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

[SwimExpert]

Limited nuclear war????? ........................... How can that be possible? Exactly how can any nuclear war be "LIMITED" unless everyone runs out of nuclear weapons?

Apparently you didn't read. "Limited" refers to a deviation from outdated cold war style thinking of complete annihilation of the planet's surface. The old method of nuclear warfare was complete, unfettered, indiscriminate destruction. That's why we dropped the bomb on Japan. That's why we would have continued to drop bombs on Japan if they had not surrendered. Short of Japanese surrender, we were prepared, and intended, to effect the complete and total annihilation of Japan.

During the cold war, the arms race between the US and the Soviet Union took place with the intention that if nuclear warfare were to break out, the opponent would be destroyed completely and immediately. Immediate destruction, preempting any ability to respond, became the only acceptable means to wage nuclear warfare. The Soviets did not want the US to ever get the chance to launch off a single retaliatory missile, and vice versa. Hence the stalemate of mutually assured destruction ensued.

Conventional nuclear weaponry has proliferated itself into irrelevance and virtual obsoletion.

Modern technological advances have allowed for the development of "tactical" nuclear weapons, which have lower yields and thus lack the indiscriminate destructive effects seen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and can be effectively delivered through precision methods to target military personnel and equipment with greater destructive power than conventional munitions.

 

[SwimExpert]

North Korea launches 5 nuclear tipped ICBM at the US.

They all fall in the water.

 

[pismoe]

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.

iran is not of sound mind Siete , crazy religious mullahs and leaders would have no compunction just because of a little nuclear fallout that the Iranian bigshots are Prepared to sit out in comfort !!

 

[orogenicman]

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.

iran is not of sound mind Siete , crazy religious mullahs and leaders would have no compunction just because of a little nuclear fallout that the Iranian bigshots are Prepared to sit out in comfort !!

That is an assumption without one shred of evidence to back it up. But then, you knew it when you posted it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

North Korea launches 5 nuclear tipped ICBM at the US.

They all fall in the water.

Ha! Yeah...
They launch five, we shoot down four, one gets through, liberals proclaim the NMD a failure.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Modern technological advances have allowed for the development of "tactical" nuclear weapons, which have lower yields and thus lack the indiscriminate destructive effects seen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and can be effectively delivered through precision methods to target military personnel and equipment with greater destructive power than conventional munitions.

Little Boy: ~15kt yield
Fat Man ~20kt yield
Both of these fall into the range of yields for "tactical" nuclear weapons.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Limited nuclear war????? ........................... How can that be possible? Exactly how can any nuclear war be "LIMITED" unless everyone runs out of nuclear weapons?

Apparently you didn't read. "Limited" refers to a deviation from outdated cold war style thinking of complete annihilation of the planet's surface. The old method of nuclear warfare was complete, unfettered, indiscriminate destruction. That's why we dropped the bomb on Japan. That's why we would have continued to drop bombs on Japan if they had not surrendered. Short of Japanese surrender, we were prepared, and intended, to effect the complete and total annihilation of Japan.

During the cold war, the arms race between the US and the Soviet Union took place with the intention that if nuclear warfare were to break out, the opponent would be destroyed completely and immediately. Immediate destruction, preempting any ability to respond, became the only acceptable means to wage nuclear warfare. The Soviets did not want the US to ever get the chance to launch off a single retaliatory missile, and vice versa. Hence the stalemate of mutually assured destruction ensued.

Conventional nuclear weaponry has proliferated itself into irrelevance and virtual obsoletion.

Modern technological advances have allowed for the development of "tactical" nuclear weapons, which have lower yields and thus lack the indiscriminate destructive effects seen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and can be effectively delivered through precision methods to target military personnel and equipment with greater destructive power than conventional munitions.

You forgot to mention radio active fallout. The destruction of plants and animals, contaminated soil, the wide currents, radio active rain, sickness and death for years afterwards, and other after effects. What about those things? Possible?

 

[RandallFlagg]

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

Wow, I thought a little better of you than that. Fine. Tell me EXACTLY what the hell we were fighting for there? It took me years to come to terms with the answer to that question. We weren't fighting to keep the NVA Regulars from the streets of New York. We weren't fighting to keep Charlie from our doorsteps. Nope. We lost brothers and we left our blood in those rice paddies for Colt, Barringer, McCullogh and countless other multi-national corporations, so that their profit margins would remain healthy.

We made Congressmen and Women, Senators and CEOs rich beyond their wildest dreams. And, when they had made enough, we walked away. Cue Iraq and Afghanistan.

THATS why we were there. Oh, and until I got my ass wounded and sent to Germany, I was a 11B SSG. So, when I wasn't running S&Ds into the Bush, I spent my time in whorehouses and the NCO club.

Then I re-upped and went to WO school, got a brand new Security Clearance (TS-SC3) and REALLY found out about the world.

When I retired in the late 80s, I had plenty of time for reflection. It took another 10 years to figure out that the American people believe (for the most part) what our "leaders" tell us. They get rich - and we just get fucked.

Welcome to reality Brother.

 

[Jarlaxle]

If anyone nuked Israel, Israel'd retaliate in-kind. What the US does is moot.

So I take it that you would be in favor of a "limited" nuclear war between Israel and Iran? Sounds like you.

Personally, I would be in favor of reducing every square inch of Iran to radioactive glass if necessary. No survivors, nothing left but melted slag and free-floating atoms.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

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


Honestly, I agree with total anihalation because a country like Iran may be ok with a few cities going up in flames but not the entire country.










"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