Preemptive Nuclear Attack: What Are the Implications?

[kyleb]

You serendipitously missed out this part of your quote,

I left out that part of the quote because it isn't directly relevant to the question you asked. It is a separate example which I hoped might help you understand my position.

My question was if N. Korea was substituted for Iraq in the above would this quote from you still hold?

Actually, you didn't ask a question after that comment, but rather quoted it and responded with:

Nice to know N. Korea has your moral support if they detonate a nuke in Washington DC tomorrow.

Note that this was not a question.

Rather than answer you resorted to ad hominem attacks.

Please look back to my response to your non-question:

I never said anything of the sort.

That was not ad hominem attack by any means, but rather a statement of fact.

BTW As regards the personal attacks I would have simply replied in kind but being a little close to the points limit and not wishing to go the same way as TSM I figured I'd take the more 'responsible' route.

It seems to me that the responsible thing at this point would be to get back to the subject and respond with the clarifcation I asked for:

I'll need to clarify what you are specifically referring to when you say "overt threats" in order to give an effective answer to that. Also, please note my intent in using the phrase "gearing up to try and kill.".

 

[Skyhunter]

The only legitimate use of this policy I could imagine remains in the events of either some group managing to seize a silo or cache of some other form of weapons which they would then deploy. Either that or a rogue nation (I hate that term, but really can't think of anything better) getting ready to fire off their own weapons.

There are many better security measures we could take to prevent the seizing of a silo, or the acquisition of other WMD. Attacking say North Korea's or Iran's nuclear facilities would be more likely.

Unfortunately, these things are always going to hound our thinking on such matters. There probably exist elements in the citizenry that wouldn't mind seeing us nuke the entire middle east indiscriminately and without warning.

I have heard this option suggested by right wing radio hosts more than once.

I would kind of hope we wouldn't have to. I'd be much more scared if the administration asked for nuclear capability because they wanted to use it imminently on a specific target. As it stands, this looks like a strategic policy that will likely never be realized in any tactical situation.

It is naive to think that they would spell out their intentions. I don't trust them. They have lied about war before. I believe they have a target in mind already. Let's just hope I am wrong, or that they don't get the opportunity.

 

[loseyourname]

There are many better security measures we could take to prevent the seizing of a silo, or the acquisition of other WMD. Attacking say North Korea's or Iran's nuclear facilities would be more likely.

I don't mean someone seizing an American silo. We can't protect other nations' nukes, unless you want a US military presence in every nuclear capable country. I certainly don't.

I have heard this option suggested by right wing radio hosts more than once.

I've been hearing it suggested since I was old to know what was being said. Not just by radio hosts, but by regular everyday people.

It is naive to think that they would spell out their intentions. I don't trust them. They have lied about war before. I believe they have a target in mind already. Let's just hope I am wrong, or that they don't get the opportunity.

Naive or not, I'm not willing to believe that any American leader could away with nuking a sovereign nation without just cause until I see it happen. Cruise missiles are one thing - Clinton used those plenty of times. This just seems like a whole 'nother animal.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Naive or not, I'm not willing to believe that any American leader could away with nuking a sovereign nation without just cause until I see it happen. Cruise missiles are one thing - Clinton used those plenty of times. This just seems like a whole 'nother animal.

I would have to agree. Anyone who nuked any foriegn target would be at the center of a **** storm if they did. No one has done it since WWII and the only reason the US got away with it then was because of the war and they scared everyone because they were the only ones with the capability.
Theoretically they could use smaller tactical devices somewhere that won't garner as much attention to test the waters but even that would set off way too many alarms with too many nations for them to pull it off and proceed with bigger operations.
Really it would be just too entirely stupid a stunt to pull off and I'm sure that anyone with half a brain between them in the White House or Pentagon wouldn't allow it to happen without a damn good reason. Ofcourse I have a bit more faith in the intelligence of some of these people than most of you so we'll probably have to agree to disagree.

What do people think of the idea of using nukes in a situation where biologicals are being released or about to be released?

 

[Smurf]

and because no one had used it before.

 

[rachmaninoff]

What do people think of the idea of using nukes in a situation where biologicals are being released or about to be released?

In the U.S.? E.g., should the U.S. nuke itself in order to contain a pandemic?

 

[SOS2008]

I've been hearing it suggested since I was old to know what was being said. Not just by radio hosts, but by regular everyday people.

I have too. I know Christians who dislike the Muslim faith, and believe Muslims want to eradicate all Infidels from the face of the Earth, then add to that the neocon beliefs, and add to that the "ugly Arab" image that the media has projected, and if the person is a supremest...

Naive or not, I'm not willing to believe that any American leader could away with nuking a sovereign nation without just cause until I see it happen. Cruise missiles are one thing - Clinton used those plenty of times. This just seems like a whole 'nother animal.

The majority of the world opposed the invasion of Iraq, but what could be done? The UN wouldn't touch it either. What would be done in the case of Nukes?

 

[Skyhunter]

Anyone who nuked any foriegn target would be at the center of a **** storm if they did.

Really it would be just too entirely stupid a stunt to pull off and I'm sure that anyone with half a brain between them in the White House or Pentagon wouldn't allow it to happen without a damn good reason. Ofcourse I have a bit more faith in the intelligence of some of these people than most of you so we'll probably have to agree to disagree.

I envy you your beliefs. Wish I still had that kind of faith.

What do people think of the idea of using nukes in a situation where biologicals are being released or about to be released?

It seems like it would be effective for containment. But I would rather not test it.

 

[Smurf]

I envy you your beliefs. Wish I still had that kind of faith.

Me too. I really wish I could agree with Ape on that one. You just don't know any more though, not since this war on terror crap people have been falling over themselves to do Bush's favors.

 

[Smurf]

Taking a marxist perspective. It's encouraging that so many countries, even those like Iran, are pursuing nuclear technology and weapons, as that represents one of the biggest inequalities between the richer and poorer countries. It's good to see that being challenged recently, and EU and US attempts to stifle that aren't going to lead to anything good.

 

[Art]

Taking a marxist perspective. It's encouraging that so many countries, even those like Iran, are pursuing nuclear technology and weapons, as that represents one of the biggest inequalities between the richer and poorer countries. It's good to see that being challenged recently, and EU and US attempts to stifle that aren't going to lead to anything good.

Personally I fail to see anything good in nuclear proliferation. I'd prefer if the rich countries gave up their nuclear weapons rather than balance the equation by having more members in the nuclear club.

 

[Smurf]

Personally I fail to see anything good in nuclear proliferation. I'd prefer if the rich countries gave up their nuclear weapons rather than balance the equation by having more members in the nuclear club.

I'm sure we'd all love to see that. unfortunately I doubt the capitalist run nations would be willing to give up that advantage.

 

[loseyourname]

Why would you think that any nation, capitalist or otherwise, would give up their nuclear weapons?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

In the U.S.? E.g., should the U.S. nuke itself in order to contain a pandemic?

That could be one scenario, yes. I would think it a good idea elsewhere too if troops were engaged in an operation where their targets released biologicals or were in the process of doing so. I wouldn't agree with doing so in a situation where the US (or anyone else with nukes) didn't have some sort of presence. If they find out somehow that biologicals are being released in another country by someone against someone other than the US, or whom ever has their finger on the button, then there should be some sort of UN agreement or a request from the effected region if they do not have the capability themselves.

 

[Skyhunter]

That could be one scenario, yes. I would think it a good idea elsewhere too if troops were engaged in an operation where their targets released biologicals or were in the process of doing so. I wouldn't agree with doing so in a situation where the US (or anyone else with nukes) didn't have some sort of presence. If they find out somehow that biologicals are being released in another country by someone against someone other than the US, or whom ever has their finger on the button, then there should be some sort of UN agreement or a request from the effected region if they do not have the capability themselves.

It would have to be demonstrated that the biologicals were going to be more devastating than the nuke.

What if they failed to contain it with one shot?

How many sites or even cities will be nuked because we created these weapons and the madmen who would use them?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It would have to be demonstrated that the biologicals were going to be more devastating than the nuke.

What if they failed to contain it with one shot?

How many sites or even cities will be nuked because we created these weapons and the madmen who would use them?

Well if they will only effect that region which would be nuked by that act then ofcourse it isn't a very good idea. I'm referring to biologicals that could spread over an entire country and perhaps then some. I'm not too sure about the common fictional plot that something of the sort could spread across the entire world. If such a weapon is released though and it is very likely all of the inhabitants of the region will die and the biologicals will naturally spread to out lying areas I think it would be the proper thing to attempt to neutralize the threat to the neighboring regions even if we aren't sure it will work. If one shot doesn't work it won't be apparent for a while. By that point the possible projected area that it could have effected would most likely be too large to take another pot shot at. Aswell by that time there should be teams responding putting up quarantines, bringing in available medical supplies, ect. incase there is further spreading and this should be able to contain what reminants there may be. If this doesn't work then people are just going to have to kiss their *** good bye but at least we tried to do something about it right?

 

[loseyourname]

I have to wonder what kind of policy was already in place for this kind of thing. Such a scenario has been covered in fiction since Andromeda Strain thirty years ago. Even in that they were prepared to use nukes.

 

[loseyourname]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050919/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear

Maybe this policy won't have the effect of spreading nuclear proliferation after all.

 

[Smurf]

Good for them.

 

[Lisa!]

And about Iran: Iranian president's UN speech

 

[Burnsys]

Yesterday we found that the US is taking all our enriched uranium from my country "To prevent it from ending in the hands of terrorist".
I gues NOW it is in the hand of terrorists (The USA)

 

[SOS2008]

And about Iran: Iranian president's UN speech

Excerpts from an interview with Newsweek:

Weymouth: What kind of relationship would you like Iran to have with the United States?
Ahmadinejad: We would like to have relationships that are equal and just with all countries in the world.

The Bush administration has actually called Iran [part of] the Axis of Evil ... and would like to see some changes.
We would like to see some changes occur in America.

What changes?
For example, [changes in] the approach and the kind of language that the American government uses in its relations with other countries.

Reportedly, unlike your predecessor , you are a conservative who opposes reforms. Is this correct?
Everyone is free to have an opinion. This does mean that an opinion always conforms with reality … Because I am young, I am somebody who is looking for reforms.

It was reported that you might have had some role in taking U.S. hostages in 1979. Did you?
Obviously, no. Even the people who were responsible for that act say I was not there. If you want to understand this event, the right question to ask is not who did it, but why did this occur? This was a natural reaction of the people against the actions of the United States. When a people are oppressed, they will show some kind of reaction.

How can Iran and the U.S. find a common ground on the issue of Iran's developing a nuclear enrichment cycle?
What is important is that both parties respect international law.

How do you dispel the impression that Iran is making a nuclear weapon?
Our religion prohibits us from having nuclear arms. Our religious leader has prohibited it from the point of view of religious law. It's a closed road. We even don't need it; we can guarantee our security in other ways … During the past two years, more then 1,200 inspections have taken place in our country. More than 1,030 documents have been given to the IAEA. All the IAEA cameras are fixed on our facilities, and the IAEA supervisors can control every action within our facilities. We have proven amply that we are conforming to regulations.

You are making a counter offer to the European-3 where Iran will pursue uranium enrichment but assure the international community that it will not divert it for weapons use. But if you have the nuclear know how, isn't this a danger to the West?
Why would the fact that we have know-how constitute a danger for you? Wouldn't it be more rational to worry about those who systematically violate international law?

The U.S. government believes Iran is stirring up violence in Iraq against U.S. and coalition forces. Can you comment on this?
The American government has all sorts of allegations but never shows any documents or proof. If there is insecurity in Iraq, the first ones to suffer from it are the neighboring countries like Iran.

Do you want U.S. troops to pull out of Iraq?
The pretext for the continuation of occupation is lack of security. We would like security to come back to the area as soon as possible. What is important is that the government of Iraq should be chosen by its people, and we hope to expand our economic and cultural relations with them because we are really the ones who suffer most from the insecurity on the other side of the border.

Do you want the U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq?
Yes, certainly. It's obvious that if you intervene in a country that is thousands of miles away, there will be problems.

Many fear if U.S. troops withdraw, there will be civil war.
It can be done either by replacing those troops with U.N. troops or international troops, or there can be a specific timeframe for the withdrawal. I think the American government and the American Army should take upon itself many more responsibilities for the security in Iraq.
Iran put under house arrest two very prominent Al Qaeda members. What is their status?
Al Qaeda is for sure an enemy of Iran. They killed 11 Iranian diplomats. We have always wished to uproot and destroy them.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has a chance to succeed in Gaza if Hamas doesn't undermine him. What is your point of view?
We give our support to the withdrawal of the troops from Gaza and to the creation of an independent Palestinian state. Once again, one should go to the root causes... As long as the occupation continues, young people are arrested, houses are destroyed, agricultural land is set on fire, and there is a racist approach, how can you expect a lasting peace to prevail?

The government of Israel recently had an official contact with Pakistan. Would you think of having a member of your government engage in contacts [with Israel]?
No, we do not accept the legitimacy of that regime. Therefore, we do not have any relationships with them. President Musharraf told me yesterday that the contacts that [Pakistan] had do not mean they recognize [Israel]. It was simply a political contact in order to accelerate the bringing about of peace.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9377326/site/newsweek/

 

[Lisa!]

Excerpts from an interview with Newsweek:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9377326/site/newsweek/

Thanks. That was interesting.