Are we beginning to see the secondaries? Libya to abandom WMD

If "[t]he current administration seems to have little qualms about using
them [nukes] to bully other parties into compliance...," why are US soldiers
dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan while no nukes have been used?

If you are correct in your judgment on the "current administration," surely
it would have just nuked Iraq in the first place and not lost so many of its
soldier's lives.

Show us, with logic, that you aren't just full of ****.


"Rob van Riel" wrote in message
om...
(Bill Negraeff) wrote in message
om...
I think the US will wait until everybody else disarms and destroys
their WMDs. Remember, unlike all those other countries, the US has
these things for purely defensive purposes.

That's pretty much the heart of the matter, isn't it? Do we, or do we
not, believe that the US would only use its nukes in self defence,
that is, either as a deterrant or retalliation to a similar attack?
The current administration seems to have little qualms about using
them to bully other parties into compliance or, given the research
into nuclear 'bunker busters', to actually use them as whim or
convenience dictate.

Rob

"Blair Maynard" wrote in
:

If "[t]he current administration seems to have little qualms about
using them [nukes] to bully other parties into compliance...," why are
US soldiers dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan while no nukes have been
used?

If you are correct in your judgment on the "current administration,"
surely it would have just nuked Iraq in the first place and not lost
so many of its soldier's lives.

Show us, with logic, that you aren't just full of ****.


"Rob van Riel" wrote in message
om...
(Bill Negraeff) wrote in message
om...
I think the US will wait until everybody else disarms and destroys
their WMDs. Remember, unlike all those other countries, the US has
these things for purely defensive purposes.

That's pretty much the heart of the matter, isn't it? Do we, or do we
not, believe that the US would only use its nukes in self defence,
that is, either as a deterrant or retalliation to a similar attack?
The current administration seems to have little qualms about using
them to bully other parties into compliance or, given the research
into nuclear 'bunker busters', to actually use them as whim or
convenience dictate.

Rob




Seems to me that since so many countries have proceeded with their WMD
programs DESPITE the long US possession of nuclear weapons and our triad of
effective worldwide delivery systems,that US nuclear inventory was NOT used
to "bully" anyone into compliance with the Non-Proliferation treaty.
(we certainly have not nuked anyone since Japan in WW2)

Only since our recent willingness to use CONVENTIONAL military force have
some nations begun complying with the treaty they signed.

The reality is the exact opposite of what Mr.Van Riel has claimed.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote in message ...
"Blair Maynard" wrote in
:

If "[t]he current administration seems to have little qualms about
using them [nukes] to bully other parties into compliance...," why are
US soldiers dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan while no nukes have been
used?

If you are correct in your judgment on the "current administration,"
surely it would have just nuked Iraq in the first place and not lost
so many of its soldier's lives.

Show us, with logic, that you aren't just full of ****.

Intimidation does not require mushroom clouds all over the place.
Even though I hold the current US administration in very low regard,
even they are not stupid enough to nuke a country out of existence
without extreme provocation. Doing so would turn the US into a global
outcast, which would be very bad for business.


Seems to me that since so many countries have proceeded with their WMD
programs DESPITE the long US possession of nuclear weapons and our triad of
effective worldwide delivery systems,that US nuclear inventory was NOT used
to "bully" anyone into compliance with the Non-Proliferation treaty.
(we certainly have not nuked anyone since Japan in WW2)

And for just how many of those long years has the current
administration been in power? Even compared to the very limited period
of time we're talking about here, not very long. 3 years out of 60, if
memory serves. Also note that for most of those 60 years, there was a
factor counterbalancing US power and pressure. Also note that threat
of power does not require use of power, so the absense of nukes used
in anger is meaningless. As for noone having been nuked since WWII,
that too is not strictly correct, as testing of these systems has left
large areas uninhabitable, and killed considerable numbers of people,
not to mention other living beings.

Only since our recent willingness to use CONVENTIONAL military force have
some nations begun complying with the treaty they signed.

Which has nothing to do with what I said earlier. The US have never
been shy about throwing their conventional weight around before, only
the agenda has changed.

The reality is the exact opposite of what Mr.Van Riel has claimed.

Maybe, but that is far from established. Certainly it has not been
contradicted so far.

Rob

(Rob van Riel) wrote in
om:

Jim Yanik wrote in message
...
"Blair Maynard" wrote in
:

If "[t]he current administration seems to have little qualms about
using them [nukes] to bully other parties into compliance...," why
are US soldiers dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan while no nukes have
been used?

If you are correct in your judgment on the "current
administration," surely it would have just nuked Iraq in the first
place and not lost so many of its soldier's lives.

Show us, with logic, that you aren't just full of ****.

Intimidation does not require mushroom clouds all over the place.

If a nuclear power is believed to be unwilling to use their nukes,then they
aren't much of a deterrent or any intimidation.If that "global oucast"
threat you believe in is so effective,than that would negate any power of
possessing nukes.

Even though I hold the current US administration in very low regard,
even they are not stupid enough to nuke a country out of existence
without extreme provocation. Doing so would turn the US into a global
outcast, which would be very bad for business.

Well,we nuked Japan,but did NOT "nuke them out of existence",and at that
time,it would NOT have "turned the US into a global outcast". Even today,I
suspect nations would stil trade with the US,those boycotts don't seem to
work very well or for very long.


Seems to me that since so many countries have proceeded with their
WMD programs DESPITE the long US possession of nuclear weapons and
our triad of effective worldwide delivery systems,that US nuclear
inventory was NOT used to "bully" anyone into compliance with the
Non-Proliferation treaty. (we certainly have not nuked anyone since
Japan in WW2)

And for just how many of those long years has the current
administration been in power? Even compared to the very limited period
of time we're talking about here, not very long. 3 years out of 60, if
memory serves. Also note that for most of those 60 years, there was a
factor counterbalancing US power and pressure. Also note that threat
of power does not require use of power, so the absense of nukes used
in anger is meaningless.

Counterbalancing;so that would have prevented us from nuking Libya instead
of sending in FB-111's? (different administration,too)
Like the USSR would have gone to war over Libya.Right,sure.


As for noone having been nuked since WWII,
that too is not strictly correct, as testing of these systems has left
large areas uninhabitable, and killed considerable numbers of people,
not to mention other living beings.

Testing has killed "considerable numbers" of people? Certainly not by
direct weapons effects.Please explain this,it ought to be humorous.


Only since our recent willingness to use CONVENTIONAL military force
have some nations begun complying with the treaty they signed.

Which has nothing to do with what I said earlier. The US have never
been shy about throwing their conventional weight around before, only
the agenda has changed.

The reality is the exact opposite of what Mr.Van Riel has claimed.

Maybe, but that is far from established. Certainly it has not been
contradicted so far.

Rob



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote in message ...
If a nuclear power is believed to be unwilling to use their nukes,then they
aren't much of a deterrent or any intimidation.If that "global oucast"
threat you believe in is so effective,than that would negate any power of
possessing nukes.

Which of course proves my point. There seems to be, at least in your
mind, doubt that whoever uses nukes would become an outcast. We both
have the luxury of discussing these matters from the safety of our
homes, but this is exactly the sort of doubt that makes the threat
credible. You just can't risk it when dealing with real nukes.
Even if the threat of becoming an outcast is taken seriously, that
doesn't automatically make having nukes useless. The only real point
during the cold war was the MAD doctrine, and that still holds. In
other words, they can be very usefull in convincing a nutcase who
couldn't care less about his status in the world not to throw some
nukes at you. That calles for a strategic nuclear ability though, not
for tactical weapons.

Well,we nuked Japan,but did NOT "nuke them out of existence",and at that
time,it would NOT have "turned the US into a global outcast". Even today,I
suspect nations would stil trade with the US,those boycotts don't seem to
work very well or for very long.

Aside from the fact that the US threw its entire nuclea arsenal at
Japan, and couldn't have done more damage even if it wanted to, I
suspect you're right. This was also a time when the full effect of
nuclear weapons was largely unknown, and they were mostly considered
just another big bomb. The world has changed a bit over the last 60
years.
As for the effectiveness of boycotts, we just don't know, and
hopefully never will. I expect some nations would still trade with the
US, but I think result in a cold war style polarisation, with the US
taking the part of the USSR.


Counterbalancing;so that would have prevented us from nuking Libya instead
of sending in FB-111's? (different administration,too)
Like the USSR would have gone to war over Libya.Right,sure.

The USSR would not have gone to war over Libya. However, this might
have convinced them (or the Chinese) that using a few of their own
might be a good idea. Use of nukes could have become an accepted way
of doing business. With the number of score to settle in the world at
large, things could very well have escalated quickly, in any number of
possible unpleasant directions.


Testing has killed "considerable numbers" of people? Certainly not by
direct weapons effects.Please explain this,it ought to be humorous.

Depends on what you consider direct weapons effects. Both among
inhabitants of the Pacific isles near thest sites, and among observers
of tests in the US, deaths due to cancer and birth defects are much
more common than among those who were never anywhere near nuclear
detonations. Cause and effect might be separated by decades, but that
doesn't break the link between them.

Rob

"Rob van Riel" wrote in message
om...
Jim Yanik wrote in message
...
If a nuclear power is believed to be unwilling to use their nukes,then
they
aren't much of a deterrent or any intimidation.If that "global oucast"
threat you believe in is so effective,than that would negate any power
of
possessing nukes.

Which of course proves my point. There seems to be, at least in your
mind, doubt that whoever uses nukes would become an outcast. We both
have the luxury of discussing these matters from the safety of our
homes, but this is exactly the sort of doubt that makes the threat
credible. You just can't risk it when dealing with real nukes.
Even if the threat of becoming an outcast is taken seriously, that
doesn't automatically make having nukes useless. The only real point
during the cold war was the MAD doctrine, and that still holds. In
other words, they can be very usefull in convincing a nutcase who
couldn't care less about his status in the world not to throw some
nukes at you. That calles for a strategic nuclear ability though, not
for tactical weapons.

Which begs the question of what you define as a "tactical weapon". FYI, the
US retired all of its ADM's, and all of its nuclear artillery rounds, about
a decade plus back. Tactical does not equate to "small, low yield"--there
may indeed be a reason for using a small, low yield weapon in a "strategic"
role--which is why some of the current enventory of weaponms retain
selectable yields down in the low kT range. In fact, any use of nuclear
weapons by the US in the current or immediate future would by definition be
of a strategic nature--there are no plans afoot to go back to the bad ol'
days of the Cold War where we envisioned the use of nuclear warheads against
enemy military formations, logistics points, transport hubs and the like up
near the FLOT.


Well,we nuked Japan,but did NOT "nuke them out of existence",and at that
time,it would NOT have "turned the US into a global outcast". Even
today,I
suspect nations would stil trade with the US,those boycotts don't seem
to
work very well or for very long.

Aside from the fact that the US threw its entire nuclea arsenal at
Japan, and couldn't have done more damage even if it wanted to, I
suspect you're right. This was also a time when the full effect of
nuclear weapons was largely unknown, and they were mostly considered
just another big bomb. The world has changed a bit over the last 60
years.

So you equate any use of nuclear weapons in the modern era with the utter
annihilation, or attempt thereof, of the opposing side? That would be an
unrealistic assumption IMO.

As for the effectiveness of boycotts, we just don't know, and
hopefully never will. I expect some nations would still trade with the
US, but I think result in a cold war style polarisation, with the US
taking the part of the USSR.

The US is still the dominant economic power in the world--any nations
choosing to join in such a boycott do so at the extreme risk of completely
decimating their own economic wellbeing. I find it odd that someone can even
consider the likelihood of any anti-US boycott, given the example of
European defference to the likes of the economic power of the PRC; all it
took to render the past sales of advanced weapons to Taiwan by various
Euro-nations a distant memory was the mere threat that those nations would
not be welcome in the growing PRC marketplace. The US economy still dwarfs
that of the PRC, and you find that nations may be willing to boycott the US?



Counterbalancing;so that would have prevented us from nuking Libya
instead
of sending in FB-111's? (different administration,too)
Like the USSR would have gone to war over Libya.Right,sure.

The USSR would not have gone to war over Libya. However, this might
have convinced them (or the Chinese) that using a few of their own
might be a good idea. Use of nukes could have become an accepted way
of doing business. With the number of score to settle in the world at
large, things could very well have escalated quickly, in any number of
possible unpleasant directions.

I hate to tell you this, but those nations already regarded the use of nukes
as being an accepted form of general warfare. Read the since-declassified
warplans of the WARPAC, and peruse the past statements from senior Cold War
era Soviet military leaders--nuclear weapons were considered to be just
another tool for use on the battlefield, just as chemical weapons were. If
anything the US demonstrated much more reticence in regards to unleashing
the nuclear genie in the event of a major attack against NATO, at least from
the late sixties onward--it was regarded as a likely contingency
requirement, but it was not planned for use in the initial defense. The bad
guys, on the other hand, planned to use them from the onset of hostilities.



Testing has killed "considerable numbers" of people? Certainly not by
direct weapons effects.Please explain this,it ought to be humorous.

Depends on what you consider direct weapons effects. Both among
inhabitants of the Pacific isles near thest sites, and among observers
of tests in the US, deaths due to cancer and birth defects are much
more common than among those who were never anywhere near nuclear
detonations. Cause and effect might be separated by decades, but that
doesn't break the link between them.

How many of those vets also lived in brick homes which dosed them with
higher levels of radon? What was the effect of increased solar radiation?
Etc. etc., ad nauseum. You will have to do better than that to demonstrate a
distinct link, and if you want to make it relevant to the possibility of
continued testing, you will have to show that underground testing maintains
the same threat level--and you are not going to be able to do that.

Brooks

Rob

(Rob van Riel) wrote in
om:

Jim Yanik wrote in message
...
If a nuclear power is believed to be unwilling to use their
nukes,then they aren't much of a deterrent or any intimidation.If
that "global oucast" threat you believe in is so effective,than that
would negate any power of possessing nukes.

Which of course proves my point. There seems to be, at least in your
mind, doubt that whoever uses nukes would become an outcast. We both
have the luxury of discussing these matters from the safety of our
homes, but this is exactly the sort of doubt that makes the threat
credible. You just can't risk it when dealing with real nukes.
Even if the threat of becoming an outcast is taken seriously, that
doesn't automatically make having nukes useless. The only real point
during the cold war was the MAD doctrine, and that still holds.

Except MAD *only* holds true when dealing with rational people.
We are not dealing with rational people these days,but fanatics.

In
other words, they can be very usefull in convincing a nutcase who
couldn't care less about his status in the world not to throw some
nukes at you. That calles for a strategic nuclear ability though, not
for tactical weapons.

Well,we nuked Japan,but did NOT "nuke them out of existence",and at
that time,it would NOT have "turned the US into a global outcast".
Even today,I suspect nations would stil trade with the US,those
boycotts don't seem to work very well or for very long.

Aside from the fact that the US threw its entire nuclea arsenal at
Japan, and couldn't have done more damage even if it wanted to, I
suspect you're right. This was also a time when the full effect of
nuclear weapons was largely unknown, and they were mostly considered
just another big bomb. The world has changed a bit over the last 60
years.
As for the effectiveness of boycotts, we just don't know, and
hopefully never will. I expect some nations would still trade with the
US, but I think result in a cold war style polarisation, with the US
taking the part of the USSR.

Countries being so variable in their politics these days,I doubt they would
want to do without the income and benefits of trading with the US,the
largest consumer on the planet."Money talks,BS walks." And there were (and
still are)plenty of Western countries willing to trade with the USSR and
Red China(or other enemies of Western civilization),even though they called
for the advance of the "Communist" way of life.



Counterbalancing;so that would have prevented us from nuking Libya
instead of sending in FB-111's? (different administration,too)
Like the USSR would have gone to war over Libya.Right,sure.

The USSR would not have gone to war over Libya. However, this might
have convinced them (or the Chinese) that using a few of their own
might be a good idea.

which would trigger a retaliation that they would not want to endure.
Not over Libya or any 'ally' of theirs.

Use of nukes could have become an accepted way
of doing business. With the number of score to settle in the world at
large, things could very well have escalated quickly, in any number of
possible unpleasant directions.


Testing has killed "considerable numbers" of people? Certainly not by
direct weapons effects.Please explain this,it ought to be humorous.

Depends on what you consider direct weapons effects. Both among
inhabitants of the Pacific isles near thest sites, and among observers
of tests in the US, deaths due to cancer and birth defects are much
more common than among those who were never anywhere near nuclear
detonations. Cause and effect might be separated by decades, but that
doesn't break the link between them.

Rob



"direct weapons effects";blast,thermal,debris impact.

Smoking probably killed more of those people than any nuclear-related
things.There's a lot of other things that cause cancer and birth
defects,too.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Rob van Riel" wrote in message
om...
Jim Yanik wrote in message
...
"Blair Maynard" wrote in
:

If "[t]he current administration seems to have little qualms about
using them [nukes] to bully other parties into compliance...," why are
US soldiers dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan while no nukes have been
used?

If you are correct in your judgment on the "current administration,"
surely it would have just nuked Iraq in the first place and not lost
so many of its soldier's lives.

Show us, with logic, that you aren't just full of ****.

Intimidation does not require mushroom clouds all over the place.
Even though I hold the current US administration in very low regard,
even they are not stupid enough to nuke a country out of existence
without extreme provocation. Doing so would turn the US into a global
outcast, which would be very bad for business.


So you are saying that the current administration is being very bad because
it is "intimidating" other nations with nukes everybody knows it can't use?

Kinda difficult to believe.

In any case, how do you know it is not the threat of conventional force
which is "intimidating" other nations?

"Blair Maynard" wrote in message .. .
So you are saying that the current administration is being very bad because
it is "intimidating" other nations with nukes everybody knows it can't use?

Kinda difficult to believe.

Not really. It is my opinion that using nukes would produce a terrible
backlash against the US. Not everyone shares that view, and the US
might consider it worth the price even if it were commonly accepted.
That's one hell of a risk to take. It's going to be a bit difficult to
enjoy the backlash effects while permanetly fused to a molten country
(I know, that's exagerating the effects of nuclear attack, but you get
the idea)

In any case, how do you know it is not the threat of conventional force
which is "intimidating" other nations?

It's part of the total package. What the US seems to be saying, is
that it will use conventional force only, unless the opponent of the
day does something it really doesn't like, in which case it will go
nuclear. Being sufficiently successful against the US itself (not US
troops) definately seems to be a criterion these days. Of course, it
is rather unlikely that any single nation could be that effective in
the current situation.

Rob

"Rob van Riel" wrote in message
om...
"Blair Maynard" wrote in message
.. .
So you are saying that the current administration is being very bad
because
it is "intimidating" other nations with nukes everybody knows it can't
use?

Kinda difficult to believe.

Not really. It is my opinion that using nukes would produce a terrible
backlash against the US. Not everyone shares that view, and the US
might consider it worth the price even if it were commonly accepted.

Well, of course there is always a threat of a "stupid" use of nuclear
weapons. It sounds like you are saying that countries will act in fear of
nuclear destruction because they might believe the US would be "stupid"
enough to use them (and suffer the obvious negative worldwide backlash).

Of course that is a possibility any country would have to consider, they
might become a martyr to turn world opinion against the US.

But the "stupidity card" goes both ways. As illustrated by events over the
last fifty years. Plenty of nations have volunteered to be the martyrs, and
the US has not played it's "stupidity card" and made them such.

I see more "stupidity" all over the world than in US foreign policy. Would
you rather trust all nations in the world not to be "stupid" or just the US
and other countries in the current "nuclear club"?

That's one hell of a risk to take. It's going to be a bit difficult to
enjoy the backlash effects while permanetly fused to a molten country
(I know, that's exagerating the effects of nuclear attack, but you get
the idea)

In any case, how do you know it is not the threat of conventional force
which is "intimidating" other nations?

It's part of the total package. What the US seems to be saying, is
that it will use conventional force only, unless the opponent of the
day does something it really doesn't like, in which case it will go
nuclear. Being sufficiently successful against the US itself (not US
troops) definately seems to be a criterion these days. Of course, it
is rather unlikely that any single nation could be that effective in
the current situation.

Rob