off WW3 - there was a submarine down there with a nuclear torpedo ready to launch at the US fleet, and orders to do it that the boat’s captain was ready to follow. The only reason it didn’t was because of one sane man.
Also, Khrushchev had a point. The US freaked right out at the idea of a battery of nukes off its coast, but at the time NATO had hundreds of warheads right on the Soviet doorstep and scaring the shit out of them 24/7. So who’s the bully ?
What’s the provocation here ? At this time, in this day and age ?
The board does support subscripts: SiO[sub]2[/sub] and Au•H[sub]2[/sub]O.
Using nukes is like using a gun to settle a middle school fight. If everyone is just using their fists and feet, a few noses might get bloodied, some eyes blackened and some shirts might get ripped, but the instant someone pulls out a gun, you’ve got a gang war on your hands. It’s possible that the Bully will back down when you draw a weapon but its also possible that he will draw his weapon and you end up dead.
I did not know that. I moused over all the controls at the top, and did not see that ability. Good to know. Thank you.
The Cuban Missile crisis has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the impact of the USA actually using nuclear weapons in Vietnam. Or anywhere else. Your statements are absolutely bizarre.
Had the United States used a nuclear weapon in Cuba to “solve” the crisis, and somehow that had not set off World War III (but it would have) you’d have a point.
The moment the United States used a nuclear weapon in Vietnam - and I am curious as to how you would see them being used; what type of weapons, and where? - the USSR would have panicked and gone to war They would quite justifiably have believed the United States was suddenly intent on general war. Either they would have invaded West Germany, thereby leading to nuclear war within a week or so, or they would have just attempted a first strike right away.
A nation that uses nuclear weapons to solve conventional problems is an outlaw nation, a nation of war criminals. No one would trust it; the Soviets and Chinese both would have assumed a nuclear attack was imminent, and America’s allies would have formally severed their ties with the USA.
A President who advocates solving the Iraq War by nuking an Iraqi city is well beyond the “war criminal” appellation given to the likes of Dick Cheney and into the “war criminal” appellation given to the likes of Heinrich Himmler. Such a person should be impeached, tried, convicted and executed.