@cystic:
The Pentagon proposal - The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations seeks to justify a pre-emptive attack on so-called terrorists or on a nation thought to host WMDs.
Excuse me, but does this mean that Iraq would have been nuked for its WMDs?
I’ll just make the assumption this is correct since you don’t have a link…even though you always blast me for not posting a link on statements such as these…
Producing an executive order to this effect does not mean we’ll ever use it. If the Union of Soviet SOCIALISTS Republics had ever launched on us, I highly doubt we would have retalliated, even though there was an executive order to do so. However, having the order does make the opponent think before engaging in acts that might put that order into effect, and in this case, that might be all they are looking to do.
Now, let’s assume they actually do it, in a matter of days we can have feet on the street in these nations clearing up debris and helping survivors. So it boils down to only a matter of numbers, number of American lives that can be saved vs number of enemies that might be destroyed that do not have to be. Which is more valuable?
In my mind, 1 American soldier that does not come home in a pine box is more important then a thousand enemy soldiers/citizens. If I were a Russian citizens, I’d say 1 Russian soldier is worth more then 1000 enemy soldiers/citizens.
But that’s not really my decision to make. That’s the Pentagon and President’s decision to make. I’d also wager their threshhold would be a lot closer to 1:10 then 1:1000 or more.
Add to that the international stigma of firing nuclear material - clean as it is - against a foreign nation. Hell, the UN cringes when we test fire nuclear rocket delivery systems even without nuclear material on board!
So that further reduces the odds we’ll actually fire nukes at an enemy nation, terrorist or not.
Finally, there are the smattering of other nations that have nuclear arsenals that can reach the United States. Reagan’s and Bush’s (Jr) Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense Shield is not currently working at 100%, so we’d have to assume some collateral damage on our own soil.
So, in my opinion, this further reduces the odds we’d actually fire nukes at an enemy nation to almost nothing, regardless of terrorist activities there.
So when do I think we would fire? I think we’d fire if, and only if, we feel that we are in emminant danger of complete destruction including non-combatants and combatants of our own citizenry and way of life and then, only if firing these weapons would save our citizenry and way of life from said destruction.
