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

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..
Or an enemy
who has them, to use them against us, stepping up the "reasonable use"
definition?

I haven't the slightest doubt that, if able, Al Qaeda would use nukes
against the United States. That wouldn't require first-use by us.

That was the administration's reasoning when it decided to take out
Saddam, the most likely source of nukes for Al Qaeda.

Veering the topic a little, is anyone else antsy about two active
attempts on Musharaff (Paki president...not sure I spelled it right)
in two weeks' time? I really hope CIA or State has pushed US
protective support on the nuke supply in Pakistan; that seems to me to
be *the* single most likely source for a weapon to disappear from and
reappear in a most inconvenient place and time.

on topic I'm in DC, been hearing and occasionally glimpsing our CAP
F16s in the sky, as well as one gorgeous KC-135 departing Andrews. I
was amazed how quiet the CFM56 were.

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.

The United States is an extremely unpopular member of the world
community today, because it insisted on its right to preemptive war
against a threatening regime. Can you imagine what its status would be
if it had resorted to nukes in Afghanistan?

(Especially if it had missed Bin Laden, as it might well have done?)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 06:12:04 -0500, Cub Driver
wrote:


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.

The United States is an extremely unpopular member of the world
community today, because it insisted on its right to preemptive war
against a threatening regime. Can you imagine what its status would be
if it had resorted to nukes in Afghanistan?

(Especially if it had missed Bin Laden, as it might well have done?)


My biggest problem is when we get him, I want toe KNOW the son of a
bitch is dead. If we nuked, he'd just go elvis on us, whether or not
we'd actually killed him.
Right now, there are very few targets that the U.S. could or should
use nukes on-- the overwhelming qualitiative and quantitiave
superiority of U.S. combat assets makes nukes not only unneeded, but
in many cases counterproductive.

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 06:12:04 -0500, Cub Driver
wrote:


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.

The United States is an extremely unpopular member of the world
community today, because it insisted on its right to preemptive war
against a threatening regime. Can you imagine what its status would be
if it had resorted to nukes in Afghanistan?

(Especially if it had missed Bin Laden, as it might well have done?)

I'm not ready to assume the conclusion of the leftist media regarding
America's popularity. We've got sixty nations signed on to assist with
the rebuilding of Iraq. We've just witnessed some cooperation from the
recalcitrant French. We're high on the "good guy" list for the former
Warsaw Pact nations eagerly participating or seeking membership in
NATO and most of developed Asia thinks we're a model for their future.

And, of course, there is the old truism about leadership that I don't
need to be liked, I simply need to be respected. While many nations
seem to express distaste for unilateralism, most admit to envy over
the economy, freedom and particpative democracy we enjoy. And, if
pressed, most would eventually concede that WMD make a policy of
preemption an entirely different matter than the concepts of "just
war" originally espoused by St. Ambrose.

As for my "modest proposal", timing is everything. While we had the
emotional support of the world after 9/11/01, a year later, the
sympathy was dissipated. And, I didn't propose "nukeS" but
"nuke"--just one. A statement, a signal, a warning.

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

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

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.

The United States is an extremely unpopular member of the world
community today, because it insisted on its right to preemptive war
against a threatening regime.

No, Dan, the US is unpopular because the status quo was economically
bennificial to certain European and Asian Nations.

Can you imagine what its status would be
if it had resorted to nukes in Afghanistan?

It is Iraq that made the US unpopular. (ie Euros)

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 06:12:04 -0500, Cub Driver
wrote:


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.

The United States is an extremely unpopular member of the world
community today, because it insisted on its right to preemptive war
against a threatening regime. Can you imagine what its status would be
if it had resorted to nukes in Afghanistan?

(Especially if it had missed Bin Laden, as it might well have done?)

I'm not ready to assume the conclusion of the leftist media regarding
America's popularity. We've got sixty nations signed on to assist with
the rebuilding of Iraq. We've just witnessed some cooperation from the
recalcitrant French. We're high on the "good guy" list for the former
Warsaw Pact nations eagerly participating or seeking membership in
NATO and most of developed Asia thinks we're a model for their future.

And, of course, there is the old truism about leadership that I don't
need to be liked, I simply need to be respected. While many nations
seem to express distaste for unilateralism, most admit to envy over
the economy, freedom and particpative democracy we enjoy. And, if
pressed, most would eventually concede that WMD make a policy of
preemption an entirely different matter than the concepts of "just
war" originally espoused by St. Ambrose.

As for my "modest proposal", timing is everything. While we had the
emotional support of the world after 9/11/01, a year later, the
sympathy was dissipated. And, I didn't propose "nukeS" but
"nuke"--just one. A statement, a signal, a warning.

We always have that, should these same people hit us again. Consider, Ed,
that 80% of the motivational power of a weapon is the threat of using it;
once done, only 20% of the weapon's political power remains.

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 11:49:32 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .

As for my "modest proposal", timing is everything. While we had the
emotional support of the world after 9/11/01, a year later, the
sympathy was dissipated. And, I didn't propose "nukeS" but
"nuke"--just one. A statement, a signal, a warning.

We always have that, should these same people hit us again. Consider, Ed,
that 80% of the motivational power of a weapon is the threat of using it;
once done, only 20% of the weapon's political power remains.


Conversely, if there is no doubt that the weapon is "too terrible" to
use, the motivational power is eroded to zero. It's a lot like the
death penalty. Is there no crime so heinous that it merits the
ultimate?

It brings to mind the wild-eyed cop, Riggs, played by Mel Gibson in
the Lethal Weapon series. While the criminals take advantage of the
rationality of the politically correct law-enforcement officer, an
encounter with Riggs, can often result in more dire consequences.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 11:49:32 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .

As for my "modest proposal", timing is everything. While we had the
emotional support of the world after 9/11/01, a year later, the
sympathy was dissipated. And, I didn't propose "nukeS" but
"nuke"--just one. A statement, a signal, a warning.

We always have that, should these same people hit us again. Consider,
Ed,
that 80% of the motivational power of a weapon is the threat of using it;
once done, only 20% of the weapon's political power remains.


Conversely, if there is no doubt that the weapon is "too terrible" to
use, the motivational power is eroded to zero. It's a lot like the
death penalty. Is there no crime so heinous that it merits the
ultimate?

I would propose that such a political position could cause the Federal
Government to be incapable of delivering their basic product of
"protection". The failure to deliver on "protection" would enable some
other "organized crime" unit to fill the void. This would tend to
invalidate the legitimacy of the Federal Government and therefore also their
power. Keep in mind that no less money is in play here than the worldwide
distribution of heroin. A Government that can not deliver basic services to
the People, will fall like the FSU.

It brings to mind the wild-eyed cop, Riggs, played by Mel Gibson in
the Lethal Weapon series. While the criminals take advantage of the
rationality of the politically correct law-enforcement officer, an
encounter with Riggs, can often result in more dire consequences.

Have you seen "Swordfish"?

In message , Ed Rasimus
writes
It brings to mind the wild-eyed cop, Riggs, played by Mel Gibson in
the Lethal Weapon series. While the criminals take advantage of the
rationality of the politically correct law-enforcement officer, an
encounter with Riggs, can often result in more dire consequences.

Wasn't Nixon alleged to use this gambit, of appearing to be irrational
in order to make his actions harder to predict and the consequences of
error potentially worse?

I'm running on very hazy memory and can't find a source, so would
welcome correction or clarification.


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk