Hiroshima-- are we projecting backwards?

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 08:23:12 -0500, Stephen Harding
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

My initial proposal (apologies to Swift if I dare to characterize it
as a "modest" one,) was not for tactical use, but rather for one
demonstrable, political, effective and arguably strategic action. It
would be the sort of thing seen in the "micro" level in which daddy
administers a good spanking to prevent future indiscretions by the
rowdy child.

Well I don't remember experiencing "one spanking" by my daddy and
forever after eschewing the path of wickedness and irresponsibility.
I remember being spanked on many occassions. Color me a slow learner!

This seems to me to be the worst possible use of nuclear weaponry, but
perhaps because I can not see an example of the type of use you were
proposing (sorry, I don't remember the details of your scenario).

I suggested that after 9/11/01 and the identification of Afghanistan
as the breeding ground, that with cooperation of the other nuclear
powers (fUSSR, China, India, France, UK, et. al.) that application of
one significant special weapon (B-61 maybe?) to the region of eastern
Afghanistan would have taken care of the problem and sent a clear and
unmistakable message to future terrorists of the high cost of doing
that business.

Nuking a "trouble spot" in Iraq like Samarra? Making eastern Afghanistan
unlivable and thus no longer a viable hiding spot for Bin Laden? What
of the characteristics of nuclear weapon use that don't exist in
traditional weaponry; specifically residual radiation effects? Is this
quality a part of the weapon's "effective" use?

The essential characteristic is high yield for low throw weight. See
the MOAB for comparison. One B-61, in the 1000 pound class with a
yield in the range of 150 kt, could have solved the problem of which
cave UBL was hiding in and eliminated the need to root him out
manually.

Did Vietnam offer a possibility of your possibly strategic, one time
demonstration of nuclear weapon use?

No, not at all.

What would you have done if you could have strapped a nuclear bomb on
your Thud and dropped it where you wished in NVN in '65-72? What
would it have accomplished? What of Soviet/Chinese side effects? Even
after a successful use, what of other nations later (e.g. Soviets in
Afghanistan)? Would we live in a safer world?

Quite clearly the international situation in the period of the Vietnam
War was different. The world was grappling with the question of how to
keep the nuclear genie in the bottle. The two super-power axes were
suspicious of each other and poised to unleash nuclear arsenals. The
tension obviously drove the restrictive ROE that we dealt with and led
to the gradualism that killed so many of us.

There was no target that I can think of that wouldn't have been
decidedly "counter-value"--i.e. unacceptable in terms of its
collateral damage and civilian casualties.

And, while multilateralism is a wonderful goal, when it interferes
with national self-interest, it becomes secondary. A benevolent
hegemon seems to this jaded observer preferable to a non-sovereign,
politically correct subordinate bending to the popular vote of
Cameroon, Gabon, Madagascar, Somalia, et. al.

I lived in Cameroon a couple years. We definitely don't want Cameroon
making national interest decisions for the US!

My point precisely. While international organizations have provided a
forum for problem solving in a number of valuable areas, they can't
make reasonable defense decisions for the US based on the huge
disparity of size and diversity of national interests.

Perhaps the world has a weapon that by its definition, is a deterrent.
It is a deterrent because of those very beliefs and emotions that make
it "too terrible to use". Weaken those [perhaps erroneous] beliefs,
and the deterrence value weakens.

Deterrence, as I teach in my "Intro to Political Science" course
requires three components:
1.) rational leaders
2.) willingness to respond
3.) credible, i.e. survivable second strike capability.

If you start with "too terrible to use" you no longer have credible
deterrence.

I still wonder if every nation from the US to the Seychelle's had a nuke,
would the world be a safer place? The very fact that two intensely
hostile towards one another, armed to the teeth, military powers faced
each other in intense competition over a period of 50 years, yet never
went to war [directly] against one another is quite remarkable
history. Why did war not happen? Probably lots of reasons, but I
think having "too terrible" weapons at their disposal was a strong
part of it.

See the three components. Proliferation to many nations deteriorates
requirement 1 and 3, increasing the likelihood of irrationality (can
you say fundamentalists?) and without second strike survivability,
increasing the motivation to attempt pre-emption. Not good.




Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8