Nuclear warfare just stepped closer

[Alan]

I know this is about military nukes but if you cannot handle peace nukes, can you be trusted with military ones. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island scare me. One might also see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents

True.

But nukes aren't going away. The countries that have them are certainly not going to give them up completely.

IMO the next best option is to have as few as possible. To do that means reducing the arsenals of the countries that have them already and stoping those that don't from getting them. Using force if necessary.

You either keep the number of nations down to ones who already have nukes or it's a free for all. Iran, Saudi Arabia..... joining the nuke club is asking for a disaster. It's bad enough at the moment with Pakistan, China and N.K having them

One has to factor in the human element - human are fallible

Yeah and the more dealing with them the worse for everybody

 

[3G4me]

They found none, does not mean they did not exist. Where is all the other scuds and the chemicals they used on the Kurds?

Take a wild guess.

They were destroyed in Desert Storm?

Saw an interview (albeit on CNN) with a chap who just wrote a book, he was one of Saddam Hussein's interrogators. He claims Saddam admitted to deliberately bluffing with the WMD story, knowing USA would invade, to ensure that Iran didn't get the oil - seems he was happier having the west get it than his "tribal opponents".

Horrid little man! All those people died for him to play a big game.

 

[Nanfeishen]

It's bad enough at the moment with Pakistan, China and N.K having them

Actually with China having them, it is a big deterant to North Korea getting feisty, as China doesnt exactly like their neighbour.
China has had the freedom of expansion and growth, away from western influence, due to those nukes, so for China, good thing.
China doesnt worry me as much as certain western countries WRT nukes.

Some further info:

The US-NATO Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine: Trigger a Middle East Nuclear Holocaust to Defend "The Western Way of Life"

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, February 11, 2008

"They [the group] believe that the West must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the imminent spread of nuclear weapons."

"B61-11 bunker buster bombs with nuclear warheads Made in America, with an explosive capacity between one third to six times a Hiroshima bomb, are presented as bona fide humanitarian bombs, which minimize the dangers of "collateral damage.

As far as sensitizing public opinion to the dangers of a US sponsored nuclear war, there is, with a few exceptions, a scientific and intellectual vacuum: No research, no analysis, no comprehension of the meaning of a nuclear holocaust which in a real sense threatens the future of humanity. This detachment and lack of concern of prominent intellectuals characterizes an evolving trend in many universities and research institutes in the strategic studies, the sciences and social sciences.

Academics increasingly tow the line. They remain mum on the issue of a US sponsored nuclear war. There is a tacit acceptance of a diabolical and criminal military agenda, which in a very sense threatens life on this planet. The US-NATO doctrine to use nukes on a preemptive basis with a view to "saving the Western World's way of life" is not challenged in any meaningful way either by academics or media experts in strategic studies.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8048

Pdf of :
Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World: Renewing Transatlantic Partnership"
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/events/080110_grand_strategy.pdf

This blows me away (scuse the pun)
nuclear warheads Made in America, with an explosive capacity between one third to six times a Hiroshima bomb, are presented as bona fide humanitarian bombs

Yep we now have humanitarian nuclear weapons folks

 

[Alan]

They were destroyed in Desert Storm?

Saw an interview (albeit on CNN) with a chap who just wrote a book, he was one of Saddam Hussein's interrogators. He claims Saddam admitted to deliberately bluffing with the WMD story, knowing USA would invade, to ensure that Iran didn't get the oil - seems he was happier having the west get it than his "tribal opponents".

Horrid little man! All those people died for him to play a big game.

Interrogator: Saddam surprised by U.S. attack

Saddam Hussein allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction to deter rival Iran and did not think the United States would stage a major invasion, according to an FBI interrogator who questioned the Iraqi leader after his capture.

Saddam expected only a limited aerial attack by the United States and thought he could remain in control, the FBI special agent, George Piro, told CBS’s “60 Minutes” program in an interview to be broadcast Sunday.

 

[Piepalook]

Ever heard of Desert Storm?

They are not winning that one.
Nor did the Russians win in Afganistan.
You cannot win a guerilla war.

 

[PeterCH]

"Germany, France and the Netherlands "

Er.... ahem, since when were these countries dominant or even involved actively in any conflicts. I know the French have their French Foreign Legion and all but still....
and Germany? Shouldn't they be just cooling off from their Fuehrer days?
Netherlands? OK I realise it's just for show but come on....

 

[Alan]

You cannot win a guerilla war.

Malaya?

 

[Piepalook]

Syria

In any case the blame lies with Saddam for blocking inspections. He gambled he lost and now he's dead. Glowing Ahemi is playing same game but with nukes.

According to Revelations in the Bible Syria will attack Israel first in the last battle before Armageddon starts.

 

[PeterCH]

They are not winning that one.
Nor did the Russians win in Afganistan.
You cannot win a guerilla war.

You can.
Had the Russians adapted Stalin's tactics they would have.

Either shoot or move everyone a few thousand kilometers away.
Resettle the whole population.

Or Nazi German tactics.

Kill 10 or heck 50 civilians for each dead Russian soldier. Burn the village
down.

You see you can win in Guerilla wars but you have to be really really cruel
or systematic. When you're throwing in your conscript boys into a fight they want no part of and fight a superpower like the USA (CIA was supporting the Mujaheedeen) you won't win - although Russian fatalities in Afganistan were smaller than American in Vietnam and I think a million Afghanis died in that conflict.

 

[Alan]

You can.
Had the Russians adapted Stalin's tactics they would have.

Either shoot or move everyone a few thousand kilometers away.
Resettle the whole population.

Or Nazi German tactics.

Kill 10 or heck 50 civilians for each dead Russian soldier. Burn the village
down.

You see you can win in Guerilla wars but you have to be really really cruel
or systematic. When you're throwing in your conscript boys into a fight they want no part of and fight a superpower like the USA (CIA was supporting the Mujaheedeen) you won't win - although Russian fatalities in Afganistan were smaller than American in Vietnam and I think a million Afghanis died in that conflict.

Yeah when one combatant 'uses' the civilian population it will get nasty. Just look at the Boer war. Where a 'guerilla war' was won by the way.

 

[Piepalook]

You can.
Had the Russians adapted Stalin's tactics they would have.

Either shoot or move everyone a few thousand kilometers away.
Resettle the whole population.

Or Nazi German tactics.

Kill 10 or heck 50 civilians for each dead Russian soldier. Burn the village
down.

You see you can win in Guerilla wars but you have to be really really cruel
or systematic. When you're throwing in your conscript boys into a fight they want no part of and fight a superpower like the USA (CIA was supporting the Mujaheedeen) you won't win - although Russian fatalities in Afganistan were smaller than American in Vietnam and I think a million Afghanis died in that conflict.

Military might might let you win,as you say if you are really cruel.
But the cost to the occuping force is immense.
The U.S. currently experience it.
That is not a cheap war.
Easiest method of figting a war, is biological.
No damage to infrastructure.
Lots of dead people.
You immunise your people of course.

 

[PeterCH]

Military might might let you win,as you say if you are really cruel.
But the cost to the occuping force is immense.
The U.S. currently experience it.
That is not a cheap war.
Easiest method of figting a war, is biological.
No damage to infrastructure.
Lots of dead people.
You immunise your people of course.

In the case of Aghanistan it was most feasible. The USSR was the biggest country in the world, they could just resettle the 20 or less odd million Afghanis to Siberia or scatter them around leaving only a few loyalists
to the Communist government. It could have been done, heck the SU
did such things - with the Ukrainians and other minorities. Mind you a third of the Afganis would have
died during such a movement from disease, lack of food, exposure etc.

The US could also adopt Nazi tactics in Iraq. Granted it would wear the soldiers down, you don't want murders coming home to shoot up supermarkets but that could have been done too. In the case of Iran they
are openly saying - "We won't talk twice, we'll just nuke you."
Its a deterrent in the strongest sense of the word. A ground war
with US infantry is out of the question, they will shoot first (or throw
bombs) and ask questions later, in case someone in Iran thinks they can
bog the Yanks down in desert AK47 skirmishes.

 

[antowan]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/nuclear-warfare-just-stepped-closer/2008/02/10/1202578598972.html

Nuclear war might soon become possible, since when is it plausable let alone possible WTF
Are these f@ckers running on all cylinders?
First Strike
They talk about nuclear war as if it will be a simple thing, like a quick strike, or raid, the fact that they even consider this sort of scenario, involving nuclear weapons is just insane.

America (arguably the most powerful military force on the planet) keeps "losing" small battles. This is only possible in a scenario where it is restraining force. I can well imagine the USA running out of patience with decisive nuclear action against rogue states. It won't happen anytime soon, but it will most likely happen in the not too distant future.

If the USA used nuclear weapons against Saddam the fight would have been over in 1 day with zero casualties on the American and coalition side.

It is a very efficient form of attack.

I laugh at people who think that the performance of America in Afghanistan and Iraq reflects it's true muscle. Not by a loooong shot.

 

[Robin Hood]

Don't be supprised if a Guerilla war breaks out in SA

 

[PeterCH]

Don't be supprised if a Guerilla war breaks out in SA

Our crime death and injury statitics are HIGHER than most ACTIVE guerilla wars out there in the world.

 

[Piepalook]

In the case of Aghanistan it was most feasible. The USSR was the biggest country in the world, they could just resettle the 20 or less odd million Afghanis to Siberia or scatter them around leaving only a few loyalists
to the Communist government. It could have been done, heck the SU
did such things - with the Ukrainians and other minorities. Mind you a third of the Afganis would have
died during such a movement from disease, lack of food, exposure etc.

The US could also adopt Nazi tactics in Iraq. Granted it would wear the soldiers down, you don't want murders coming home to shoot up supermarkets but that could have been done too. In the case of Iran they
are openly saying - "We won't talk twice, we'll just nuke you."
Its a deterrent in the strongest sense of the word. A ground war
with US infantry is out of the question, they will shoot first (or throw
bombs) and ask questions later, in case someone in Iran thinks they can
bog the Yanks down in desert AK47 skirmishes.

The Yanks will never nuke Iraq or Iran or Saudi Arabia.
The reason:
They will end up killing Americans in America with radioactive oil.
The oil is to be protected at all costs.
It will either be conventional warfare or biological.

 

[Robin Hood]

Our crime death and injury statitics are HIGHER than most ACTIVE guerilla wars out there in the world.

True...If you think about it it's like a war all by itself, just a pity its the wrong ppl getting killed

 

[PeterCH]

The Yanks will never nuke Iraq or Iran or Saudi Arabia.
The reason:
They will end up killing Americans in America with radioactive oil.
The oil is to be protected at all costs.
It will either be conventional warfare or biological.

They're not threatening IRAQ or KSA but if these guys get the message
too, its a bonus and I'm sure that the West is counting on a bit of that too.
Although in the case of Pakistan I'm SURE that BUSH told Musharraf what he
can expect if anything nasty happens to any of those nukes in very clear
terms.

They probably speak of limited TACTICAL nuclear strikes vs
STRATEGIC bombing of population centres and civilian support
structures or OIL FIELDS. You don't need to make big mushroom clouds to
be effective, the idea that you mention NUKES is enough to
freak out the other guy into subversion.

ALTHOUGH: the effect would be more STRATEGIC - freak everyone out
and win or prevent war that way, destroy the enemies will to fight.

As for radiation, Hiroshima is now a very habitable place.

Conventional war is just more of this same Iraq war cr@p. They don't want that, that's why they're saying they are considering using NUKES as a FIRST LINE measure. As I said, its more lip service and propaganda than anything,
its meant to make the Iranians and anyone else involved, think twice and
worry more maybe help distabilise the regime there. Who knows....?

 

[Piepalook]

Don't be supprised if a Guerilla war breaks out in SA

Somehow i doubt weather that would happen.
Chances of a civil war between the Zulu's and Xhosa's are greater,although slim.(different factions of the ANC fighting for control)

We are fortunate to live in interesting times.

 

[Alan]

The U.S. currently experience it.
That is not a cheap war..

Actually when you consider a small force of around 160 000 occupied the entire state of Iraq for 5 years the cost has not been that high in men compared to many wars.

America (arguably the most powerful military force on the planet) keeps "losing" small battles. This is only possible in a scenario where it is restraining force. I can well imagine the USA running out of patience with decisive nuclear action against rogue states. It won't happen anytime soon, but it will most likely happen in the not too distant future.

If the USA used nuclear weapons against Saddam the fight would have been over in 1 day with zero casualties on the American and coalition side.

It is a very efficient form of attack.

I laugh at people who think that the performance of America in Afghanistan and Iraq reflects it's true muscle. Not by a loooong shot.

Yeah the U.S has shown huge restraint in Iraq and Afghanistan on a strategic level. In fact instead of upping the pressure they are turning it down particulaly at a tactical level with the new counter insurgency doctrine implemented and brilliantly executed by Gen Petraeus.

Tacticly the doctine has been overwhelming firepower and 'security in force' which without a similar strategic doctrine counters each other. So now with the surge they use soft power tacticly. Instead of max they use minimum force against insurgents. Instead of security in force they are intergrating small groups of soldiers with the popultaion. All that means is the average U.S soldier life is in more danger and exposed to more risk but lessons the chance of civilian casualties. That's why the surge saw a spike in U.S deaths.

So the U.S is getting softer at a tactical level exposing the troops even more danger instead of less danger that turning up the heat would have resulted in.

The Yanks will never nuke Iraq or Iran or Saudi Arabia.
The reason:
They will end up killing Americans in America with radioactive oil.
The oil is to be protected at all costs.
It will either be conventional warfare or biological.

Bwahahahahahahaha