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

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.

Dangerous escalation. But also prudent planning. No matter what the US does, the rest of the world is gonna do its thing, which, so far, seems to be ever greater levels of nuclear proliferation. Iran, Nor K, etc. The best way to win a fight is to never even have to get in one in the first place, by communicating the promise of fearsome retaliation.

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...

"Would the US legal system punish......."?
No! We attacked Iraq, killed hundreds of thousands, no problemo. We stirred insurrection and invasion of Syria, hundreds of thousand dead, millions of refugees, no problemo. We attacked Libya and killed thousands and generated hundred of thousands of refugees, no problemo. We killed thousands and caused hundreds of thousands of refugees in our "Banana Republics" of Central America, no problemo. So what would be the problem with a few more million dead, or refugees? No problemo. "Might makes right." Or not. Perhaps our MSM (Monotone System Media) might be ignoring publication of tawdry, nasty, downright malevolent truths to acquire influence and fortune? Or not. We have spent trillions of dollars developing the very finest of "nukes" to destroy on a more "mega" scale and we haven't even used them. What kind of war management is that? KEErisssst, any idiot knows that wars are about using up them weapons so you can order more of them and get more bigger and better weapons and the biknighted leadership of the Corporatist killing machine will profit handsomely and not get to close to the killing, I might add. Ya' gotta use 'em or they go bad, shelf life you know. The onliest reason we got all these refugees running around is because we didn't use big enough bombs and they got away. You don't have to worry about the elite that run things and profit off these well engineered disasters because only the poor get killed, and it's a social welfare coordination because the dead ain't poor no more, just dead. No problemo!
/

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...

The highlighted just screams at me, "NEOCON INSANITY! I seem to remember people telling me they would vote for Trump because he wasn't a neocon, while Hillary was. Ironically, they claimed she would attack Syria and or Iran.

There's a lot to parse there and I'm busy - I'll get back.

For the benefit of informed debate, here is the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review document.

https://www.transcend.org/tms/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Npr-2018-A.pdf

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

The best words that describe the idea of developing miniature nukes or tactical nukes:

Nuts.

Insane.

Idiotic

Suicidal

Madness.

America or any other nation uses or initiates first that country would become a pariah nation and shunned internationally, Strike either Russia, China or North Korea every single city in America would become smouldering ash within 15 to 20 minutes .... neither Russia or China would stand ideally by while America nukes North Korea because the strikes will end up killing Chinese and Russians near the border areas contaminating the land and water for thousands of years

2 when it comes to hacking and espionage none holds a candle to America ... say America hacks into the Kremlin/FSB or the Chinese equivalent is it not their right to retaliate against the source of the strike by bringing their servers down after all we learned from Snowden that the NSA installed malware around the globes power grids including their EU allies ... is this not a declaration of War by America .... the hypocrisy of the USA is breath taking

DaveFagan said:

"Would the US legal system punish......."?
No! We attacked Iraq, killed hundreds of thousands, no problemo. We stirred insurrection and invasion of Syria, hundreds of thousand dead, millions of refugees, no problemo. We attacked Libya and killed thousands and generated hundred of thousands of refugees, no problemo. We killed thousands and caused hundreds of thousands of refugees in our "Banana Republics" of Central America, no problemo. So what would be the problem with a few more million dead, or refugees? No problemo. "Might makes right." Or not. Perhaps our MSM (Monotone System Media) might be ignoring publication of tawdry, nasty, downright malevolent truths to acquire influence and fortune? Or not. We have spent trillions of dollars developing the very finest of "nukes" to destroy on a more "mega" scale and we haven't even used them. What kind of war management is that? KEErisssst, any idiot knows that wars are about using up them weapons so you can order more of them and get more bigger and better weapons and the biknighted leadership of the Corporatist killing machine will profit handsomely and not get to close to the killing, I might add. Ya' gotta use 'em or they go bad, shelf life you know. The onliest reason we got all these refugees running around is because we didn't use big enough bombs and they got away. You don't have to worry about the elite that run things and profit off these well engineered disasters because only the poor get killed, and it's a social welfare coordination because the dead ain't poor no more, just dead. No problemo!
/

Click to expand...

We "killed hundreds of thousands" in Iraq?

Show me.

The coalition forces killed far, far less. Iraqi on Iraqi infighting killed much, much more...

Fledermaus said:

We "killed hundreds of thousands" in Iraq?

Show me.

The coalition forces killed far, far less. Iraqi on Iraqi infighting killed much, much more...

Click to expand...

Responsibility. The USA started the war, and under false pretenses. All fatalities thereafter are USA responsibility. Same for Libya. Same for Syria. Same for Afghanistan. Same for Panams. Same for Sudan. Same for CAR. And the list goes on.
/

DaveFagan said:

Responsibility. The USA started the war, and under false pretenses. All fatalities thereafter are USA responsibility. Same for Libya. Same for Syria. Same for Afghanistan. Same for Panams. Same for Sudan. Same for CAR. And the list goes on.
/

Click to expand...

Iraq on Iraq violence continues... Your intentional ignorance of who killed who is noted.

DaveFagan said:

Responsibility. The USA started the war, and under false pretenses. All fatalities thereafter are USA responsibility. Same for Libya. Same for Syria. Same for Afghanistan. Same for Panams. Same for Sudan. Same for CAR. And the list goes on.
/

Click to expand...

This is far too simplistic for a guy who likes to see through to the bigger picture of matters and even delve into conspiracy theories. Historians call your perspective of the world as Eurocentric or Americentrism. Orientalism also works its way in there. Pull out any world history book in the West and you will see how history is defined almost entirely through our lens. The problem with this perspective is that it denies local agency and the responsibility of local cultures. It allows local populations to play the blame game. It also dismisses local efforts to do for or against themselves. And it legitimizes victimhood, because the invisible hand of a foreign oppressor pulls all strings.

- The U.S. did start the war in Iraq. But the pretenses were expressed as being two-fold in 2002. Bush pushed the WMD aspect (even the Pentagon knew that this was BS and a false pretense), but Bush also delivered a speech to the UN about the necessity to jump start democracy throughout the region. This aspect was not a false pretense, but this is where he failed miserably to make the case. I can make the case, but in all fairness to Bush, I am actually smart. I tend to write a lot, so I will forego the links between dictatorships, Islamism, and terrorism; and Osama Bin Laden's exploitation of Hussein's behavior throughout the 1990s as an excuse for 9/11. But massive slaughters and the murder of hundreds of thousands in Iraq came down to a local Iraqi and regional issue. They get to take responsibility for their behaviors and the centuries-long history that exacerbated tribal and philosophical hatreds under the tactics that dictators employed. Without the brutalities of the dictator keeping everybody in their corners, extremists slaughtered their own - extremist, by the way, who didn't always exist. This had been a developing mess that one day had to explode. It can not be summed up as simply America started the war.

- The Arab Spring was an eventual consequence of Iraqis voting. It followed a constant pressure upon government regimes to reform throughout the region. This movement is defined as a socioeconomic and political rights movement against autocracy and oppression. Rather than launch into the correct side of history, Obama played his political game of "wait-and-see" per country, proving our hypocracy. In the mean time, Muslims killed Muslims. Factions formed to remove dictators (4 were deposed) and then they immersed themselves into the century's-old philosophical struggle to define Islam in the modern age. Whatever assist we offered (which was not enough at all) still came down to Muslim on Muslim violence. And the civil wars that came from this represents each faction's quest to define different local paths to the future. Again, Arabs get to take responsibility for what they did and do in their own locales.


I can even take you back to the CIA-led 1953 coup. Iranians love to simply blame the U.S. And Americans love to self-flagellate. But rarely do laypersons understand that the British had been trying since Truman's early years to convince the U.S. to approve of a coup. Two weeks of Eisenhower and the "threat of communism" was all it took. And nobody seems to care that high members of the Iranian clergy were also intimately behind the coup that destroyed Iranian democracy (only to wind up hating the Shah, who they helped prop up.) The Western lens only shows where the U.S. is responsible. But local agents damn sure own a piece of what they did to themselves in 1953.

Now, of course, European colonialism and imperialism, as well as America's later Cold War economic imperialism, had its part to play in this. We don't get to call victory after the Cold War and not have to deal with the unintended consequences of a world made wrong. But nor do we get to take all the blame and responsibility for what occurs in local cultures simply because America farts in the wind. The vast majority of everything American has done in the world has always almost entirely involved people of those cultures and within those governments.

But have you ever noticed that the trend seems to be about blaming America for what is wrong in these governments and regions, while these same governments and regions take the praise for all that is right?

MSgyQuote"But have you ever noticed that the trend seems to be about blaming America for what is wrong in these governments and regions, while these same governments and regions take the praise for all that is right? "

These Nations are always thousands of miles away from the LOCAL USA. MidEast is OIL and Corporate Energy policy. Syria about transport routes for OIL/GAS. Libya about OIL and a Nation leading Africa into International commerce on its' own terms. The Arab Spring a CIA stroke of genius to destabillize all those OILY ME Nations and let Corporate Energy do its' thing. Our involvement is never about freedom, democracy, liberty, justice or any other high moral sounding platitude that fits the MSM agenda narrative. The USA is imperialistic and the wars are a flagrant billboard advertising that fact. I do appreciate your views but am diametrically opposed to the above.
/

DaveFagan said:

MSgyQuote"But have you ever noticed that the trend seems to be about blaming America for what is wrong in these governments and regions, while these same governments and regions take the praise for all that is right? "

These Nations are always thousands of miles away from the LOCAL USA. MidEast is OIL and Corporate Energy policy. Syria about transport routes for OIL/GAS. Libya about OIL and a Nation leading Africa into International commerce on its' own terms. The Arab Spring a CIA stroke of genius to destabillize all those OILY ME Nations and let Corporate Energy do its' thing. Our involvement is never about freedom, democracy, liberty, justice or any other high moral sounding platitude that fits the MSM agenda narrative. The USA is imperialistic and the wars are a flagrant billboard advertising that fact. I do appreciate your views but am diametrically opposed to the above.
/

Click to expand...

"War for Oil" card. Simplistic as it is pathetic.

"CIA" Card... Just and simplistic. Just as weak.

Fledermaus said:

"War for Oil" card. Simplistic as it is pathetic.

"CIA" Card... Just and simplistic. Just as weak.

Click to expand...

Clue: CIA, shortly after being the OSS and bringing in lots of Nazi intelligence personnel from WWII, allied wiht USA Corporate to install Corporate friendly governments in Central America, Iran, etc. Big Sugar, Big Fruit, Big Energy, and have expanded and nurtured those alliances to make CORPORATISM the business norm for the USA. They work for the Corporations, not the people. The people being famous for, "of the people, by the people, for the people." Citizens United confirms the alliance of Big Government and Big Corporations and military actions thousands of miles away from USA shores to acquire resources and instigated by the CIA, documents the circular self dealing of Corporatism. At the expense of you, me, Grandma and the dog.
/

DaveFagan said:

Clue: CIA, shortly after being the OSS and bringing in lots of Nazi intelligence personnel from WWII, allied wiht USA Corporate to install Corporate friendly governments in Central America, Iran, etc. Big Sugar, Big Fruit, Big Energy, and have expanded and nurtured those alliances to make CORPORATISM the business norm for the USA. They work for the Corporations, not the people. The people being famous for, "of the people, by the people, for the people." Citizens United confirms the alliance of Big Government and Big Corporations and military actions thousands of miles away from USA shores to acquire resources and instigated by the CIA, documents the circular self dealing of Corporatism. At the expense of you, me, Grandma and the dog.
/

Click to expand...

Standard DaveFagan post.. Blah, blah, oil blah. CIA blah blah, ISIS blah blah, Al Qaeda blah blah...

DaveFagan said:

These Nations are always thousands of miles away from the LOCAL USA. MidEast is OIL and Corporate Energy policy. Syria about transport routes for OIL/GAS. Libya about OIL and a Nation leading Africa into International commerce on its' own terms. The Arab Spring a CIA stroke of genius to destabillize all those OILY ME Nations and let Corporate Energy do its' thing. Our involvement is never about freedom, democracy, liberty, justice or any other high moral sounding platitude that fits the MSM agenda narrative. The USA is imperialistic and the wars are a flagrant billboard advertising that fact. I do appreciate your views but am diametrically opposed to the above.

Click to expand...

Some truth, but some of this is nonsensical...

- Oil is important and pretending that it isn't just to stand on a soap box is disingenuous. Besides the fact that most of the world's technology needs it, it is also imperative to the global economy. And considering that we export more than we import, oil itself is not the issue for the U.S. Of course, this doesn't mean that we get to just steal it. But this brings me to my second point...

- You are arguing that after decades of American policy, supporting strongmen to maintain "stability" in these oil rich countries to keep the oil flowing, that the CIA now seeks instability in the region to keep the oil flowing? There is no sense in this. It also elevates the CIA to absurd heights of capability.

You are correct about our interests always being economically grounded. Even our War of Independence was about economy. It is not a coincidence that, despite already establishing a local democratic system, our Declaration followed the Stamp Act and the Tea Act. And speeches that revolve around democracy and freedom are a proven farce as far back as Wilson's "Make the World Safe for Democracy" speech that got us into World War I (which was about trade and debt). It is also true that we supported not a single democracy in the Third World during the Cold War. So few actually think about that beyond the speeches. The Cold War was a contest to define the global economy between capitalism and communism. Even when it came to speeches about the "Domino Effect," we just happened to also be receiving 90% of our rubber imports from Southeast Asia by the time we Americanized the Vietnam War.

But pushing these known and understood facts of history into everything is a mistake. The CIA had nothing to do with instigating the Arab Spring against governments that were on our payroll. France immediately supported the Tunisian dictator when demonstrations erupted, but flipped when he was toppled. The U.S. didn't know to support Mubarak or distance until he was toppled. And when it came to Libya, nobody was a friend to Gaddafi, but it still took France's hypocritical ass to beg our involvement. The whole thing was reminiscent of the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1978-79. It came from the population, which is why the CIA blamed the KGB and the KGB blamed the CIA. But neither was responsible. The same is true with the Arab Spring. Of course, history has told us that we only have to wait a bit before documents prove an unknown, but arguing that the CIA was behind the Arab Spring makes no sense. Especially when we consider that we have annually payed these countries (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan) to maintain stability and to leave Israel alone for decades.

Instability in the MENA is only in our best interests when we argue that this mess is what needs to happen in order for the region and the religion to get to the healthier other side of autocracy, dictatorship, and oppression. It is those three things that created militant Islamism and from this extremism we got 9/11. Now, that is more ideologically based and less realpolitik, but I argue that we have come to a point in history where realpolitik has to start considering some ideology. Because as the West thrived in its ideology and practiced realpolitik with Third (and Second) World countries, those populations were denied their developing ideologies and are now lashing out. <--- And I mean the Islamists (IS, Boko Haram), not the Islamic Modernists (Arab Spring).

Godric1970 said:

America or any other nation uses or initiates first that country would become a pariah nation and shunned internationally, Strike either Russia, China or North Korea every single city in America would become smouldering ash within 15 to 20 minutes .... neither Russia or China would stand ideally by while America nukes North Korea because the strikes will end up killing Chinese and Russians near the border areas contaminating the land and water for thousands of years

2 when it comes to hacking and espionage none holds a candle to America ... say America hacks into the Kremlin/FSB or the Chinese equivalent is it not their right to retaliate against the source of the strike by bringing their servers down after all we learned from Snowden that the NSA installed malware around the globes power grids including their EU allies ... is this not a declaration of War by America .... the hypocrisy of the USA is breath taking

Click to expand...

Yeah, that is working so well for North Korea..

MSgt said:

Some truth, but some of this is nonsensical...

- Oil is important and pretending that it isn't just to stand on a soap box is disingenuous. Besides the fact that most of the world's technology needs it, it is also imperative to the global economy. And considering that we export more than we import, oil itself is not the issue for the U.S. Of course, this doesn't mean that we get to just steal it. But this brings me to my second point...

- You are arguing that after decades of American policy, supporting strongmen to maintain "stability" in these oil rich countries to keep the oil flowing, that the CIA now seeks instability in the region to keep the oil flowing? There is no sense in this. It also elevates the CIA to absurd heights of capability.

You are correct about our interests always being economically grounded. Even our War of Independence was about economy. It is not a coincidence that, despite already establishing a local democratic system, our Declaration followed the Stamp Act and the Tea Act. And speeches that revolve around democracy and freedom are a proven farce as far back as Wilson's "Make the World Safe for Democracy" speech that got us into World War I (which was about trade and debt). It is also true that we supported not a single democracy in the Third World during the Cold War. So few actually think about that beyond the speeches. The Cold War was a contest to define the global economy between capitalism and communism. Even when it came to speeches about the "Domino Effect," we just happened to also be receiving 90% of our rubber imports from Southeast Asia by the time we Americanized the Vietnam War.

But pushing these known and understood facts of history into everything is a mistake. The CIA had nothing to do with instigating the Arab Spring against governments that were on our payroll. France immediately supported the Tunisian dictator when demonstrations erupted, but flipped when he was toppled. The U.S. didn't know to support Mubarak or distance until he was toppled. And when it came to Libya, nobody was a friend to Gaddafi, but it still took France's hypocritical ass to beg our involvement. The whole thing was reminiscent of the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1978-79. It came from the population, which is why the CIA blamed the KGB and the KGB blamed the CIA. But neither was responsible. The same is true with the Arab Spring. Of course, history has told us that we only have to wait a bit before documents prove an unknown, but arguing that the CIA was behind the Arab Spring makes no sense. Especially when we consider that we have annually payed these countries (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan) to maintain stability and to leave Israel alone for decades.

Instability in the MENA is only in our best interests when we argue that this mess is what needs to happen in order for the region and the religion to get to the healthier other side of autocracy, dictatorship, and oppression. It is those three things that created militant Islamism and from this extremism we got 9/11. Now, that is more ideologically based and less realpolitik, but I argue that we have come to a point in history where realpolitik has to start considering some ideology. Because as the West thrived in its ideology and practiced realpolitik with Third (and Second) World countries, those populations were denied their developing ideologies and are now lashing out. <--- And I mean the Islamists (IS, Boko Haram), not the Islamic Modernists (Arab Spring).

Click to expand...

Instability in the MidEast gives the USA a poor excuse to occupy places like Syria, Libya (Haftar), Iraq, CAR, Sudan, etc. Syria is an important transit for OIL and GAS from Iran, Iraq, even Russia to Europe and the USA wants to prevent that at all costs. It protects our joined at hip, scumbag ally, Saudi Arabia and keeps that Nation in the chips so it can support Sunni, Wahabi, al Qeda, ISIS insurgents throughout the ME. Notice that the USA helps Saudi Arabia in Yemen. We are the only reason these scumbags are still operating and I know arguments about the PetroDollar are real and a piss poor excuse for swallowing the turd alliance that is Saudi Arabia. This is all about the CORPORATE end of the USA alliances. The USA toppled Libya because Qaddaffi was teaching African Nations how to deal commercially with their resources AGAINST hegemonic Nations. How to make the African Nations keep more profits. That was his big sin and why he is gone. The USA has attempted to destabilize Russia, Syria, Venezuela, Turkey, Iran, North Korea, Iraq, Ukraine, and many others to maintain World Wide hegemony and nobody made us boss in these Nations we attempt to throttle. Sanctions are an Act of War and pay attention who is using them, and then analyze facts to see why. Real facts. Not MSM agenda narratives.
/

DaveFagan said:

Instability in the MidEast gives the USA a poor excuse to occupy places like Syria, Libya (Haftar), Iraq, CAR, Sudan, etc. Syria is an important transit for OIL and GAS from Iran, Iraq, even Russia to Europe and the USA wants to prevent that at all costs. It protects our joined at hip, scumbag ally, Saudi Arabia and keeps that Nation in the chips so it can support Sunni, Wahabi, al Qeda, ISIS insurgents throughout the ME. Notice that the USA helps Saudi Arabia in Yemen. We are the only reason these scumbags are still operating and I know arguments about the Petrodollar are real and a piss poor excuse for swallowing the turd alliance that is Saudi Arabia. This is all about the CORPORATE end of the USA alliances. The USA toppled Libya because Qaddaffi was teaching African Nations how to deal commercially with their resources AGAINST hegemonic Nations. How to make the African Nations keep more profits. That was his big sin and why he is gone. The USA has attempted to destabilize Russia, Syria, Venezuela, Turkey, Iran, North Korea, Iraq, Ukraine, and many others to maintain World Wide hegemony and nobody made us boss in these Nations we attempt to throttle. Sanctions are an Act of War and pay attention who is using them, and then analyze facts to see why. Real facts. Not MSM agenda narratives.
/

Click to expand...

There is too much disconnect here.

- There is no occupying these countries. Everybody would have learned this painful lesson with Iraq. Without the dictator, it is going to get messy. Bush set the time table to pull out of Iraq; and as we learned throughout the Cold War, replacing Hussein with another handy dandy dictator would have meant more for our ideas of foreign stability than democracy. Obama was reluctant about helping others bomb Libya and bounced as soon as Gaddafi went down. Syria is its own case, but it cannot be taken out of the Arab Spring ideological context. But again, Obama's "wait-and-see" foreign policy produced only a half-assed effort. These are not things that help build a case that we want instability in order to occupy.

- Of course petrodollar arguments are real. Despite earlier diplomacy in the 1930s, The U.S.' relationship with Saudi Arabia really started with ARAMCO, which pulled the U.S. government deeper. This was absolutely all about oil interests. And as far back as at least Kennedy (if I remember correctly) we have militarily supported Saudi Arabia against Yemen to maintain that stability. And of course, Saudi Arabia showed it's power over the U.S. with the 1970s oil embargo (over Israel). What this, and other examples in the MENA, means is that seeking instability in the region directly contradicts decades of well known and widely understood American Foreign policy.

- Gaddafi is gone only because Libya followed Egypt, which followed Algeria, which followed Tunisia. With Ben Ali (Tunisia) and Mubarak (Egypt) toppled in December and January respectively, the Libyan population jumped to do the same with Gaddafi in February. Libya, like everybody else in the region, saw Ben Ali and Mubarak's fall and drew inspiration. And with the French cozy with Ben Ali and us cozy with Mubarak, why in hell would the CIA seek to destabilize in order to get what we already had? The notion that the CIA was behind the Arab Spring is nonsensical.

- In terms of a world wide hegemony, you are arguing as if this is still a goal. By establishing IBRD and the IMF at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, the U.S. paved the way for the dollar's global position. The Cold War was more about denying communist influence (and access to resources) and pushing the capitalist agenda. Of course, this meant corporations and their interests. As an example, and as I stated before, we were receiving 90% of our rubber from Southeast Asia before we fully Americanized the Vietnam War. This cannot be discounted when ideologically preaching about the so-called "Domino Effect." What I am trying to state is that even before the Cold War declared it so, the U.S. had long achieved ideological and economic hegemony.

- And I don't really believe in sanctions. They generally do not work and only serve to make us feel as if we are actively doing something.


But not everything is a CIA plot, or a corporate secret, or some invisible hand.

MSgt said:

There is too much disconnect here.

- There is no occupying these countries. Everybody would have learned this painful lesson with Iraq. Without the dictator, it is going to get messy. Bush set the time table to pull out of Iraq; and as we learned throughout the Cold War, replacing Hussein with another handy dandy dictator would have meant more for our ideas of foreign stability than democracy. Obama was reluctant about helping others bomb Libya and bounced as soon as Gaddafi went down. Syria is its own case, but it cannot be taken out of the Arab Spring ideological context. But again, Obama's "wait-and-see" foreign policy produced only a half-assed effort. These are not things that help build a case that we want instability in order to occupy.

- Of course petrodollar arguments are real. Despite earlier diplomacy in the 1930s, The U.S.' relationship with Saudi Arabia really started with ARAMCO, which pulled the U.S. government deeper. This was absolutely all about oil interests. And as far back as at least Kennedy (if I remember correctly) we have militarily supported Saudi Arabia against Yemen to maintain that stability. And of course, Saudi Arabia showed it's power over the U.S. with the 1970s oil embargo (over Israel). What this, and other examples in the MENA, means is that seeking instability in the region directly contradicts decades of well known and widely understood American Foreign policy.

- Gaddafi is gone only because Libya followed Egypt, which followed Algeria, which followed Tunisia. With Ben Ali (Tunisia) and Mubarak (Egypt) toppled in December and January respectively, the Libyan population jumped to do the same with Gaddafi in February. Libya, like everybody else in the region, saw Ben Ali and Mubarak's fall and drew inspiration. And with the French cozy with Ben Ali and us cozy with Mubarak, why in hell would the CIA seek to destabilize in order to get what we already had? The notion that the CIA was behind the Arab Spring is nonsensical.

- In terms of a world wide hegemony, you are arguing as if this is still a goal. By establishing IBRD and the IMF at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, the U.S. paved the way for the dollar's global position. The Cold War was more about denying communist influence (and access to resources) and pushing the capitalist agenda. Of course, this meant corporations and their interests. As an example, and as I stated before, we were receiving 90% of our rubber from Southeast Asia before we fully Americanized the Vietnam War. This cannot be discounted when ideologically preaching about the so-called "Domino Effect." What I am trying to state is that even before the Cold War declared it so, the U.S. had long achieved ideological and economic hegemony.

- And I don't really believe in sanctions. They generally do not work and only serve to make us feel as if we are actively doing something.


But not everything is a CIA plot, or a corporate secret, or some invisible hand.

Click to expand...

USA is occupying Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. as we speak.

The USA seeks instability in the region to protect Israeli and Saudi Arabian interests. Minimize competitors production.

Qaddaffi said ISIS forces were a threat and when he attecked them we said he was killing civilians and attecked Libya. You can see how well that worked.
We helped Egypt's military dictatorship because dictators are easier to deal with than democracies.

The Bretton Woods agreement was a gold standard. The USA "defaulted" on the Agreement when DeGaulle wanted to exchange his US Dollars (Vietnam War loans) for silver and gold. Now the USA is the World Reserve currency and it is Fiat Money and that is "Money because we say it is," not backed by anything except confidence. We use the IMF, World Bank, Federal Resereve, and SWIFT as weapons and have weaponized our currency. This will bite us soon. Everybody holding US Treasuries has lost about 18% because of the US Dollar dropping in value compared to other world currencies last year and it is continuing. The Vietnam War had nada to do with Communism, but we were trying to help the French keep a colony, and then thought we might like to have it for our own selves.

You seem to ignore that the CIA operates invisibly and is allied with major USA Corporations. "The business of America is business," and with the CIA involved it is monkey business. "War is good business, and business is good." What right has an Intelligence Agency to run military operations? How is that Intelligence gathering?

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.

What is the point in beefing up nuclear weapons. Why do you need 100s, or thousands? A few can destroy the world. It's so incredibly stupid

And look at the country who is the most violent in this world, the US. We have been bombing and killing people all across the world since WWII. We prop up dictators, we help overthrow governments to put in ruthless dicatators if they will be pro US and pro US business. We have killed 100s of thousands of people in the middle east, and responsible for the horrendous conditions of a lot more as we sent that region into chaos by invading Iraq. All to protect corporate interest and to feed the military industrial complex.

We are also the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons (albeit justified IMO).

DaveFagan said:

MSgyQuote"But have you ever noticed that the trend seems to be about blaming America for what is wrong in these governments and regions, while these same governments and regions take the praise for all that is right? "

These Nations are always thousands of miles away from the LOCAL USA. MidEast is OIL and Corporate Energy policy. Syria about transport routes for OIL/GAS. Libya about OIL and a Nation leading Africa into International commerce on its' own terms. The Arab Spring a CIA stroke of genius to destabillize all those OILY ME Nations and let Corporate Energy do its' thing. Our involvement is never about freedom, democracy, liberty, justice or any other high moral sounding platitude that fits the MSM agenda narrative. The USA is imperialistic and the wars are a flagrant billboard advertising that fact. I do appreciate your views but am diametrically opposed to the above.
/

Click to expand...

These phony patriots are just so blind, they ignore the entire history of the middle east and decades of our government meddling, screwing the people over, so we can get cheap oil. We are paying for that now.

But these people will stupidly and blindly claim "they hate us for our way of life". No, just get the F out of their countries and stop killing them while allowing dictators to take all the country's money

Fledermaus said:

Standard DaveFagan post.. Blah, blah, oil blah. CIA blah blah, ISIS blah blah, Al Qaeda blah blah...

Click to expand...

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

Evilroddy said:

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?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Evilroddy said:

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?

Click to expand...

No.

Evilroddy said:

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?

Click to expand...

Only those States that are bad actors would seek to develop nuclear weapons.

Evilroddy said:

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?

Click to expand...

The UN Charter does not expressly prohibit the use of nuclear weapons.

The "laws of war" do not prohibit the use of nuclear weapons.

The victor of any conflict never suffers legal consequences.

Unitedwestand13 said:

The best words that describe the idea of developing miniature nukes or tactical nukes:

Nuts.

Insane.

Idiotic

Suicidal

Madness.

Click to expand...

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.

DaveFagan said:

The USA started the war, and under false pretenses.

Click to expand...

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

Sampson Simpson said:

What is the point in beefing up nuclear weapons. Why do you need 100s, or thousands? A few can destroy the world. It's so incredibly stupid

Click to expand...

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.