I don’t have any really strong convictions on what exactly should be done. A massive nuclear strike would be a deterrent, true, but might create more problems than it solves. Maybe just bombing the supporting countrie’s largest cities and killing all the government officials in on the plot would be a sufficiently massive response. Maybe their families, too – the government officials and terrorist responsible certainly showed no hesitation in wiping out American families, now did they?
One fear I have is that a country might use the U.S. to destroy an opponent – say, India launches a covert, long-range op to make it appear that a terrorist group supported by Pakistan was responsible for nuking L.A., in the hopes that the U.S. would then turn Pakistan into a radioactive pit. We fall for it, then word leaks out about what India did, and suddenly EVERYBODY is setting up nuking American cities supposedly by their enemies, in hopes that we’d destroy them. I guess we’d have to nuke India too, to make that seem like a bad idea. Frankly, that’s a lot of nuking.
If it could be shown that someone like Saddam was in fact (as has been suggested) working on biologic weapons using human test subjects (yes, just like out of a Clancy novel), then it is entirely possible that a vaporization weapon would be employed. Not merely to obliterate the lab, but to prevent the possible spread of the weapon (bacteria, viruses or even possibly spores) that conventional weapons might actually exacerbate.
If such bioligic weapons were hemmoragic fever (like say, Congo Crimean) based with a 13 day infection window and a 33% mortality rate… you could be looking at upwards of 250,000,000 deaths in europe alone. If employed.
Versus a maximum of 10000 if a low yield weapon was used to sanitize (in the clinical sense) the area.
There’s not even a choice to be made in that scenario.
**Really? Then to repeat an earlier bit, would you have condoned the carpet-bombing of Afghanistan cities with the specific goal of killing an equal number civilians as were killed in 9/11? We were able to conduct the campaign there without resorting to indiscriminate carpet bombings and specific targeting of civilians, and chances are, the US (And the large number of other nations that would be willing to help) would be able to easily handle any country that sponsors such a terrorist attack.
**
Although this might get me flamed from the other direction, 9/11 was not the kind of event that threatened our survival as a nation. It was a terrible terrorist attack that called for a harsh response, but it was not sufficiently destructive to call for a response so out of proportion as a nuclear retaliation or even for carpet bombing.
Even though we did respond that way to a similar event: Pearl Harbor. ANd if that actually had been our response, I would have supported it just as Americans supported the response to Japan.
** certainly don’t think morality should be so blithely cast aside.**
Morality is for peace. Good faith among nations. But war is savagery, you can’t refine it. Once we are attacked, we need to win. Do whatever it takes. I think few would argue that WWII was a just war, but the way we fought it was pure savagery. 14,000 French civilians killed, innocent civilians. But it was worth it. Few would say it wasn’t. What is it worth to respond to a nuclear attack?
**Really? Can we hear your reasoning behind that, then? That’s a very bold, and as far as I can tell, completely unfounded, assertion there.
**
Why do nations harbor terrorists? Becuase there are no consequences for doing so. Invading Afghanistan and Iraq made it more difficult for nations to harbor terrorists. NOw they know there are some consequences. Nuclear destruction would be an even better deterrent to harboring terrorists.
So you do adaher believe that the choices would be massive Arab genocide or submission to terrorists?
The choices would be Arab genocide or American genocide. Take your pick. Mind you, this isn’t something I’m hoping for. But once that nuclear threshold is crossed, all bets are off, and everything changes. And if you think I’m extreme, as I’ve said before, wait until it actually happens. America is going to go into a rage the likes of which the world has never seen before. Imagine America with the mindset of the Islamic world, out to slay the infidels.
Of course, why would you want to “capture or kill” those who are NOT terrorists? What possible good could come from that fucking idea?
You can’t deter terrorists by capturing or killing them. You can deter them by harming their cause.
**Only a man man would use nuclear weapons. Is your President a mad man ?
**
I don’t know. Is yours? We’re talking about second use here, not first. Only a madman would fail to respond in kind to a nuclear attack.
Heck, we might as well unilaterally disarm if some of you think we should never use them for any reason. Wow, what a strong message that will send to the dictators of the world.
There are practical purposes for tactical nukes in the demolition field. But it’s doubtful anyone would use them, since there would be a political mess. We could use it for space travel, but you have to convince people to let them be sent up into space first.
The problem with nukes as weapons is that there’s no military target we’re likely to run up against that would make a worthwhile target. A Soviet army rampaging across Germany is one thing, but why use a nuke against a couple guy sin a jeep with an RPG? There’s still cities, but only the fringe consider them a legitimate target now. The only thing I could see being targetted with nukes would be a major military base or a fleet, and then we’d have to be pretty hard up against it. And it would have to be darn valuable, for that matter, since we can cripple nearly anything out there through conventional means nowadays.
When we’re at peace, everyone thinks of proportional responses and international law and morality and all that. And that’s good. Concentrating on those things makes war less likely by fostering good relations and trust between nations.
But once a war starts, all that goes out the window. Once you make a decision to fight, you fight to win. If that means total or near total destruction of the enemy nation, that’s what is done.
Years ago there were proposals to build a new, sea-level Panama Canal using nuclear explosives. Did anything come of this? Suppose you wanted to dig a new canal (say through Nicaragua)…would you just bury the bombs along the route and set them off? How dirty (radioactive) would your canal be?
Interesting. Out of proportion? You seem to be saying that deterence is only effective if it’s just as horrific as the events it’s intended to deter. And yet, we were able to respond with much less horrific tactics there, and you admit the invasion of Afghanistan was a deterrent, even without such horrifying tactics.
I also find it incredibly amusing that you first say that we can’t use the minimum reasonable force, and that morals should be cast aside durring war, but now say that responses as “small” as carpet bombing to kill 3,000 citizens is too much? I’m not finding much consistancy in your possition, here.
I find it remarkable that you would support the unneccesary killing of tens of thousands of uninvolved citizens who have no say in their government when it was not even close to being necessary or helpful. In fact, it would have likely been VERY detrimental. The US had the support of just about every nation in the world, and that would have been instantly GONE if the US had nuked Kabul. That would not help US security, it would significantly weaken it. It strikes me as nothing short of a bloodthirsty desire for revenge.
As for Japan, there were almost four years of declared conventional warfare adding more and more things to respond to before the US nuked Japan. The nukes were not a responce to Pearl Harbor. The responce to the attack on Pearl Harbor was to declare war on Japan, followed by several years of conventional warfare. And by the tactics and capabilities of the day, the nuke missions killed fewer people than most of the conventional bombing runs did. The two are not similar.
Again, there were years of declared conventional warfare at the time. And you know what? 14,000 French civilians killed is remarkably low considering the technology of the time. Bombing runs had to rely upon carpet bombing because of lower precision. And don’t forget the casualties among the French resistance. Some few months of war in Iraq killed about half as many Iraqis as you say French citizens died in France, durring a war using much less controlled bombing and over a much longer time. (As an asside, you might want to check the casualties, there. I think the French civilian casualties are likely much higher than you listed there. That number seems unreasonable small…)
That said, The conduct of WW2 was incredibly controlled and reasonable compared to the insanity you were proposing. The sides didn’t go wantonly killing people for no reason, exempting a few attrocities, which are generally decried by everyone as being wrong (Guess they didn’t get the memo about no morality durring war). Though I have to wonder, if morals are to be cast aside durring war, does that mean you’re saying there’s no such thing as atrocities? Do you think the “rape of nanking” was okay? Heck, the holocaust can be fairly well summed up as “doing whatever it takes.”
Morality does not have to be cast out durring war. In fact, it’s one of the times it’s most needed. “The ends justify the means” is the motto of warlords, dictators, and madmen, not moral rulers.
Back up a little bit. First you were saying that not nuking gave zero deterrence. Now you’re saying you can deter them without nukes, but nukes are more of a deterrence? Well, no shit. I could deter someone from shitting on my lawn by nuking the house of anyone who did it. But we’re not talking about wether nukes would deter terrorists, but wether it’s necessary, and wether it’s right. Frankly, I don’t think it’s necessary at all. The typical dictatorial type that’s likely to head countries that head terrorists would be worried about being ousted from power or killed. Wether some tens or hundreds of thousands of people were killed in the process of them being killed or ousted is probably irrelevant. They wouldn’t care, and it wouldn’t be a deterrent (But boy, would it piss of anyone that’s similarly minded!). Many of them have probably killed that many of their citizens already, anyway.
Now then, you also completely fail to address the question. You stated that failing to nuke a country that harbored terrorists that nuked the US, would make a second attack a certainty. That is the claim I was asking you to support.
While we’re on the subject, could you state wether you think terrorism is wrong, and why? You seem to say that terrorism is an appropriate thing for the US to engage in if it protects US citizens and interests. Does that mean it’s okay for other countries to use terrorism on the US if it’s in their own interests? “Whatever it takes,” right?
I’ll answer the other stuff in more detail a bit later, but I have a short answer to the terrorism question.
Terrorism is a form of unconventional warfare. As simple as that. It is neither morally better nor morally worse than taking a plane and bombing civilians.
Quibbling over the morality of terrorism only confuses the issue. Terrorism is warfare. The use of warfare against a nation means, duh, war. They fight their way, we fight back our way. May the best men win.
Well, my question in regards to a nuclear terrorist strike, is:
Just how feasable is it for a terrorist group to put together the technology and know how required to build a nuclear weapon without the assistance of a nation that already has experience with them?
A nuclear bomb isn’t exactly a weekend project.
And if, a nuclear armed country supplied the know-how and materials for the terrorists to build the bomb, or sold it to them outright, shouldn’t we show them that waging nuclear war against us using a middleman will cause the same response as launching them yourself?
The “rogue scientist” excuse wouldn’t work either, as any country with a nuclear arsenel should be held accountable for maintaining it’s security.
If N. Korea gave a bomb to Bin Laden, I am willing to bet that it is N. Korea that gets nuked, not the middle east.
Doing anything less just proves that a nation can get away with nuking us, so long as they use a third party.
What are you taking about? It is either they are for an ultimate holy war or they are not? If they are setting off a nuclear device inside the USA, I think we can deduct that they don’t give a shit as to what will happen next. What is death to religious fanatics?
If you continue to imply that my defence of not using nuclear weapons against scores of Arab/Muslim civilians is somehow equivalent to the USA collectively receiving anal sex from terrorists, I believe any further debate is pointless.
Do you propose to annihilate the entire country?
Because if you just nuke, say, one city, an occupying force will be needed as well.
What do you gain from using a horrible, indiscriminate weapon which makes the place uninhabitable and kills lots of people for many years, very likely alienates lots of other nations and possibly kicks off a global nuclear war if you can win conventionally?
By invading said country, you hurt the terrorists’ cause, you remove their harbor, and you will be seen as both the good and the tough guys.
All morality aside, isn’t that a good rationale for not responding “in kind”.
A lot of people here are simply wasting their time on this thread.
The OP question was “What could make the U.S. use nukes, short of WW III ?”
The OP question was not “Is it immoral for the U.S. to use nukes, or why should the U.S. not use nukes ?”.
There’s a lot of people here, apparently living in some fantasy land. Their posts have nothing to do with reality. I have already provided evidence that the USA does reserve to right to use nukes in retaliation, so all the wishful thinking going on is hardly helpful, in regards to the OP question.
Yes, the USA can and will use nukes, if deemed neccesary, regardless if some whiners say otherwise. This is the reality, anything else is fantasy.
The thing is, I doubt you could ever convince a President to use a nuclear weapon for anything other than a predetermined specific reason (as I stated in my first post on the subject) or if there is 100% belief that a WMD attack was about to occur (we’re talking hours away). Even then it’d be a very, very, very tough sell since it’d almost certainly cost him and his party their seats in the next election.
This is possible because the US has more options of response than most of europe (or the mid-east) does. What I mean is, the US has more military options at it’s disposal. France can’t stage and support an armed invasion of a distant country. Neither can Italy, Germany or the rest of europe. The Russians can, the Chineese can (sorta, it’d have to be land based) and the US can. That’s pretty much it. Because of that, people tend to think in terms of responses as defined by their own capabilities, and not the capabilities of others.
For instance, if Algerians set off a WMD in Paris is the response going to be a nuclear one? It is entirely possible. It is MORE possible because France does have nuclear weapons and France is limited in it’s other options in terms of response. If it were an American city, the US has MORE options in terms of response. It might be Nuclear, but would be more likely conventional because the US has a wider array of response options and Nuclear isn’t in the top ten or twenty list. Wheras in France it might be in the top five.
Well that all sounds real tough and macho, but hey, what happens if you can’t figure out where the nuke came from? What happens if it didn’t originate from a nation at all, but from a multi-national terrorist network (al Qaeda). Who exactly do you propose we nuke?
And even if it did originate with a nation, what makes you so certain we could trace its origin? Are we just going to indiscriminately nuke all the suspects?
Or what if the terrorists detonate a bomb in one US city, and then announce that they have similar bombs planted in other cities. What’s the tough-guy response to that?
As others have already pointed out, it is highly unlikely that a terrorist group would acquire such weapons without the help of some nation(s)/regimes. Therefore the nation(s) which provided such weapons will have signed their own death warrant, and nobody should whine or complain if/when they are obliterated.
Former US Senator (and former head of the Armed Services Committee) Sam Nunn has been working on the issue of nuclear terrorism for the past several years, under the aegis of the Nuclear Threat Initiative. He is in a position to know, I should think, the ease with which terrorists might be able to obtain nuclear weapons. In a recent interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, he had this to say:
Nunn seems much less sanguine than you about the possibility that terrorists may obtain nuclear weapons without government sponsorship.
And even if the terrosists DO have government sponsorship, what makes you so certain we could determine who that sponsor might be (given the faulty intelligence we’ve seen recently)?