• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Prudent Planning or Dangerous Escalation - US Nuclear Weapons Policy Changes.

Evilroddy said:
Gentlemen:

The Nuclear Posture Report, remember? The merits or demerits of US militarism in the Middle East or Afghanistan is not what the thread is supposed to be about. Nuclear weapon use due to doctrinal liberalisation, that's what the thread is about. Shifting emphasis from nuclear weapons for deterrence to nuclear weapons for use is a big step and may very well be found to be a big step in the wrong direction. Threatening to use nuclear weapons in retaliation for sub-military attacks as both Russia and the USA have done (I'm not sure about Chinese policy) could lower the barriers to triggering a nuclear exchange or wider nuclear war. Threatening to use nuclear weapons to defeat nuclear proliferation may have an effect opposite to what is intended and may actually accelerate the nuclear programmes of non-nuclear states. Threatening nuclear-armed states who develop and deploy space-based military and communication/navigation/surveillance capacities with nuclear pre-emptive attack may also trigger nuclear exchanges and wider nuclear war. Are these wise policies for elites, states, coalitions and the whole of humanity to support or should the world mobilise to stop these notions of liberalisation and normalisation of nuclear weapon use, before these dreadful weapons are used again in anger by responsible states?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

There doesn't seem to be a viable group WorldWide to mobillize against Nukes. Neither with MSM access nor financial influence. The USA leads the charge with these nukes and postures an unwillingness to negotiate away these toys. Lucky that we don't have any nutballs leaders in the Military or Politics that might launch an errant Nuclear conflict, well maybe we're not so lucky. I do think the Elitist World money managers see this as a solution to World over population and simultaneously mitigate Global Warming. I guess it must be really comfy in the more elegant nuclear bunkers, eh? Is the problem proliferation. No! It is the failure to launch common sense approach to disarmament by promoters of Wars and these promoters shall go unnamed to prevent USA Corporations and politicians serious embarassment. Flagrant examples of "you can't always see dumb," because they keep gettin re-elected, don't ya' know? The USA has used 'Nukes" and continually threatens to use "nukes" and other Nations respond to those threats. Cats breed cats, eh?
/
 
Mircea said:
The US maintained small or tactical nukes in its inventory for more than 30 years, so you're a day late and a dollar short.



The President is not obligated to reveal the true classified nature of the reasons or information leading to the conflict.



A few cannot destroy the world, in spite of your claims. Even an all out conflict between Russia and the US would not destroy the world. People who don't understand how nuclear weapons function or are employed should refrain from making silly comments.
Click to expand...

I see. I see. Only you can see the Big Picture. That's what they tell the soldiers in Afghanistan when they inquire about protecting poppy fields. That's what they said about Vietnam. In the final analysis the classified information revelations always document that we have been lied to. That's the Big Picture.
/
 
DaveFagan said:
I see. I see. Only you can see the Big Picture.
Click to expand...

If US strategic plans are brought to a fruition, then Bush will be hailed as a visionary and a hero. Deal with it.
 
Evilroddy said:
The latest iteration of the US Government's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) has some ominous divergence from established policy of the past. The New York Times reports that that the latest NPR is advancing two new directions in US nuclear weapon policy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/us/politics/pentagon-nuclear-review-cyberattack-trump.html

One new idea is that the US can and will retaliate against non-military attacks from abroad with nuclear weapons. In the event of serious non-military attacks like cyber attacks or other non-physically destructive attacks against US or US allied nations' infrastructure, then the US government may use nuclear weapons in response. It also implies that the US may use nuclear weapons if any nation challenges US supremacy in space, either by attack or by positioning capabilities on Earth or in space which the US deems a threat to its dominance.

The second change is the accelerated drive to produce smaller yield and 'cleaner' nuclear weapons in order to make them "more usable" as either a first strike capability against non-nuclear-armed states or as an additional rung in the ladder of nuclear deterrence when responding to overwhelming conventional attacks (supported by tactical nuclear weapon use perhaps) or by first striking concentrated conventional forces of nuclear-armed adversaries preparing for conventional war.

Given that the sitting US president has asked, "Why not use nuclear weapons if we have them?", given that the US still refuses to commit to not using nuclear weapons as a first-strike weapon and given that the traditional cornerstone of most nuclear-armed states' policy is mutually assured destruction (MAD), where the purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter an enemy from using their own nuclear weapons but never to otherwise use them, is this new policy direction wise? Will not producing lower yield and "more usable" nuclear weapons lower the barriers to using them and thus increase the risk of nuclear weapon use and further risk escalation in any conflict between nuclear-armed powers? Will such a policy drive more non-nuclear-armed states to develop their own nuclear arsenals in order to deter the US or any other nuclear power from using "more usable" nuclear weapons on them?

Finally, if the US did elect to use "more usable" nuclear weapons in a first strike against a non-nuclear armed power, would that be a violation of the UN Charter and the laws of war, leaving the US leadership in legal jeopardy for the war crimes of waging aggressive war, non-proportionality in aggression and crimes against humanity? Would the US legal system punish such behaviour or would the US state tolerate international prosecution of its leaders for taking such actions?

Comments and observations?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

On the legal jeapordy, the us will veto any punishment set against it by the international community, it has happened before. On more useable nukes, those have been done before as well, some of the smaller nukes have been comparable to a moab in destructive force, designed for small scale damage rather than mass destruction. Both the united states and russia have designed them, often fired from a cannon and in the past were set up on both sides in germany.

Both countries ended up abandoning them, and seeking more conventional weapons by the 70's.
 
DaveFagan said:
I see. I see. Only you can see the Big Picture. That's what they tell the soldiers in Afghanistan when they inquire about protecting poppy fields. That's what they said about Vietnam. In the final analysis the classified information revelations always document that we have been lied to. That's the Big Picture.
/
Click to expand...
No US soldier in Afghanistan is protecting poppy fields. Why do you have to resort to fairytales in your posts.
It's bad enough that your anti US CT nonsense clouds every post you make but there is no reason to simply make crap up.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
The best words that describe the idea of developing miniature nukes or tactical nukes:

Nuts.

Insane.

Idiotic

Suicidal

Madness.
Click to expand...

Sort of. I mean, the reason WWIII has never broke out (yet) is because the USSR and the US both knew if they attacked each other, it would be mutual destruction, so in a way nuclear weapons is keeping us from starting WWIII. And today, the same logic applies between other nuclear countries.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Yeah, that is working so well for North Korea..
Click to expand...

The only reason North Korea has nukes is down to George W Bush he tore up the nuclear deal with North Korea even though the advisers said NK was fully compliant with inspections Bush thought the treaty didn't go far enough so he tore it up and imposed sanctions on North Korea .... Trump is trying to do the same thing with Iran this time round he/America does not have the support to tear up the deal
 
Soopairik said:
Sort of. I mean, the reason WWIII has never broke out (yet) is because the USSR and the US both knew if they attacked each other, it would be mutual destruction, so in a way nuclear weapons is keeping us from starting WWIII. And today, the same logic applies between other nuclear countries.
Click to expand...

MAD! The fitting acronym for the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction.
/
 
DaveFagan said:
USA is occupying Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. as we speak.
Click to expand...

This is not the argument you have tried to make. We occupy Afghanistan simply because we haven't left yet. And Iraq and Syria simply because of IS. We are not occupying in the sense that you wish to imply. Al-Assad has no love for the U.S. and the history of establishing corporate interests involves owning the dictator. Your argument makes no sense because you try to use the historical events of the past to define everything.

DaveFagan said:
The USA seeks instability in the region to protect Israeli and Saudi Arabian interests. Minimize competitors production.
Click to expand...

That is just wild assumption, in which there is absolutely no evidence. Seeking instability makes no sense because it directly contradicts over seventy years of established Foreign Policy.

DaveFagan said:
You seem to ignore that the CIA operates invisibly and is allied with major USA Corporations.
Click to expand...
And this is exactly what I mean. The CIA has operated to the interests of corporations from time to time. This does not mean that everything the CIA does involves a corporate plan to establish a factory. Unless al-Assad decides that he's cool with the U.S. being the enemy for years and years, our "occupation" on the border has nothing to of with a corporation. So, not only do you have no evidence, your argument makes no sense. You are relying on some history elsewhere to absolutely define everything you see.
 
Godric1970 said:
The only reason North Korea has nukes is down to George W Bush he tore up the nuclear deal with North Korea even though the advisers said NK was fully compliant with inspections Bush thought the treaty didn't go far enough so he tore it up and imposed sanctions on North Korea .... Trump is trying to do the same thing with Iran this time round he/America does not have the support to tear up the deal
Click to expand...



Blah, blah, blah....

If all you can do is offer an un-researched, ill-informed opinion of blame, take it elsewhere. The reason your country is ****ed is because no one can let go of their grievances and hate for the other side.

I don't do gossip, but thanks anyway
 
braindrain said:
No US soldier in Afghanistan is protecting poppy fields. Why do you have to resort to fairytales in your posts.
It's bad enough that your anti US CT nonsense clouds every post you make but there is no reason to simply make crap up.
Click to expand...


[h=1]U.S. Turns a Blind Eye to Opium in Afghan Town - The New York Times
U.S. Turns a Blind Eye to Opium in Afghan Town[/h]By ROD NORDLANDMARCH 20, 2010
"American Marines in an opium poppy field in Marja, Afghanistan, last month. The military decided not to destroy the fields. Credit Tyler Hicks/The New York Times

KABUL, Afghanistan — The effort to win over Afghans on former Taliban turf in Marja has put American and NATO commanders in the unusual position of arguing against opium eradication, pitting them against some Afghan officials who are pushing to destroy the harvest.
From Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal on down, the military’s position is clear: “U.S. forces no longer eradicate,” as one NATO official put it. Opium is the main livelihood of 60 to 70 percent of the farmers in Marja, which was seized from Taliban rebels in a major offensive last month. American Marines occupying the area are under orders to leave the farmers’ fields alone.
“Marja is a special case right now,” said Cmdr. Jeffrey Eggers, a member of the general’s Strategic Advisory Group, his top advisory body. “We don’t trample the livelihood of those we’re trying to win over.”
United Nations drug officials agree with the Americans, though they acknowledge the conundrum. Pictures of NATO and other allied soldiers “walking next to the opium fields won’t go well with domestic audiences, but the approach of postponing eradicating in this particular case is a sensible one,” said Jean-Luc Lemahieu, who is in charge of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime here."

https://www.globalresearch.ca/...american-troops...protecting-afghan-opium.../5358053

https://www.wired.com/2013/05/afghan-poppies/

canadafreepress.com/article/us-marines-protect-afghans-poppy-fields


www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/10/14066.html ‎



 
braindrain said:
No US soldier in Afghanistan is protecting poppy fields. Why do you have to resort to fairytales in your posts.
It's bad enough that your anti US CT nonsense clouds every post you make but there is no reason to simply make crap up.
Click to expand...

That is not exactly true. The policy in Afghanistan has flipped back and forth and is subject to location. Despite poppy cultivation being illegal in Afghanistan since 2001, it still represents a substantial amount of Afghanistan's GDP.

2004 - Poppy destruction was added to the mission, because of its link to the insurgency. The military considered poppy focus as a distraction.

It was almost immediately discovered in late 2004 that destroying these local means of economic stability encouraged a violent backlash between drug king pins and between farmers and our troops. Many farmers were pushed to seek the protection of the Taliban. The Taliban used our activity to make deals with drug king pins and farmers. Many encouraged locals to resist our troops and this created more numbers among the enemy.

2006 - Introducing other crops through the Seed Program, was added to the mission in order to try to maintain a sense of economic stability.

However, it was too late. Two years of pushing farmers and locals towards the Taliban for stability had gotten out of control. The poppy industry actually expanded by 2009.

2009 - Poppy destruction came to an end, but monitoring drug networks were stepped up because they connected to militant cells.

By the end of 2009, Poppy destruction was no longer a source of instability and the violence decreased. Drug king pins were largely left alone. In time, our troops were ordered to not even step foot upon the fields in order to refrain from damaging crops and angering the locals.

U.S. troops have been deployed under policies that instruct them to actively destroy poppy fields, under policies that instruct them to ignore poppy fields, and under policies that instruct them to protect their integrity. In the end, the U.S. concluded that our troops were not there to fight a drug war. Since we will leave one day, the issue of the poppy fields have to be an Afghanistan decision.
 
Last edited:
Sampson Simpson said:
It's unfortunate that lack the ability to read and comprehend, I guess that's why you couldn't counter the argument? Why do people like you even bother going on political forums if you don't even make any arguments and all you want to do is make stupid one or two line comments? What do you possibly get out of it? You don't do your side any favors
Click to expand...

You might want to look back at DaveFagan's posts... Everything is the CIA's fault... Even if the CIA isn't involved. According to him the CIA created and armed Al Qaeda.... Never mind the CIA armed the Mujaheddin.


He constantly and ignorantly conflates the various Middle Eastern entities. Example: ISIS = Any number of Syrian resistance groups to include the ones fighting ISIS. Al Qaeda = Mujaheddin.
 
How would the American public react to a US pre-emptive strike using nuclear weapons against a state with which the US is not at war? Remember the Korean Conflict of 1950-1953 was a police action under the United Nations' authority and no state of war ever existed between the US and the DPRK. If not North Korea then what about Iran? How would the US population, the international system and the world react to such an unprecedented act of war?

Another question to be asked is why do middle level powers seek to develop nuclear weapons? Is it because they are inherently aggressive and bad actors or is it because they want to deter military attacks from regional or global superpowers? Was India fundamentally evil for seeking nuclear weapons? How about Pakistan? Was the UK, France or the USA acting as evil, bad actors when they developed nuclear weapons during WWII and immediately after the war? Was the USSR a greater threat to world peace than the USA in the 1950's to the fall of the Soviet Union? Are China or Israel any less of a threat to world peace than Iran or North Korea? Is the desire by some middle powers to possess nuclear arms offensive or defensive in nature given the willingness of certain superpowers to use military intervention in pursuit of those super-powers interests?

Nuclear proliferation is very much on balance skewed towards a defensive response to the unnecessary and accelerating pace of superpower military interventions and de facto wars which are also proliferating in the post WWII era. The USA especially opposes nuclear proliferation as it threatens the US global superpower's freedom to attack emerging nuclear-armed middle powers and thwarts the freedom of US militarism to operate at will around the globe.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom