Nukes . . . They're not just for retaliation anymore

Originally posted by skippytjc
BEAT YA!!


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Good thread Skippy.

I posted to it but, after further consideration, I felt the topic,

The USA's Nuclear Attack Plan in the Event of a Terrorist WMD Attack

and discussion that followed, failed to capture the essence of the proposed revisions.

The focus of the proposed revisions addressed preemptive measures to be taken, not retaliatory.

One concern may be that, if implemented, this would virtually remove the possibility of not finding the supposed [smoking gun] WMDs.

The burden of proof is therefore removed from the picture.

question: How do we know the [insert your favorite wmd] ever existed?

answer: Dunno . . . the area in question has been obliterated by a nuclear strike.

How can you possibly find the proverbial "needle in the haystack" when the haystack no longer exists?

Possible future headline: ??
U.N. Inspection teams have reported they were unable to confirm the existence of the supposed weapons of mass destruction. They stated that upon arrival they were unable to find any WMDs, actually they were unable to find ANYTHING!

[edit on 9/15/2005 by 12m8keall2c]

The preemptive strike alternative has always been on the table since the "Cold War" and even possibly before that. There have been a number of conspiracy theories, movies, tv shows, books etc. that have used the military's preemptive strike scenarios as the basis of the storyline as well as propaganda to demonize the military mindset to show that they are just warmongers.
An example from history of one of these "what if" scenarios happening..... The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. The US had reports of Russian missiles being built and put into place in Cuba. Did the US wait for the missiles to be completed and then launched before taking action?
No, The US Quickly informed Cuba and Russia that if the missiles were not removed immediately, the US would launch airstrikes against Cuba. One note here, the nuclear option WAS considered an option at this time.
The difference that the new wording and that of the old is in 1995, the addition of WMD to the preemptive scenarios and of course the use of nuclear weapons being added in today's version.

The military as well as all govermental agencies (as well as private corporations) create "what if" situations and brainstorm various scenarios of what could happen and what would you do in each case. Does that mean that these scenarios will ever come about? Does that mean that the military / goverment would ever take the steps outlined in the scenarios? Well luckily so far so good, it has not happened. We the people would hold our goverment accountable if it did not take such scenarios into it's thought processes and planning.

The Cuban Missile Crisis

That's kinda like saying that you're going to beat someone up if they look at you the wrong way...and it's being taken to a whole new level.

Why don't they just grow up?

kenshiro2012,

The fact that preemptive strikes have been an option since the days of the Cold War is noted.

But the comparison between the current situation in the world and that of the Cold War scenario is like apples and oranges IMO.

Personally, I don't feel the use of preemptive strikes during the Cold War era was as much a possibility as it is today.

This may quite possibly be more of an effort to "wag the dog" in the hopes of getting their attention. Let's hope?!

by kenshiro2012:
We the people would hold our goverment accountable if it did not take such scenarios into it's thought processes and planning.

Of course . . . but how can you have any accountability when there's nothing there to inspect for confirmation.

quote: Possible future headline: ??
U.N. Inspection teams have reported they were unable to confirm the existence of the supposed weapons of mass destruction. They stated that upon arrival they were unable to find any WMDs, actually they were unable to find ANYTHING!

[edit on 9/15/2005 by 12m8keall2c]

12m8keall2c,

I actually have to disagree with you on that. It may be a case where history and time has softened the emotional turmoil that was prevelent back then. As with the case that I noted, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the terror of the american people was unbelievably high! Many of the people in those days took steps that we today would and do laugh at. Such things as personal fallout shelters etc.
Also, you may note that the nuclear option was considered during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was luckily tabled very quickly but it could have been a reality especially when you take into consideration the mentaily of the people in that era.

Today's "war on terror" or whatever name which you want to pin on it, has an immediacy to it which makes the problems seem much more "real" , that much more terrorifying (spell?), The immediacy, of the ills of today, makes it seem that what is going on tiday is worse than what has occured in the past.
Ask people who lived through the times of WW1 / WW2 / Korean War / Vietnam War / and yes Cuban Missile Crisis what they thought and felt back then. You will find that they believed the end was near and would not have dismissed the use of nuclear weapons (Cuban Missile Crisis) as being too far fetched. I remember the times and my folks have als reminiced on the times.
On the 20th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, I even published an article in a local newspaper, depicting the times and terror of the people back then.
Cheers!

Personally I think Dubya and Company have itchy trigger fingers. I just try not to think about it much.....

"News just in, Iran Nuked! All President bush could say on the matter was huh huh I hit them back first"

Okay . . . I do agree with you as to the hysteria of the times. We had drills during school where everyone went to the fallout shelter/basement of the school.

My point is that back then it was US vs USSR. Cuba was simply an extension thereof.

Today it's the US vs ??? a nameless, faceless, terrorist[used loosely] enemy?!

Kind of like throwing punches in the dark hoping to connect.

Ultimately, my concern is for accountability and confirmation prior to use. Primarily because after the fact there's not much chance of it.

Now, today I see where Iran intends to make nuclear technology available to other Islamic states, for peaceful energy use of course?!

Iran offers nuclear know-how to Islamic states

?Raising the stakes?

?Raising the possibility?


[edit on 9/15/2005 by 12m8keall2c]

Yes, the "enemy" designation is extremely murky today.
Russia was an identifiable target back during the Cold War times.
And yet, the true real enemy of those times was not Russia but the communist menace. That designation was almost as nebulous as the "terrorist" designation is today. The main difference between them is that back in the old days, was that the communist enemy had no face and less immediacy to it since it was almost always "over there". Even the BlackBall McArthur "trials" only painted a vague picture to most americans as the targets were not immediate aquaintances, neighbors, family. The targets of McAruthur were mainly faces and names on the tv screen.
Today though, we now live in the "village' where something that happens on the otherside of the world is now concidered next door. This is due to the technology that we have today, The media that we have today.

If we had the same tech back then where it is not a big deal to go to the other side of the world in a day, back in the 60's etc, I have serious doubts that we would be around today. That the old scif-fi horror stories of the 50's of a post nuclear world would have been a reality instead of just being nightmares.

by kenshiro2012:
Today though, we now live in the "village' where something that happens on the otherside of the world is now concidered next door. This is due to the technology that we have today, The media that we have today.

Correct, therefore resulting in the seemingly increased immediacy of today's threat.

You can paint the horse red and call it a "Commie" or paint the horse whatever and call it a "terrorist". Either way it provides a means by which to incite fear and rile the masses as/when needed.

Though, back then we had a better idea of "what they had at their disposal" as opposed to the situation today where there seems to be more conjecture than actual knowledge.

The Cold War was more like the two biggest bullies on the block standing toe to toe waiting for the first one to take a swing.

Today . . . Do we really know who to even take a swing at?


[edit on 9/15/2005 by 12m8keall2c]

I think it bears mentioning that the changing target has brought with it changing threat levels. While terrorists may 'seem' scarier, the fact of the matter is, they lack the ability to obliterate our country with a counter-strike.

In other words, America can pretty much nuke with impunity, as long as it doesn't ruffle the feathers of the other nuclear powers. It's no longer a case of who strikes first in the last battle, it's a matter of aribitrary decision making regarding the use of these weapons.

The president authorizes a strike on Havenukistan, and three hours later there is no such country, for all intents and purposes. Not only will we never know if they had weapons or not, but they are unable to retaliate, and thus, we are free to move on and do it to the next country on the list.

Anybody think Syria is in a precarious position right now? I don't see us going into Iran, too much hassle considering their strategic partnerships. Syria though, is looking the part of the fall guy. They're not nearly as bad as the media would have Americans believe, and they're not nearly so much a threat. The US could win that war with a minimum of casualties, using decisive thermonuclear strikes on underground facilities and using conventional bombardment to eliminate the threats posed by troop concentrations and communications centers.

The problem as I see it is not with the war effort, it's with the aftermath. I imagine the desire to 'do it again' will be very high after such a successful attack.

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
The preemptive strike alternative has always been on the table since the "Cold War" and even possibly before that.

Good point and very true. You can just look at a Bomber like the B-2 for proof of that.

We didnt create a slow moving super stealthy nuclear bomber to retailate against a USSR nuclear attack, we already had land based ICBMs and missile subs for that. It was IMHO clearly a first strike weapon.

Infact I think the orginal number of B-2s asked for was equal to the number of major Russian ICBM sites.

I think the core difference between the Cold War era and the situation today is MAD.

You had the two world superpowers standing toe to toe, fully armed, yet neither truly wants to throw that proverbial "first punch", as they both realize the end result being mutually assured destruction.

In regards to today's situation that is simply not the case. Back then we knew for a fact there were Soviet missiles in Cuba. Today, what we know as fact is what? That someone, somewhere, sometime with something may somehow attempt to attack us somewhere, someday, sometime, somehow.

I'm not saying a preemptive approach is wrong, bad, or unnecessary, yet it does tend to minimalize the "after the fact" culpability and accountability for said action.

In regards to today's situation that is simply not the case. Back then we knew for a fact there were Soviet missiles in Cuba.

Did we? Completely verifiable undeniable, proof?
Was there an international team of experts visiting the sites in Cuba? Did all of the observers agree that these were indeed missiles? Did these observers, take back samples for analysis that could be confirmed by at least 20 other labs to confirm that there were missiles in Cuba? Did all the photgraphic evidence go through detailed analysis by multiple labs / countries / organizations? Did all proove that the photographic evidence prove 100% to every person that , YES there is indeed missiles in Cuba? Were all of the observations and evidence verifiable both before, during as well as after the crisis? Or did we as a people just depend on the military's and the intelligence organization's account?

No of course not, So now the question comes into play, just what proof (if any) is going to be needed before a premptive strike could be considered? What proof can be used before / during / after a premptive strike could be used to prove 100% to everyone in the world that so and so had WMD and was planning on using them?
Who and what are we or any other nation, going to need in order to perform a premptive strike that will not bring world condemnation down on the striker?

As an example, we have Iran, telling the world that they will lay waste to every state in the US. They purportedly have nuclear warhead capability. If they do not, what is to stop them from obtaining the so-called "suitcase" or dirty bombs" from another country and then fulfilling their threat?

Does anyone have an answer? I think not

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
The preemptive strike alternative has always been on the table since the "Cold War" and even possibly before that.

Good point and very true. You can just look at a Bomber like the B-2 for proof of that.

We didnt create a slow moving super stealthy nuclear bomber to retailate against a USSR nuclear attack, we already had land based ICBMs and missile subs for that. It was IMHO clearly a first strike weapon.

Infact I think the orginal number of B-2s asked for was equal to the number of major Russian ICBM sites.

The intended purpose of the B-2 was to take out the Soviets mobile missile systems not their fixed silos. One thing needs to be taken into consideration here. The success of the B-2 actually removes one of the reasons for having nuclear weapons in the first place. Before the B-2 the main concern was being able to get thru the enemy defences in order to hit specific targets. With the lack of stealth aircraft it was determined that certain targets could not be reached without massive casualties to the attacking aircraft. This lead to the developement of the ICBM. Problem was that the initial accuracy was not that great which lead to them being equipped with large nuclear warheads in order to guarentee the destruction of the target. Now with the B-2 precision strikes can be made in heavy defences which in my opinion reduces the need for nuclear bombs or missiles. The problem is that once the genie is out of the bottle it is kind of hard to put him back in. The only way that I see the US using nuclear weapons is in a tactical role. There were plans during the Cold War that if the Soviets would have attacked Europe and had broken thru NATO lines a tactical nuclear strike would have been ordered. Maybe if the US ever gets into a was in Asia against China there may be a possibility of tactical nukes being used, but that is the only way that I see it happening.

As far as using a nuke to destroy a biological or chemical weapon I don't think so. First, how do we know that it will destroy the weapon without making it worse? Second the outcry of world opinion would be so great that I don't think that a country who lets insurgents sit inside a mosque without bombing it, just to avoid attacking a religious shrine would tolerate it. There are plenty of conventional weapons that can do the same job with less political hassle.

The only reason that nuclear ICBMs exist any more is that no country having them wants to be percieved as weak for eliminating. Personally I think that the nukes should be taken off of the missiles and replaced with conventional warheads.

Its alot more simple when countries are launching ICBMs with their address pretty much written on them. The only outcome of such a attack is indeed M.A.D.

But the risk of sneaking a nuke into a US city didnt start with modern Muslim terrorist. I can tell you that Russia had looked into such a attack on the US long before.

Russia created man portable nuclear weapons AKA ''suitcase nukes'' for just that reason. Either to be brought into the country by Russian agents or third party agents of another country.

A attack like this back then on the US would have been percieved as a direct attack by the USSR and would likely provoked and full nuclear retaliation by the US.

But the landscape has changed and these policies have to be approached again. You cant really taken any options off the table today either not yet atleast. If a nuclear weapon came could be traced back to a goverment with known terrorist ties say Iran It could very well be seen as a attack from Iran itself. But the same event from say a Russian nuclear weapon might have to be handled in a different manner.

kenshiro2012,

Strong point and valid at that.

One man's fact is another man's fiction.

I guess the point I was trying to make was that, unlike the purported WMDs in Iraq (i.e. CIA, Rice, etc. said no they don't, yet a few months later said they certainly do), the evidence during the Cuban missile crisis seemed more substantiated and factual as opposed to conjecture.

[edit on 9/15/2005 by 12m8keall2c]