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.

[RobRoy]

I would not want this to happen, so I need to make it clear right here that this is NOT wishful thinking. I am wondering if those who know more than I may be able to punch some big holes in this.

I have noticed that often actions do not bring about the results one intended. Everybody knows that there is no way we would use nukes. I am just throwing out the paradigm and asking, really, is that the big deterent everyone thinks. If we think it through, what REALLY COULD happen if we did use nukes after a chemical or Bio attack, other than the standard response, that is,

[flamefront]

Yes, Bush approves nuclear response (If Allied forces are attacked by Chemical Weapons)!

[Steven W.]

NO. The reason we have nukes is so we don't have to use them. We don't need them, anyway. I know it's not wishful thinking but bordering on not thinking at all.

[LouisianaJoanof Arc]

No to nukes (of course I don't like fire :)

[Young Rhino]

If we wanted to use nukes, we would use them on Mecca and Medina. If Allah can't protect these "holy" cities from the infidels, then Islam ceases to exist as a viable religion. Making the hadj to a radioactive plate of glass doesn't inspire too many people.

[RetiredArmy]

If the bad guys use chem/bio weapons, then we should use tactical nukes in the field against their troops. Their arty will probably be sending the stuff over as they have no air force. Therefore, we respond in kind to destroy that weapon from attacking our troops. What better way to destroy bio than with nuke power? Use nukes? You bet your fanny we should use them. Not the big boys from a sub, but from our field arty.

[Darheel]

History repeats itself: America is the only nation to ever use a nuke: Draw your own conclusions.

[RobRoy]

That post was what made me post this. My vanity is suggesting he may WANT the opportunity to use them against a particularly belligerent regime, if it uses other WMD's first, as a message to others.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Our WMD is tactical nukes... we will use it, forcefully, because N. Korea and China are watching. Just my two cents.

[RobRoy]

>>I know it's not wishful thinking but bordering on not thinking at all.<<

I would tend to agree with that except I decided to really think about it, instead of just saying it's preposterous. And what I came up with concerns me.

[Williams]

We aren't going to use nukes in Iraq so get over it. Maybe on North Korea if they get out of hand when we destroy that reprocessing plant.

[Illbay]

Egad, we have some strange folk around here.

[nanomid]

Actually, Tactical Nukes Are Already In The Iraqi Theater

The MOAB "looks like" a tactical nuke to many people. This
may not be a mere coincidence. Drop a MOAB or two and then
let people think it was a tactical nuke! This will
soften people up to the concept of using tactical nukes. This war
is a huge bonus for live weapons training worth billions of dollars
in and of itself. Tactical nukes need live weapons training too.

[RightWhale]

Nukes are useful only as deterrent. Once used, they do not deter. They have little military value, and if used, America will be a pariah among nations for decades to come. Once was enough.

Having said that, if another nation is so foolish as to use them on America, the response should be so strong as to eliminate that nation from history.

[NorCoGOP]

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

Nice big fuel air fireball, mushroom cloud, and all the psychological "holy crap" effects it would have on the enemy, not to mention the lack of the nasty (literal) fallout from using a real nuke.

The Iraqi's wouldn't know the difference up front, but would have the same debilitating effect.

[RobRoy]

>>We aren't going to use nukes in Iraq so get over it<<

With all due respect, why not?

[Pan_Yans Wife]

I think the knowledge that we do not have a line drawn in the sand, when it comes to nukes, is very significant. We cannot say that we will only respond to nuclear aggression with nukes, tactical or not, because it removes our first-strike capabilities forever. We must be willing to use them first, because if not, we are being held hostage to their use against us.

[EaglesUpForever]

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

Amen, and could be justified without encountering WMD. If they use WMD, though, we would be fully justified in using nukes.

[MineralMan]

Personally, I think it would be a very bad idea to use nuclear weapons in this conflict. There are a couple of reasons for my point of view:

1. Radiation, in the form of wind-borne fallout, has a way of not respecting borders. Do we really want to contaminate countries not involved?

2. Given our dominating position, militarily, nuclear response is unnecessary to the sucessful completion of our goals.

3. Regardless of what some on FR believe, we still must coexist as a nation on this planet of many nations. International response to the preemptive use of nuclear arms would result in condemnation by many nations we still consider to be friends.

It is my belief that nuclear weapons should be reserved for strikes in response to the use or immediate potential of use by an enemy. No other use seems acceptable to me.

But that's just my personal opinion. No doubt others will feel differently.

[seeker41]

Any and I mean any country or group of terrorists residing in ANY country who uses WMD on us should be nuked. I have no problem with using one again. period....

They'd use one on us if they had it...so what.