President Trump's National Security Strategy - Realistic or Rhetorical?

SirGareth said:

No, since there would be few left to worry about it.

The radiation fear is overstated. To incinerate a city with a 500 Kt thermonuclear weapon you want a relatively high altitude detonation. This leaves little fallout.

You are projecting the fallout issues associated with the huge Bikini atoll tests such as Castle Bravo and Ivy Mike (15 to 20 Megatons) both detonated at ground level and fallout from these tests was created by blasting many thousands of tons of irradiated sand and coral high into the atmosphere.

Click to expand...

OK, does that mean that a nuclear war would be fought with small nukes?

Oozlefinch said:

No, more like at most (not those killed in the initial explosions) maybe 10%, and that is really pushing the upper end.

And the climate change was caused by the volcano, with the huge amounts of gas and ash thrown into the upper atmosphere. With more added in over years and even decades afterwards.

You have to remember, it is only fairly recently in history that humans stopped being nomadic hunter-gatherers and started to do things like farm plants, domesticate animals, and build buildings. For the vast majority of our history all we took with us was what we could carry on our backs.

For a culture like that, even a small change is catastrophic. An unusually dry or wet winter could kill a decent sized segment of the population in a region (normally the young and old). But if it continued on, then you had migrations, and inevitably warfare between competing groups for food.

Today, that is not so much of a problem. We can move food from one area of the globe to another as easily as we can from one sode of the country to the other.

And outside of the blast area and immediately downwind radiation is not as big of a factor as most people tend to believe. The majority of fallout actually has a half-life that is measured in days or at most weeks, not years or even decades. That is because the vast majority of fallout is actually irradiated dirt and building material that is not in itself radioactive. So the radiation only lasts so long as the particles it is contaminated with need to decay.

Plus bombs today are much smaller than they were in the 1960's. That means there is less fissile material needed to cause the explosions, so less of the really long-life material like Plutonium in the fallout.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm aware that humans were nomadic hunter gatherers back then, and for most of our history. Sure, any small change can be catastrophic for such a culture. Now, having seven billion humans depending on an intact ecosystem would be a bit of a problem as well.

I most certainly hope that your assessment of the dangers of nuclear war and radioactive fallout are accurate. If they are, it may not be necessary to rebuild civilization over thousands of years at all. Maybe such a war would actually wake up the human race to the follies of war.... oh, wait. That was what WWI was supposed to have done.

SirGareth said:

Who were the premier negotiators for peace with Germany in 1939? Who were the best negotiators for peace with Japan in 1941?

Diplomacy is not appeasement, it is in the setting of the limits of tolerance and doing so credibly, before the swords are pulled. As long as both sides fully understand where that point lies, then either peace will be maintained or war commenced and in either case the diplomacy must be considered successful.

Click to expand...

Indeed and inherent to successful diplomacy is the critical factor of assessing and determining what applies when, where, why and how. To whom by whom. How much effective diplomacy and over what time period or frame.

History shows us for instance Chamberlain believed what he wanted to believe while Churchill knew what he knew. The Duke of Windsor abdicated king was sympathetic enough to Hitler that the Palace shipped him to live in the Caribbean which as we appreciate was a significant relocation at the time, both in distance and spatially.

The long and torturous path of diplomacy in dealing with Kim Jong Un is at last becoming ever more clear. Kim wants to use his nukes to blackmail a Korean peninsula unified under him. From Kim Il Sung through Kim Jong Il that's been the primary and ultimate purpose of the now Kim dynasty. Then nuclear blackmail Japan into a submissive state. CCP Boyz in Beijing need only to go with it which is no problem for 'em to do as long as Kim doesn't go OTT and use his nukes.

General Milley the army cofs spoke the U.S. national and global security strategy in the video presented in scrolling. Concerning NK Gen. Milley noted the obligatory truism there are no good options. Then the general said the fact does not relieve the U.S. strategists making the choice of how to deal with Kim. The general pointed out in his Q&A that the strategic choice must be made. Given no choice is a 'good' choice, the choice that must needs be made is bad for everyone. Certainly in the short run. I doubt very much the U.S. would go nuclear on the peninsula cause Pentagon is opposed to a voluntary first use. What Kim may do would determine the U.S. strategic decision in this respect. Precluding Kim's nuclear capability period would therefore be the first order of priority strategically -- the order of battle. Order of Battle is a military term that I myself use here as Gen. Milley did not use the term nor would he utter it publicly.

The strategic context is the existing design of Kim and the Boyz in Beijing to separate U.S. allies of the region from USA. Sooner or later, preferably sooner of course. This is the Beijing grand plan and purpose in the South China Sea, concerning Taiwan, the new silk road grandiose scheme; SK and Japan. Pentagon strategists are well aware and they have been on the case. Pentagon and Congress will do what is necessary to address this effectively and decisively if need be. There's no doubt Trump will sign off on it whatever the joint chiefs say it is. And the joint chiefs know already what it is.

Fearandloathing said:

Those who survive will be the ones who caused it. They're the only ones with secret bunkers.

I don't want to even think about a society which has been in part bread from Donald Trump.

Click to expand...

Now, that's the scariest possibility of all.

Oozlefinch said:

I myself do believe that it is impossible to prevent some nation from someday using another nuke. Especially considering the stability of some of those nations and leaders themselves.

Actually, short of the "Big Two" (Russia and the US) going at it, it would take a huge number of nukes aimed at the most populous cities on the planet (not just each other) to achieve that. Nukes are not the "ultimate doomsday" weapons that many people seem to believe. And to have "billions" of deaths, that would take a massive exchange by the US and Russia. The only one that could come close is a massive India-Pakistan exchange (simple because of the high population density of those 2 nations).

Elsewhere, it is largely impossible to reach "billions". Even if you wiped out every single person in the US and Russia, you would only have around 500 million dead.

I heave been hearing those fantasy horror stories for years, and largely tune out such nonsense.

Click to expand...

I first began hearing rightwing conservative nonsense in grade 6 from my mid-age lady teacher who started each day with a public affairs and events update. It took us about two minutes on day one to recognize she was out of the mainstream. We kids knew several years later she must have been a Bircher. The dead giveaway was the day she said wars keep the population down and from getting out of nature's control. Sort of a Malthusian besides among other natural order evolutionists over there.

War as a force of nature is nothing new in alleged thinking. Yet in the history of war it's a human thingy that is fought over land and resources by tribes, ethnicity, nations and the like. From 1850 and during the second half of the 19th century came the 'isms' of the mind and soul, i.e., capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism. By 1945 we figured it wuz the end of history and that we could start working toward a new world order based on the rule of law. Central to a new order would be the recognition that nuclear energy packaged in weapons would be put and kept on the shelf -- eternally. Then came Donald Trump and his lunatic attitude: why have we got 'em if we don't use 'em. Now if Putin started talking like that the caveman conservatives would celebrate the impending return of the stone age and yet another reset to evolution.

Evilroddy said:

Yesterday President Trump and the National Security Advisor HR McMaster articulated the new national security strategy for the USA. it is outlined in the link below:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...security-strategy-advance-americas-interests/

Is this strategy new or just a rehash of past policy" Will it be a workable strategy given the changing realities of the modern world and the dire constraints placed on the American military and wider security apparatus by massive national debt, systemic recruiting difficulties for the military and a plethora of legal and political challenges to the emerging surveillance state? More importantly will it work internationally or will the world simply reject American militarism and armed diplomacy as North Korea has done to date? It argues for peace through strength, but there has been little peace outside of America since the USA has been the mono-polar superpower and the most powerful military/security state on the globe, post Cold War.

Comments and observations?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

The statement is fine... the concerns from this lefty are that we will betray the principles cited about justice and peace through our support of dictators and criticism of democratic allies. My assumption is that the grownups in the room, tho too conservative for my taste, will prevent serious **** from happening. Trump’s contempt for international norms is troubling, and probably weakens our standing and ability to lead. But “style is substance” to his supporters, and his bluster play to the traditional belief in our politics that we allow ourselves to get pushed around internationally—us, with a long history of invading sovereign countries to bend their people to our will.

Grand Mal said:

Cool.
Who would have thought that nuclear apocalypse could be a viable option? Hell, it might be the most attractive alternative!

Click to expand...

It kind of depends on what your goals are, why wait for nuclear apocalypse to finish you off, environmentalists could commit Jonestown type mass suicides all over the Earth and this would go a long way towards healing the planet.

Or do you assume your ilk have special dispensations for reserved seats on the lifeboats for the 00.1%

I struggle in determining what the alternatives are when evaluating environmentalists, are they simply stupid or is it nastiness and evil that drives their passions?

Dittohead not! said:

Yes, I'm aware that humans were nomadic hunter gatherers back then, and for most of our history. Sure, any small change can be catastrophic for such a culture. Now, having seven billion humans depending on an intact ecosystem would be a bit of a problem as well.

I most certainly hope that your assessment of the dangers of nuclear war and radioactive fallout are accurate. If they are, it may not be necessary to rebuild civilization over thousands of years at all. Maybe such a war would actually wake up the human race to the follies of war.... oh, wait. That was what WWI was supposed to have done.

Click to expand...

It is all involved with the half-life of the particles created. Remember, the vast majority of fallout is not in itself radioactive, it has become irradiated. And the half-life of these particles is very small.

The rule of thumb is the "7-10 rule". That is for every factor of 7 hours that pass, the amount of fallout that has lost it's radiation is increased by a factor of 10. So within 2 weeks it has reduced by a factor of 1,000. The only particles that are really a concern are those form the remaining fissile material (uranium and plutonium), and a few other elements made in a nuclear reaction, like strontium 90 and caesium 137. These are basically "leftover" particles from the fission of uranium and plutonium, and have much longer half-lives. Roughly 30 years for each.

And even then, it has to be realized that the majority of this will be left in the immediate downwind range of the blast. Most of the rest will end up in the sea in relatively short order. It is essentially dust after all, and is easily washed away (that is why water is the primary means of decontamination).

The only real long-term risk is in the consumption of concentrated fallout. In other words, meat. One of the dangers in any contamination is in the consumption of animals that eat lower on the food chain. So if cows are consuming a large amount of plants that are contaminated, they will in turn concentrate it in their meat and milk. This is why we avoid things like fish and shellfish from areas contaminated by sewage or other urban runoff.

So want to avoid this? In the first year or so afterwards try to eat as many well washed plants as you can from outside of the immediate fallout zone, and restrict your consumption of meat.

Remember, it has been 72 years since the blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And outside of the immediate blast area there was never any real steps taken to decontaminate the area. And the radioactivity there was down to the normal background levels within less than 30 years. And of those born after the war, the cancer rates are no different than the rest of Japan (which are among the lowest in the world).

And unlike vulcanism, it would be a one-time event. Bang, and it is over. So at most, a repeat of 1816 after Mount Tambora blew up. Known as "The Year Without A Summer", there was snowfall in Albany, New York in June. But that was also the largest of 6 separate eruptions over a 6 year time frame, so the effects snowballed each year.

But it always must be remembered that for every cause there is an effect. The failure of much of the New England crops that year caused a migration to the Midwest, specifically Illinois and Indiana. It also caused Mary Shelly, Lord Byron, and several of their friends to hang out at Byron's Swiss chalet and tell "ghost stories". Which gave us both Frankenstein, as well as an unfinished story by Byron that was finished by another guest at that months long party, "The Vampyre". This is what started the "vampire craze" in English literature, that culminated in Dracula.

SirGareth said:

It kind of depends on what your goals are, why wait for nuclear apocalypse to finish you off, environmentalists could commit Jonestown type mass suicides all over the Earth and this would go a long way towards healing the planet.

Or do you assume your ilk have special dispensations for reserved seats on the lifeboats for the 00.1%

I struggle in determining what the alternatives are when evaluating environmentalists, are they simply stupid or is it nastiness and evil that drives their passions?

Click to expand...

What the hell are you on about? Environmentalists? My ilk? This is even more bizarre than that other thread where you blathered at me like I have something against guns.
How does environmentalists even have anything to do with the topic? Damn, it's like you wake up with a burr under your saddle about something and just complain to the first person you see.

Nickyjo said:

The statement is fine... the concerns from this lefty are that we will betray the principles cited about justice and peace through our support of dictators and criticism of democratic allies.

Click to expand...

My only issue with this kind of absolute statement is that it ignores the people and only concentrates on the government.

OK, so dictators are bad, and democracies are good. I myself do not accept that.

Let's see, some of our elected national leaders were Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Ferdinand Marcos, Robert Mugabe, Hugo Chavez, and Juan Peron. Each one of those was elected democratically, yet each turned out to be despots with almost unlimited powers before they were overthrown.

On the other hand, we have dictators that seized power, and actually handed it very well, remaining popular with the citizens because they spent their time in office keeping various powers from tearing the country apart and did not abuse the citizenry. Josip Tito, Francisco Franco, Mustafa Attaturk, France-Albert Rene, and Lee Yew.

So who would you trust more as the leader of a nation to honor their commitments? The King of Saudi Arabia, or the President of Russia? The King of Jordan, or the President of Venezuela? The Democratically elected Supreme Leader of North Korea, or the King of Belgium?

Things are not so black and white as simply how the leadership took power. It matters much more what they do with it once they have it.

Myself, I think one of our biggest problems is been in trying to force "Democracy" onto people who are not culturally adept enough to handle it at that time. After all, even the US did not just jump into Democracy. They after all had over 400 years of precedent in the English system to use as a model. In reality, most of the founding of the US was essentially existing British systems, just without a nobility and ruling class.

Oozlefinch said:

My only issue with this kind of absolute statement is that it ignores the people and only concentrates on the government.

OK, so dictators are bad, and democracies are good. I myself do not accept that.

Let's see, some of our elected national leaders were Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Ferdinand Marcos, Robert Mugabe, Hugo Chavez, and Juan Peron. Each one of those was elected democratically, yet each turned out to be despots with almost unlimited powers before they were overthrown.

On the other hand, we have dictators that seized power, and actually handed it very well, remaining popular with the citizens because they spent their time in office keeping various powers from tearing the country apart and did not abuse the citizenry. Josip Tito, Francisco Franco, Mustafa Attaturk, France-Albert Rene, and Lee Yew.

So who would you trust more as the leader of a nation to honor their commitments? The King of Saudi Arabia, or the President of Russia? The King of Jordan, or the President of Venezuela? The Democratically elected Supreme Leader of North Korea, or the King of Belgium?

Things are not so black and white as simply how the leadership took power. It matters much more what they do with it once they have it.

Myself, I think one of our biggest problems is been in trying to force "Democracy" onto people who are not culturally adept enough to handle it at that time. After all, even the US did not just jump into Democracy. They after all had over 400 years of precedent in the English system to use as a model. In reality, most of the founding of the US was essentially existing British systems, just without a nobility and ruling class.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between “forcing democracy”, supporting democracy and human rights, and saying nothing about tyrants. Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan both supported human rights (Reagan rather hypocritically) and gave hope to millions and helped bring down the Soviet empire.

That Trump doesn’t get this is troubling.

Evilroddy said:

Yesterday President Trump and the National Security Advisor HR McMaster articulated the new national security strategy for the USA. it is outlined in the link below:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...security-strategy-advance-americas-interests/

Is this strategy new or just a rehash of past policy" Will it be a workable strategy given the changing realities of the modern world and the dire constraints placed on the American military and wider security apparatus by massive national debt, systemic recruiting difficulties for the military and a plethora of legal and political challenges to the emerging surveillance state? More importantly will it work internationally or will the world simply reject American militarism and armed diplomacy as North Korea has done to date? It argues for peace through strength, but there has been little peace outside of America since the USA has been the mono-polar superpower and the most powerful military/security state on the globe, post Cold War.

Comments and observations?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

They're no doubt still explaining to Don what it is.

Nickyjo said:

There is a difference between “forcing democracy”, supporting democracy and human rights, and saying nothing about tyrants. Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan both supported human rights (Reagan rather hypocritically) and gave hope to millions and helped bring down the Soviet empire.

That Trump doesn’t get this is troubling.

Click to expand...

Ahhh, so all you really care about is the politics, got it.

Oozlefinch said:

Ahhh, so all you really care about is the politics, got it.

Click to expand...

Actually, I don’t get your comment. My concern was the same with Obama, e.g., his failure to deal with GTMO, drone strikes, etc. were hypocrisy, given his promises. But it would be nice if Trump at least acknowledged and pledged to continue our traditional support for human rights, however imperfect that has been.

Grand Mal said:

Cool.
Who would have thought that nuclear apocalypse could be a viable option? Hell, it might be the most attractive alternative!

Click to expand...

Nuclear Warfare is never a " viable " option. Nuclear weapons means nuclear retaliatory strikes ; unless you get the command and control in the first hit.

I'm all for a nuclear strike in certain parts of the Middle East - but with control.

Strategy comes after an effective and well thought out plan. Pros and cons considered ; costs and damage are thought out. Win and loss weighed, what and how much can be lost is planned for. Contingencies are planned for
Ahead of time. Area of operations defined - span of control parameters are set ; chain of command / command and
Control is determined. The point of withdrawl......if need be , is set.

Plan - rehearse - perform action - debrief. Plan your action on paper....discuss your plan and critique ; look for holes
And weak spots.....and how your deficiencies....if any....can be exploited. Rehearse your plan with as,much accuracy as possible. Perform what you had planned after extensive planning and rehearsal. After your performance has been accomplished......do a debrief of what went wrong.....if anything , what went right, time from start to beginning - how Long the event was conducted , people and resources used.


Strategy is a well thought out process - with numerous considerations and tasking plans. EVERYTHING must be
Considered from beginning to end.



Major Lambda

Major Lambda said:

Nuclear Warfare is never a " viable " option. Nuclear weapons means nuclear retaliatory strikes ; unless you get the command and control in the first hit.

I'm all for a nuclear strike in certain parts of the Middle East - but with control.

Strategy comes after an effective and well thought out plan. Pros and cons considered ; costs and damage are thought out. Win and loss weighed, what and how much can be lost is planned for. Contingencies are planned for
Ahead of time. Area of operations defined - span of control parameters are set ; chain of command / command and
Control is determined. The point of withdrawl......if need be , is set.

Plan - rehearse - perform action - debrief. Plan your action on paper....discuss your plan and critique ; look for holes
And weak spots.....and how your deficiencies....if any....can be exploited. Rehearse your plan with as,much accuracy as possible. Perform what you had planned after extensive planning and rehearsal. After your performance has been accomplished......do a debrief of what went wrong.....if anything , what went right, time from start to beginning - how Long the event was conducted , people and resources used.


Strategy is a well thought out process - with numerous considerations and tasking plans. EVERYTHING must be
Considered from beginning to end.



Major Lambda

Click to expand...

Including the morality of vaporizing a few million people and killing more by radiation poisoning? Seems we'd have to have a really, really good reason to do such a thing, perhaps something like being able to save more lives than are lost by ending a major war, you know, like the nuking of Japan all those years ago.

Dittohead not! said:

Including the morality of vaporizing a few million people and killing more by radiation poisoning? Seems we'd have to have a really, really good reason to do such a thing, perhaps something like being able to save more lives than are lost by ending a major war, you know, like the nuking of Japan all those years ago.

Click to expand...

Yeah......its called being proactive. North Korea is testing missiles , as their president describes....as to be able to hit the US. As soon as he said that....I would have put about 25 conventioal Tomahawk missiles into NK from
US Navy ships.

The psychological impact of war is stressful, the worry is even more stressful. We should not take threats lightly.

For that reason......Americans and America should be taken first. As we used to say in the Army = " Strike First.....Strike Fast "



Major Lambda

Strike out.

Grab some bench.

Cause stress is common, ordinary, managed. Distress is when stress cannot be managed. Launching 25 Tomahawks into NK is more than either stress or distress. It is lunacy.

For one strategic issue, how would Kim know whether it's a so-called surgical strike, a warning strike, an old-fashioned 'bloody nose' strike or the beginning of a massive assault to destroy him personally and his state and government. While there are risks in anything the U.S. may do, there are more guarantees that are negative than there might be risks that could be worth taking.


https://lieu.house.gov/sites/lieu.house.gov/files/Letter on North Korea.pdf

Major Lambda said:

Yeah......its called being proactive. North Korea is testing missiles , as their president describes....as to be able to hit the US. As soon as he said that....I would have put about 25 conventioal Tomahawk missiles into NK from
US Navy ships.

The psychological impact of war is stressful, the worry is even more stressful. We should not take threats lightly.

For that reason......Americans and America should be taken first. As we used to say in the Army = " Strike First.....Strike Fast "



Major Lambda

Click to expand...

Regardless of the likely results of such a strike?

We struck first and struck fast in Iraq. What were the results?

Dittohead not! said:

We struck first and struck fast in Iraq. What were the results?

Click to expand...

Maybe because the politicians have finally learned that you do not just up and prematurely leave an ally before it is ready and able to fully protect itself in addition to being politically stable.

We made that mistake in Vietnam in 1973, we learned that lesson in Afghanistan in 1989. Then finally we learned that lesson in Iraq in 2011. In each case once we pulled out the country was thrown into chaos or overthrown within 2 years.

Hopefully our politicians will never be so short-sighted as to do it again.

Oozlefinch said:

Maybe because the politicians have finally learned that you do not just up and prematurely leave an ally before it is ready and able to fully protect itself in addition to being politically stable.

We made that mistake in Vietnam in 1973, we learned that lesson in Afghanistan in 1989. Then finally we learned that lesson in Iraq in 2011. In each case once we pulled out the country was thrown into chaos or overthrown within 2 years.

Hopefully our politicians will never be so short-sighted as to do it again.

Click to expand...

Or maybe they've finally learned that you don't go to war unless there is no other choice and you're ready to go and win at any cost.

We made that mistake in Vietnam in 1965, we learned that lesson in Afghanistan. Then finally we learned that lesson in Iraq in 20o3. In each case once we went in with no declaration of war and no realistic idea of what we were getting into or what the likely results would be. Maybe we've learned our lessen now, but I seriously doubt it.