U.S. Envisions using Nukes on Terrorists

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Rosuav
There is a serious risk here that America+allies is ending up no different from the "eeeeevil terrorists" they're trying to wipe out. Nuclear attacks on terrorists? Eww.

Really? We are deliberately targetting innocents and chopping off their heads?

Get real. This kind of moral equivalency BS is outrageous.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Malacasta
I object to anyone using any sort of nuke as a weapon. I don't care how the fuck you try and rationalize it with your bullshit moral outrage. The only country ever to use a nuke as a weapon was the US, and believe it or not, the rest of the world is still fucking outraged about that too.

Wow. You speak for the rest of the world now?

I imagine a lot of Chinese people aren't too bitter about us kicking Japan's ass.

[Riek]

I imagine a lot of Chinese people aren't too bitter about us kicking Japan's ass.

Not to mention the 7 million odd Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese that were slaughtered by Imperial Japan.

The allied soldiers that did not have to invade a fanatical island fortress, and thus lived, are probably very happy as well.

[Sebboe]

Originally posted by Lebeau
I am in disagreement with Sebboe on this one. We have more to worry about than our individual selves. The United States has become a primary target for terrorists. The only way to protect ourselves is to kill them first. I'm not really sure how to go about this "war". You kill them, they're a martyr. You ignore them, they'll keep killing us. Honestly, the best way is to help establish a strong government in their own backyards. Most people regardless of race, religion, or nationality do not condone terrorism. So this war is very much worth it.

I didn't say we should do nothing.
I said I refuse to be scared. That is I refuse to let someone convince me not to take a plane or go in a high rise building or travel or do anything that gives terrorist even an iota of control of my life.
I said I don't think we will really use a nuke in this situation and that it appears that mentioning it is just another way in which the government is scaring people.

I don't think we are actually that far off what we want.

As far as the "war on terror" goes, I think a lot of people get this confused with what is going on in Iraq.

I think there should be a constant proactive action to get rid of people who wish to harm innocent people.

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Rosuav
No, I'm not objecting to clear-cut cases. There's always the easy examples to trot out... the ones where you only kill known terrorists, only damage buildings that are devoted to military purposes, etcetera. What's less clear is where you drop a nuclear bomb on a city, and the initial devastation kills lots of civilians, and the fallout affects people in neutral countries.

Also, is it not reasonable to object to meta-terrorism? We object to Moslem extremists blowing things up to get attention; why not object equally to politicians playing on that to get votes?

So, with any new measure that any government brings in, I'd be asking a few questions:
* The Trident question: Do we know nothing about it except that it costs fifteen billion so it must be superb?
* The Polaris question: Will it actually do what has been promised?
* The EuroPass question: How much inconvenience will it cause to the general public?
* The TSR.2 question: Will it effectively deter?
* The Children Overboard question: Is it something that's been in the pipeline for years, but is being announced now because the election's approaching?
* The Carpet Bombing question: Will it, if used, cause widespread death/damage of people who, like the flowers of spring, have nothing to do with the case?

-> Rosuav dons an asbestos suit, preferring cancer to death by flame

I can't argue against asking questions. I just find the instant judgment of us being equal to them morally just because issues are being discussed in the pentagon that have to do with military matters odd. It is a pentagon document. It's a discussion of plans and possibilities. It's not a state department memo outlining a change in policy to nuke anyone we get a little miffed with.

I'm pretty sure that in the discussions and meetings that led up to this document being written, many if not all of these questions were asked. In the final analysis though, it turns out to be a decision the president has to make.

A lot of horrific things get discussed in the pentagon. It's more or less in their job description.

Meta-terrorism seems to equate roughly to any attempt to try to scare anyone by any means imaginable. I really don't know how to approach that one. I think sometimes a little bluster will get you where you need to go though, and I imagine it's going to continue to be used as a rhetorical weapon of sorts for the foreseeable future.

Hehe, meta-terrorism. I like that. "On Formally Undecidable Principles in Pentagon Planning Documents and Other Related Systems."

Where are you from by the way, if I can ask?

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Malacasta
I object to anyone using any sort of nuke as a weapon. I don't care how the fuck you try and rationalize it with your bullshit moral outrage. The only country ever to use a nuke as a weapon was the US, and believe it or not, the rest of the world is still fucking outraged about that too.

I know a lot of people are outraged by the use of nuclear weapons. I have honestly never understood why it is supposed to be preferable to die one way than another. That particular outrage has always struck me as a convenient anti-American rant since, as you point out, we're the only nation ever to use them.

If I were to try to anticipate the objections, I would have to guess it has something to do with radioactive fallout and long term radiation levels plus the possibility of massive civilian casualties. In other words, you can divide it into environmental concerns and collateral damage concerns.

Conventional weapons tend to leave unexploded ordinance around, and no large scale weapon is safe to use in the sense of the possibility of collateral damage being ever present with any weapon, even down to the sniper rifle. Like any military decision, there is a tradeoff. Killing people just in general is a very bad thing, and by the time things have devolved to certain levels, the priorities one has to think about get progressively more and more offensive the more desperate the situation becomes. I try to remember too that we are talking here about dealing with people who have already made it clear they have no such moral compulsions against using wmd's of their own should they get the chance. Nor does their behavior so far lead me to believe that they are affected by moral outrage against their policies. They more or less seem to thrive on it.

Is there some reason you feel so strongly that collateral damage from nukes, or their long term pollution problems, are somehow uniquely morally repugnant?

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Sebboe
As far as the "war on terror" goes, I think a lot of people get this confused with what is going on in Iraq.

I think there should be a constant proactive action to get rid of people who wish to harm innocent people.

It seems to me that constant, proactive action against people who wish to harm innocent civilians is exactly what is going on in Iraq. Here was a country that had attacked its neighbors, killed its own citizens, and broken the terms of peace from the previous war in Kuwait. At the very least, he was sending money to the famlilies of suicide bombers. That in and of itself was enough to fit the description of a terrorist nation.

I was deeply shocked as the scene unfolded in the U.N. regarding Iraq. I had hoped 9/11 had made a dent in the sensabilities of some people regarding what is and is not an acceptable level of appeasment and containment internationally. How do we expect countries like China to take human rights seriously when the world community is split over how to deal with Saddam Husein?

This world has a lot of work to do to bring about relative peace and stability. Africa, Southeast Asia, heck even right in our own back yards in Eastern Europe and South America, there are desperate situations at hand. Picking nits over whether or not a man like Hussein needs to go is not productive in my view.

And yes yes, and yes, I am aware of our role in putting him in power. I am sorry, but I do subscribe to the philosophy of sometimes choosing between the lesser of two evils. You can call me to the carpet on that one if you wish. It's a fair cop.

(Sorry. Too much Monty Python recently...)

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Lokrian
I can't argue against asking questions. I just find the instant judgment of us being equal to them morally just because issues are being discussed in the pentagon that have to do with military matters odd.

If you mean what I said, I did not say that the US Govt is equal to terrorists simply because they are discussing. I was merely pointing out a trend, which might be continued if this goes through, which is the same thinking as leads to terroristic action. It's thinking, not actions, that I'm looking at - and, of course, there's the distinct possibility that I'm wrong about what the US officials are thinking here (and sincerely hope that I am).

Originally posted by Lokrian
I'm pretty sure that in the discussions and meetings that led up to this document being written, many if not all of these questions were asked.

Let's hope. I suspect some of them aren't as likely to be asked though - especially not if this is being pushed for political reasons (as so many such things seem to be).

Originally posted by Lokrian
Meta-terrorism seems to equate roughly to any attempt to try to scare anyone by any means imaginable. I really don't know how to approach that one. I think sometimes a little bluster will get you where you need to go though, and I imagine it's going to continue to be used as a rhetorical weapon of sorts for the foreseeable future.

It will be used. It will always be used. That doesn't mean I think it's a good thing. (CAVEAT: I have myself used such techniques with wayward children. Still doesn't mean I think it's wise.)

Originally posted by Lokrian
Where are you from by the way, if I can ask?

Australia. So I'm not qualified to speak on American politics; except, nearly all Western nations (at least, the ones that have party politics) do extraordinarily similar vote-grubbing exercises. Most of the names I used for the questions, above, were borrowed from "Yes Minister" - UK. Trident and Polaris were nuclear weapons mentioned in one of the shows.

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Lokrian
Conventional weapons tend to leave unexploded ordinance around... Is there some reason you feel so strongly that collateral damage from nukes, or their long term pollution problems, are somehow uniquely morally repugnant?

Land mines are probably the best known of conventional weapons leaving stuff around, since they're designed to sit around until touched. And, personally, I think that mining large areas of ground not in pure military use (eg cities) is just as reprehensible as dropping a nuclear bomb there. Of course, war is always devastating... so, there is some aspect of "war is ugly, what's the difference between this war and that one"; but even in war time, it IS possible to consider what it'll mean after you finish fighting. If nothing else, think what your occupation troops are going to have to deal with.

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Rosuav
Let's hope. I suspect some of them aren't as likely to be asked though - especially not if this is being pushed for political reasons (as so many such things seem to be).

I don't know what consituency it would be that would support sloppy application of nuclear weapons?

My opinion is that we have roughly three factions in the US concerning proper use of warfare in foreign policy. We have those who are largely against it, those who are only for it if it seems to achieve some long term goal, and those who seem to be for it only if it can be done in a year or less.

We're quickly losing the support of the last faction. *shrugs* I trace it back to the capture of Hussein. The vengeance factor has been achieved for a lot these folks, and sad and sick as it may sound, I have heard many, MANY people express the sentiment, "let them get back to killing each other now." Aside from the inhumanity of the attitude, it turns out that that is never how it works out in the end. Violence always spreads if it is not held in check.

I am always dissapointed when people who I sympathize with on the left concerning the horrors of war fail to see the necessity of seeing this project through. We need people from the left, concerned about the long term stability of Iraq, to replace the support we are losing on the hard right where the concern is often limited to 'us and ours'. I know the left is capable of supporting military action, because they supported it all through the Balkan wars. It's hard to see the continued hard line against the war in Iraq as anything other than pretty sloppy and transparent politics after that. That's just how it comes across to me, and please don't take that personally. Maybe you can explain it better.

Oh, I just realized... you haven't actually spoken out against the Iraq war yet have you? That was Sebboe... Well, maybe he will read this and respond to it anyhow, or maybe you are against that war even though you haven't mentioned it yet, or at least I haven't noticed.

The bottom line is that I have noted a tendency to latch onto the war in Iraq and just naysay without regard to the many good things that ought to come out of it if we could all just come together around commonly held values on the issue.

Originally posted by Rosuav
Australia. So I'm not qualified to speak on American politics; except, nearly all Western nations...

thp. Since when do people have to be experts on a subject to have something to say about it?