"No Longer Unthinkable: Should US Ready For ‘Limited’ Nuclear War?"

[pismoe]

I won't refight Vietnam but Vietnam was easily winnable if it had been fought !!

 

[Sonny Clark]

Disturbing content follows. If one of the 'ignorance is bliss' people don't continue reading.

No Longer Unthinkable Should US Ready For Limited Nuclear War Breaking Defense - Defense industry news analysis and commentary













"Outside the US, both established and emerging nuclear powers increasingly see nuclear weapons as weapons that can be used in a controlled, limited, and strategically useful fashion, said Barry Watts, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, arguably the Pentagon’s favorite thinktank. The Cold War “firebreaks” between conventional and nuclear conflict are breaking down, he wrote in a recent report. Russia has not only developed new, relatively low-yield tactical nukes but also routinely wargamed their use to stop both NATO and Chinese conventional forces should they overrun Moscow’s feeble post-Soviet military, Watts said this morning at the headquarters of the Air Force Association. Pakistan is likewise developing tactical nukes to stop India’s much larger military. Iran seeks nuclear weapons not only to offset Israel’s but to deter and, in the last resort, fend off an American attempt to perform “regime change” in Tehran the way we did in Baghdad. The US Air Force and Navy concept of “AirSea Battle” in the Western Pacific could entail strikes on the Chinese mainland that might provoke a nuclear response.

It’s precisely because US conventional power is so overwhelming that the temptation to turn to nuclear weapons to redress the balance is so irresistible. Ten years ago, the Iraqis sidestepped American dominance in the middle of the spectrum of conflict – regular warfare with tanks, planes, and precision-guided non-nuclear weapons – by going low and waging guerrilla warfare, for which the US proved painfully unprepared. In the future, nuclear proliferation means more and more countries will have the option to sidestep US conventional power by going high and staging a “limited” nuclear attack, for which we aren’t really prepared either. Indeed, some countries, notably a nuclear Iran with its terrorist proxies and North Korea with its criminal ties and special operations forces, could outflank America’s conventional military from both sides at once."

Things like this has been why the US seems to suck at war lately. Our entire military is set up for a massive military vs military conflict. Not guerillas and non-uniformed forces like terrorists. Throw in tactical-yield nuclear weapons and all the gaming out of conflicts we've been doing for decades proves worthless. And as the 2nd graph above illustrates, our unprecedented military spending instead of deterring other countries is encouraging them to obtain nuclear weapons since they can't compete conventionally.

We're 3 minutes to Midnight on the Doomsday Clock.

"Continued lack of global political action to address global climate change, the modernization of nuclear weapons in the United States and Russia, and the problem of nuclear waste."
Doomsday Clock - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Wow, this article is astoundingly uninformed. U.S. forces aren't prepared for asymmetrical war (i.e., guerilla/terrorist warfare)? Utter hogwash. Our entire military strategy for the past 14 years has been to fight asymmetrically. Moreover this nonsense that we aren't somehow capable of countering the nukes of other countries is also, well, nonsense. Tactical nukes? Old hat. We invented them. This article reads like a propagandists ploy to frighten people into asking Congress to give more funding to the Military/Industrial complex.

You understand we lost in Iraq and Afganistan right?

What did we lose in either country? Both governments are still standing.

We lost untold $Billions, over 6,000 soldiers, many wounded and disabled VETS, the respect and friendship of allies, $Billions in equipment left behind, Tax dollars that could've been used here at home, and no telling how much the wounded and disabled VETS will cost taxpayers until their deaths.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What did we lose in either country? Both governments are still standing.

We lost untold $Billions, over 6,000 soldiers, many wounded and disabled VETS, the respect and friendship of allies, $Billions in equipment left behind, Tax dollars that could've been used here at home, and no telling how much the wounded and disabled VETS will cost taxpayers until their deaths.

None of these things in any way means we lost either war.

 

[Sonny Clark]

I won't refight Vietnam but Vietnam was easily winnable if it had been fought !!

We don't fight wars any longer. Yes, we could win any war if we fought war as war. But, we have, and have had, chicken shit leaders in office for many decades now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You understand we lost in Iraq and Afganistan right?

And, we were badly defeated in Viet Nam.

When the US military stopped fighting in Vietnam, the war was won.
After the US military left Vietnam, the Communists broke the treaty we forced them to sign and defeated the south.

 

[Moonglow]

It has been a while since we had a duck and cover practice.......

The military teaches you to fall away from the blast and cover you face.........

 

[Moonglow]

I won't refight Vietnam but Vietnam was easily winnable if it had been fought !!

We don't fight wars any longer. Yes, we could win any war if we fought war as war. But, we have, and have had, chicken shit leaders in office for many decades now.

Limited attrition warfare is very profitable.............

 

[RandallFlagg]

What did we lose in either country? Both governments are still standing.

We lost untold $Billions, over 6,000 soldiers, many wounded and disabled VETS, the respect and friendship of allies, $Billions in equipment left behind, Tax dollars that could've been used here at home, and no telling how much the wounded and disabled VETS will cost taxpayers until their deaths.

None of these things in any way means we lost either war.

You understand we lost in Iraq and Afganistan right?

And, we were badly defeated in Viet Nam.

When the US military stopped fighting in Vietnam, the war was won.
After the US military left Vietnam, the Communists broke the treaty we forced them to sign and defeated the south.

Jesus dude....I don't know what Vietnam you were in, but when I left Vietnam in '66, nearly everyone involved knew that we weren't winning that war. Too damned many politicians.....

Then, in 75, when folks were running as fast as they could for the final chopper off the roof of the embassy - not one of those folks thought we had "won".

 

[RandallFlagg]

It has been a while since we had a duck and cover practice.......

The military teaches you to fall away from the blast and cover you face.........

when I was in it was "ass to the blast". Like that was going to do any good....screw it, I want to watch the fireball as I get vaporized.

 

[Moonglow]

It has been a while since we had a duck and cover practice.......

The military teaches you to fall away from the blast and cover you face.........

when I was in it was "ass to the blast". Like that was going to do any good....screw it, I want to watch the fireball as I get vaporized.

Why not, the after affects are no fun........

 

[pismoe]

bad about the vets but spend the TAXPAYER money , keep it out of the hands of Sonny Clark and ilk .

 

[M14 Shooter]

When the US military stopped fighting in Vietnam, the war was won.
After the US military left Vietnam, the Communists broke the treaty we forced them to sign and defeated the south.

Jesus dude....I don't know what Vietnam you were in, but when I left Vietnam in '66, nearly everyone involved knew that we weren't winning that war. Too damned many politicians.....

Your 'small picture' in no way changes the validity of what I said.

Then, in 75, when folks were running as fast as they could for the final chopper off the roof of the embassy - not one of those folks thought we had "won".

After the US military left Vietnam (1973), the Communists broke the treaty we forced them to sign and defeated the south (1975).
See the point here?

 

[Edgetho]

Jesus dude....I don't know what Vietnam you were in, but when I left Vietnam in '66, nearly everyone involved knew that we weren't winning that war. Too damned many politicians.....

Then, in 75, when folks were running as fast as they could for the final chopper off the roof of the embassy - not one of those folks thought we had "won".

I was there in '66

I was there in '65 as well. And '67 and '68.

And we were winning the whole time. We won until the NVA, VC, the US and the Republic of Vietnam (S Vietnam) all signed the Paris Peace Accords.

In fact, Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho were awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace,

Le Duc Tho (communist scumbag extraordinaire) refused his.

Why? Because communists are just like dimocrap scum -- Neither have any concept of the truth or of keeping their word.

When their allies in the US (dimocrap FILTH) finally got Nixon out of Office, the North re-invaded the South with 900 Tanks and 17 Divisions.....

Almost the same size force the Germans used in the Battle of the Bulge.

Americans weren't there when the dimocrap scum-backed communists re-invaded. We had all been evacuated back in 1973.

The South Vietnamese fought gallantly but they had no chance. In one instance, outside of Saigon in the final battle, Five Thousand Vietnamese Rangers fought to the last man and destroyed Three communist divisions (approximately 30,000 men).

Oh....? The reason the South Vietnamese didn't have a chance?

Because scum-sucking filth in the dimocrap scum party got things like the Case Church Amendment through and cut off ALL aid to the South Vietnamese.

While President of The United States, Richard Milhouse Nixon, was in Office, the dimocrap scum back communists were afraid to re-invade but once he was gone..... It happened.

dimocrap scum have a history of stabbing America's Allies in the back.

Just like now. Just like always.

dimocraps are the scum of the earth.

And it's probably pretty hard to see what's happening in a War from the Enlisted Men's Club

 

[Moonglow]

Vietnam was a failed war of attrition,,,,old axioms of conquer and control were tossed out for a war for profit...The US and the S. Vietnamese should have marched to Hanoi and destroyed their military and occupied their land....

 

[M14 Shooter]

The US and the S. Vietnamese should have marched to Hanoi and destroying their military and occupied their land....

Very true
All of the problems and difficulties we had in Vietnem can be directly attributed to the failure of the civilian government to commit.

 

[Edgetho]

The US and the S. Vietnamese should have marched to Hanoi and destroying their military and occupied their land....

Very true
All of the problems and difficulties we had in Vietnem can be directly attributed to the failure of the civilian government to commit.

The Russians were in a bad mood after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, they had been embarrassed.

(Yes, Vietnam was a Russian satellite not a Chinese)

First, JFK was simply following the Truman Doctrine Truman Doctrine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And LBJ misused our Military in order to impose his "Great Society" bullshit on America.

Had we not escalated, I don't believe the Russians would have.

At least that's the impression I got from being there from 1966 to 1969 (with a break in between.

When I went back after the failed Tet Offensive, everything changed.

I believe that if we had invaded North Vietnam, Russia would have gone all in and confronted us directly.

Vietnam was a Foreign Policy disaster. JFK and LBJ got us ass-deep into that morass, Nixon not only got us out, but WON the War.

Then, scum of the fucking earth dimocraps stabbed the People of Southeast Asia and our American Veterans (me among them) in the back, resulting in MILLIONS of unnecessarily murdered people.

dimocraps are truly the scum of the earth. There is no form of life in the entire existence of this planet lower than dimocrap filth. Never has been, never will be

 

[M14 Shooter]

In any event....
Yes, the US must be ready for a limited nuclear exchange, as the probability of a limited nuclear attack on the US and her allies grows every day. Deterrence only work when there exists a credible threat of overwhelming retaliation.

 

[Siete]

the country isn't large enough and the Jews aren't concentrated enough for anyone to unleash a nuke in Israel, too much nuclear fallout for surrounding countries.
Iran could have already obtained a black market nuclear warhead from Pakistan if they really wanted one, and erased the jews. It wont happen.

the scared shitless RW's want to make everyone think it will, but it won't. They need to justify the 4 billion dollars they dole out to Israel somehow so they yammer NUKE with every other breath. Like everything else they do they cry wolf loud and often.

 

[Moonglow]

Pax America is what the US went through after WWII and up to the end of Vietnam...

 

[orogenicman]

Disturbing content follows. If one of the 'ignorance is bliss' people don't continue reading.

No Longer Unthinkable Should US Ready For Limited Nuclear War Breaking Defense - Defense industry news analysis and commentary













"Outside the US, both established and emerging nuclear powers increasingly see nuclear weapons as weapons that can be used in a controlled, limited, and strategically useful fashion, said Barry Watts, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, arguably the Pentagon’s favorite thinktank. The Cold War “firebreaks” between conventional and nuclear conflict are breaking down, he wrote in a recent report. Russia has not only developed new, relatively low-yield tactical nukes but also routinely wargamed their use to stop both NATO and Chinese conventional forces should they overrun Moscow’s feeble post-Soviet military, Watts said this morning at the headquarters of the Air Force Association. Pakistan is likewise developing tactical nukes to stop India’s much larger military. Iran seeks nuclear weapons not only to offset Israel’s but to deter and, in the last resort, fend off an American attempt to perform “regime change” in Tehran the way we did in Baghdad. The US Air Force and Navy concept of “AirSea Battle” in the Western Pacific could entail strikes on the Chinese mainland that might provoke a nuclear response.

It’s precisely because US conventional power is so overwhelming that the temptation to turn to nuclear weapons to redress the balance is so irresistible. Ten years ago, the Iraqis sidestepped American dominance in the middle of the spectrum of conflict – regular warfare with tanks, planes, and precision-guided non-nuclear weapons – by going low and waging guerrilla warfare, for which the US proved painfully unprepared. In the future, nuclear proliferation means more and more countries will have the option to sidestep US conventional power by going high and staging a “limited” nuclear attack, for which we aren’t really prepared either. Indeed, some countries, notably a nuclear Iran with its terrorist proxies and North Korea with its criminal ties and special operations forces, could outflank America’s conventional military from both sides at once."

Things like this has been why the US seems to suck at war lately. Our entire military is set up for a massive military vs military conflict. Not guerillas and non-uniformed forces like terrorists. Throw in tactical-yield nuclear weapons and all the gaming out of conflicts we've been doing for decades proves worthless. And as the 2nd graph above illustrates, our unprecedented military spending instead of deterring other countries is encouraging them to obtain nuclear weapons since they can't compete conventionally.

We're 3 minutes to Midnight on the Doomsday Clock.

"Continued lack of global political action to address global climate change, the modernization of nuclear weapons in the United States and Russia, and the problem of nuclear waste."
Doomsday Clock - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Wow, this article is astoundingly uninformed. U.S. forces aren't prepared for asymmetrical war (i.e., guerilla/terrorist warfare)? Utter hogwash. Our entire military strategy for the past 14 years has been to fight asymmetrically. Moreover this nonsense that we aren't somehow capable of countering the nukes of other countries is also, well, nonsense. Tactical nukes? Old hat. We invented them. This article reads like a propagandists ploy to frighten people into asking Congress to give more funding to the Military/Industrial complex.

You understand we lost in Iraq and Afganistan right?

What did we lose in either country? Both governments are still standing.

We lost untold $Billions, over 6,000 soldiers, many wounded and disabled VETS, the respect and friendship of allies, $Billions in equipment left behind, Tax dollars that could've been used here at home, and no telling how much the wounded and disabled VETS will cost taxpayers until their deaths.

So, we spent a proportionate amount in those countries that we did in every other major war we have fought with the exception that we incurred far fewer casualties. And replaced the governments in Iraq and Afganistan, governments which still exist today. So tell me again, how did we lose those wars? Whether we should have fought the war in Iraq is a different issue altogether.