Should We Use Nukes?

Vanity | 3/25/2003 | RobRoy

[RobRoy]

Is it just possible that we WANT the opportunity to use a small nuke? Let me run this up the flag and see if anyone salutes it.

It has been said that it would be a PR catastrophe if we used nukes, even if chemical or bio WMD’s were used. But is that really true, and is world opinion really the deterent it once wast? Those countries who hate us are irrelevant since they will hate us before and after the use. Those who love us can be convinced (at least officially) that the use was justified, especially if the target was military. Those that are on the fence will have the same feelings that everyone will have – They will fear us. There will be saber rattling in the UN, but they are effectively irrelevant, thanks to George W. Bush giving them just enough rope to hang themselves with 1441. There will be outcry and probably rioting in the streets of our enemies, but it only hurts them, not us. It can be quelled here, partly with the support of those of us that support the war effort, which are the overwhelming majority and would probably still be, given the conditions under which the weapons were used.

The point is, in a world where our greatest enemy respects only one thing – power backed by the will to use it – there may be a move afoot within our administration to demonstrate that very thing. This would be especially true if the world is basically dependent on trade with the US to keep their economies status quo.

The overwhelming force we are already using, coupled with the willingness to use nukes, could silence all comers outside our borders. In the immediate future, North Korea comes to mind. Within our borders we have “Homeland security” and the Patriot Act to keep would-be terrorists in check (it DOES work). The risk of attacks at home will increase by giving many enemies more motives to damage us, but the effect of our tightened security may more than offset that.

We are entering a new era of human history. A world where one nation has more power, economically and militarily, than the rest of the world combined. We are hated by many countries, some justifiably, and some out of envy or jealousy. Those that ARE with us are with us because, to no small degree, they are betting on the winning horse – and they already fear us, at least to some degree. MAD is basically dead and buried in a common grave with the Soviet Union.

So where does that leave us? China is on the verge of a prosperity beyond the imaginations of the billions of it’s citizens. Are they going to bite the hand that feeds them and start nuking us just because we nuked a military target after they used Chemicals? I think not. Sure, they’ll whine and protest.

The heat will be turned up several notches if we use nukes, that’s for sure. But some may believe it is the only way to achieve worldwide stability in the post 9/11 international environment . This stability would be created through fear – of the United States.

The case could be made for nukes.

[DudleyDoright]

I dunno. I suppose that if they laid a chem attack on our guys, we could clear out a section of the western desert of Iraq for a little "stockpile assurance" test...

CENTCOM Media flack:
"See here, guys, we don't get to do much testing anymore.. and, well, you know, this part of Iraq is even more remote than the Nevada Test Site.. Sooooo.. Everybody, please don't look in that direction for a minute or two here. Yes, that means you from Al Jezzera TV, too, sir."

after the bright light and big noise...

"Yes, thank you, members of the media, for attending our tactical stockpile assurance test today. Our next test will be conducted somewhat east of here... At a time and place of our choosing.."

</sarcasm>

Seriously, though. You could say "OK, you dropped VX on us. Great. We're going to start the creation of a glass parking lot here to the west to demonstrate that we mean business.."

[XJarhead]

I don't want to see us use them, and I don't think we will. Bush just wants to let them think that we might.

[RobRoy]

>>I think a well placed MOAB would do the same job as a small tactical nuke.<<

It would in Iraq. But what if we wanted to send the world the message that we have nukes and, under the right circumstances, the will to use them? A lot is being made of the fact that the US, unlike "others" has the WILL to act, when necessary.

[amused]

It is certainly possible that the Admin wants to drop a tactical nuke to show what we are capable...a warning if you will. I would hope that we would avoid doing so because that road is way to unpredictable.

Besides, if it's a warning they are after, I thought that was what the MOAB test was all about.

[Conspiracy Guy]

Nukes, yet not.

[nanomid]

The US is the only nation to use nuclear weapons in war.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Appropriate tools for the task.
As long as Americans aren't at risk.

[Williams]

Absolutely idiotic remark of the type I am getting sick of. Right, they will all become Catholics or something because God didn't protect their holy places. Brilliant. I'll go you one better. How about we drop them on all the capitols of our allies just to show we're really crazy dudes? They'll NEVER mess with us after that. (sarcasm off but nearby if needed again).

[onedoug]

Tactical nukes might be quite useful against massed infantry storming over the border twixt North and South Korea.

[dalereed]

Absolutely yes!

[James_UK]

It's probably not a good idea but may be worth doing just to see the French piss themselves.

[Cicero]

We would only use nuclear weapons in a dire emergency. For instance, we would probably have used tactical nukes if the Soviet Union had mounted a full-scale armor invasion of Germany through the Fulda Gap.

Short of that kind of really drastic situation, we would only use them in response, let's say, to massive use of chemical weapons.

Use of nukes simply to show our strength would be a major mistake.

[jonathan-swift2000]

MAD is dead for the Cold War but should it be dead for the Islamofacist war? If WMD is used in America we should respond in kind at Mecca-Medina! Should we use them in Iraq, you bet. This would be a warning to North Korea, Syria, Lybia and Iran; disarm or else.
Another thought, rather than nuke N.Korea; tell China we will give nuclear missles to Japan and Taiwan, one each month until China convinces N.Korea to disarm. We want to reduce our stockpile of those Bad, Bad WMD's.

[PISANO]

I certainly do NOT know more than the average joe on the street but it seems to me that while JUSTIFIABLE to use Nukes in response to a chem/bio first strike, there would be JUST too many civilian casualties for the people of the UNITIED STATES to take. This would also IMHO solidify ISLAM (entire Muslim community) solidly against us for the forseeable future.

[NorCoGOP]

I think just the implied threat of using nukes as a retaliatory measure has just as much a pyschological impact on the enemy.

Remember, we are in Iraq to free the people from oppression and evil. Using a nuke will make that a null and void point to even our allies. The fallout effects of the use of nukes FAR outweighs the benefits of actual deployment of those weapons to the battlefield.

We have more than enough cool conventional weapons (MOAB, JDAM, Hellfire, Tomahawks) to do the job and then some...

[SGCOS]

maybe one could accidentally "fall out" of a B52.

...Sorry, my bad. Time to move on...

[MineralMan]

"We have more than enough cool conventional weapons (MOAB, JDAM, Hellfire, Tomahawks) to do the job and then some...
"

Yup. There is no need for nukes in this conflict. Using them would be a very bad idea, in the long run, even if it had an immediate salutory effect on our campaign.

I don't think we want to do that. I hope we do not. But if we do, I can guarantee we will be condemned universally internationally, and not just by the Muslim countries. We don't want that to happen.

[Ippolita]

Way to go! We should have nuked Mecca and Medina 09/11/01 but it's never too late ...

[Williams]

Exactly. My thought is taht when we take out the reprocessing plant we make it clear that any NK attack will be met with overwhelming force, perhaps including nukes. This is because they have threatened us with Nukes, and because they can do so much damage to SK in a short time. Also, we don't want to be bogged down in a major Asian land war. We might also need the nukes to take out their missile factories/ nuke plants hidden in mountains.

Having said this, I doubt we will do it. Fallout from NK goes right across Japan. Also, SK would be affected.

[DudleyDoright]

Hey, here's another thought:

What will the lefties say when some CNN/Fox/MSNBC/BBC "embed" is screaming "Oh my god, we're under a chemical attack! AAAAAGGGGHHHH!" from behind his gas mask over his satellite phone link to LeftWingCentral?

Sorry, that was kinda sorta out of line. ;)

[CougarGA7]

I doubt that we would use nuclear weapons, even tactical ones. There is an effect that the use of nukes that would have too many consequences.

When Ranger Able was detonated in Southern Nevada, it ruined a bunch of unexposed film in a Kodak warehouse in Rochester, New York.

Ranger Able was about the same size as many "tactical" nukes from what I understand.

Because of that, the negative reaction of countries in the path the fall out takes might be stronger an just saying "We dont like you for doing that".