It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pentagon considers changing nuclear retaliation rules

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Gandalf77

IN other words, nowhere. Survival of the fittest, my friend. The laws of nature have always dictated that the strongest survive, the smartest survive, and the ones who can combine those two in the highest amounts thrive. Life sucks, buy a helmet.




posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Gandalf77

IN other words, nowhere. Survival of the fittest, my friend. The laws of nature have always dictated that the strongest survive, the smartest survive, and the ones who can combine those two in the highest amounts thrive. Life sucks, buy a helmet.


Live by the sword, die by the sword....
edit on 18-1-2018 by Gandalf77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Gandalf77

IN other words, nowhere. Survival of the fittest, my friend. The laws of nature have always dictated that the strongest survive, the smartest survive, and the ones who can combine those two in the highest amounts thrive. Life sucks, buy a helmet.


Live by the sword, die by the sword....


...and yet Jesus also commanded his disciples "if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Gandalf77

IN other words, nowhere. Survival of the fittest, my friend. The laws of nature have always dictated that the strongest survive, the smartest survive, and the ones who can combine those two in the highest amounts thrive. Life sucks, buy a helmet.


Live by the sword, die by the sword....


...and yet Jesus also commanded his disciples "if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."


Nice try, I’ll give you that.
That passage is generally interpreted as Jesus fulfilling prophecy, not as some call to arms. Taken literally, that statement stands in stark contrast to his core teachings.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Gargoyle91

That's a good change, assuming we can prove it was state actors who conducted the attack, this can often times be difficult to do with cyber attacks. At the same time though, the US needs to adopt a no first strike policy in regards to nukes or any other WMD's.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Gargoyle91

That's a good change, assuming we can prove it was state actors who conducted the attack, this can often times be difficult to do with cyber attacks. At the same time though, the US needs to adopt a no first strike policy in regards to nukes or any other WMD's.


A no first strike policy would be a measure of comfort given the current administration.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
If we can get past the silly ideology that "OMG, nuclear weapons are so evil, we should never, EVER even have them, let alone consider using them" and move on to the reality of "There are potentially rogue and/or hostile nations in the world today which possess nuclear weapons, meaning it would be a really dumb idea for the US to flinch in any way where mutually assured destruction is concerned," we will understand this change in policy a lot better. Let's face a simple fact, the country's lifeblood is now cyber-integrated. Take out the power grid for the country and you've crippled that country just as surely as it would have been crippled 50 years ago had Russia launched a few nukes at major US hubs. People would die in such a cyber attack, as well. A lot of people depending on circumstances. Knock out the power grid in Minneapolis in January and folks would freeze within 24 hours. Knock it out in Phoenix in July and scores would die of heat related illness. Knock it out in a place like LA or NYC and the riots would kill more than a strategic small yield nuclear strike could ever dream of killing. So yeah, considering the devastating effects a major cyber attack could have on this country, I'd sure as hell hope that whatever country was behind such action would see their capital rendered to a smoldering crater within 30 minutes of US Intel determining who did it.

So why the policy change? Simple... make sure those foreign countries' leaders KNOW that a major cyber attack on the US coming from their country will result in a United States boot straight up their ass, stomp a mudhole and walk it dry style. Fear steadies hands and cools heads a lot faster than singing Kumbaya and holding hands around a fire does where geopolitics are concerned.


A tactical strike with cruise missiles on telephone exchanges, government buildings, power lines, power substations is just as effective at bombing a country back to the stone age. Though it would be better if they could just "jam" the power lines with some device and then switch it off when the mission was complete.



posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 12:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Nuclear weapons covers a wide spectrum of devices and functions. There are plenty of them available that do not release a mushroom cloud, don't create the airborne disaster you're concerned about, and don't render the blast site uninhabitable for years. If the Short Fat One attacks my country, I honestly don't think "Oh, what will happen to Japan" should be the primary concern of this country's leaders in preparing their retaliation.


Seeing as Japan is a ALLY that will be fighting on YOUR side in such a war, yeah Japan dam well should be concern.

The dumbest thing in a war is to treat your allies like #. Especially when you have vital strategic bases located in them.



posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 04:48 AM
link   
So we all know it is very easy to make a cyber attack look like it came from any where we want it to.

We all know certain country's love using false flag attacks to justify their goals.

Where could this policy possibly go wrong.



posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 06:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Gandalf77

IN other words, nowhere. Survival of the fittest, my friend. The laws of nature have always dictated that the strongest survive, the smartest survive, and the ones who can combine those two in the highest amounts thrive. Life sucks, buy a helmet.


Live by the sword, die by the sword....


...and yet Jesus also commanded his disciples "if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."


And death to all the infidels.....

Siting religious CRAP isnt helping at all speacially from a mod...

Lets just push the frikkin button and get it done...



posted on Jan, 19 2018 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Funny thing about MAD.....the letter M.

M = MUTUAL

For it to apply, the target must possess the capability to destroy YOU as well.

Simply put, there are only TWO other powers on Earth that possess this ability. Russia, and China.

Any others could put a hurt on us, or attack isolated targets and POSSIBLY succeed there, but it would not be MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION.

So, this action (if it is even legit) could be viewed in the context of providing a deterrent instead. The very fact that it'd be on the books. In addition, it could also be used to apply in the context of using a nuclear based EMP weapon (as hinted at in another post in this thread). To me, this would be the most LIKELY reason for such a change.



new topics




 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join