The US reserves the right to turn your weak country to glass.

February 25, 2002 11:12 AM

The US reserves the right to turn your weak country to glass.
The Bush administration is no longer standing by a 24-year-old U.S. pledge not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, a senior administration official said yesterday. I fear this news will go unnoticed amidst the terrorism furor.
Why doesn't our nuclear policy get much press these days?
posted by norm (63 comments total)

I dunno seems to me that nukes have become much less of an issue.

Just really too damn powerfull to be used, especially in our current "war". Kinda like killing a cockroach with a flame thrower.

Out of morbid curiosity I would be fascinated to see what would happen should Bush find an occasion to use one and does.

I was more intrigued early in his term when Bush overturned the previous policies against the assasination of foreign heads of state. (pre 9/11 mind you).
posted by bitdamaged at 11:18 AM on February 25, 2002

I don't know what this really means in practice, but there is one interpretation in which this makes sense: Nuclear weapons' main value was always as a deterrent. Our enemies are non-nuclear states. This announcement makes it clear exactly what they risk by acting against us. It makes those nuclear weapons useful in this war, even if we never use them.

(For the record, I hope we never do use them, no matter how sorely we are provoked.)
posted by mattpfeff at 11:39 AM on February 25, 2002

I only wish this statement was atypical of Bush Inc. Unfortunately it is not. Shall we see how high "background" radiation can become before the extinction begins in earnest?

The fools currently in charge are EXACTLY the kind to use nuclear weapons as a first strike against non-nuclear forces. Bunch of chicken hawks that have never seen the horror of war up close and personal. Too smart to be drafted and more than willing to let someone else die in their place in IndoChina. Sickening excuses for humans in the executive branch today.
posted by nofundy at 11:39 AM on February 25, 2002

The old policy was "The United States will not use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty or any comparable internationally binding commitment not to acquire nuclear explosive devices, except in the case of an attack on the United States, its territories or armed forces, or its allies, by such a state allied to a nuclear-weapon state, or associated with a nuclear-weapon state in carrying out or sustaining the attack.", whatever the hell that means.

The new policy is (We are) "not looking for occasions to use (our nuclear arsenal, but)...we would have to do what is appropriate under the circumstances, and the classic formulation of that is, we are not ruling anything in and we are not ruling anything out"

Makes alot of sense to me. I doubt we'll ever use nuclear weapons against a country that doesn't hit us with them first though.
posted by revbrian at 11:39 AM on February 25, 2002

This is meaningless. Except, perhaps, it scares a few Osamas and Saddams who don't understand the USA anyway.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:43 AM on February 25, 2002

As I understand it, the Daisycutter is the equivalent of a "mini-nuke" anyway. So .. not much change in policy really.
posted by Mondo at 11:43 AM on February 25, 2002

The fools currently in charge are EXACTLY the kind to use nuclear weapons as a first strike against non-nuclear forces.

Look, I can't stand BushCo and would like to believe this is true, but the current action in Afghanistan was downright contemplative - especially for a Republican administration.
posted by owillis at 11:46 AM on February 25, 2002

I'm glad this kind of statement is typical of the Bush administration. Fear is a useful tool, not to be forsaken.

I hope we never need to use nukes. But if Iraq, for instance, was linked to a chemical attack in the US, then that would be an example of an appropriate time to use nuclear weapons on someone who didn't nuke us first.

Or what if terrorists sponsored by some state flew a 747 into a US nuclear plant? That would be a set of circumstances that would nearly demand a nuclear response against such a state.

War is hell. It's not about pulling punches. Make no promises of benevolence... that doesn't imply that we will use nukes... just that we might.

I like having those who would hurt us not knowing if even the society they would hope to return to will be there, if they attack.
posted by dissent at 11:47 AM on February 25, 2002

What owillis said. Moreover, all or most of the looneys in the world do not want an H-bomb dropped on their locality. So there is a deterence value to this.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:50 AM on February 25, 2002

I'm glad to see the reasoned responses to this post. The only impact of this statement is to assist deterrence by making sure that rogue nations don't get the misimpression they can act against us with impunity. I don't think that the actual use of nuclear weapons against such countries is more or less likely than it would have been 1, 5, or 20 years ago (all else being equal, including the events of 9/11)
posted by pardonyou? at 11:54 AM on February 25, 2002

Why doesn't our nuclear policy get much press these days?

largely because most multilateral arms control agreements aren't worth the paper they're written on, and only work when *all* signatories promise to disarm and/or stop arms race escalations and *actually* do it. this has never happened. the Bush administration is really just dropping the facade.

The fools currently in charge are EXACTLY the kind to use nuclear weapons as a first strike against non-nuclear forces. Bunch of chicken hawks that have never seen the horror of war up close and personal.

no they're not. if they're classical realists - and i think most of them are (which many people would automatically characterize "hawkish"), they understand that there's no strategic or tactical advantage that's worth the damage done by a first strike and the and proxy nuclear wars that would possibly follow. the "cult of the offensive" has never been very popular with nuclear strategists. i wouldn't exactly characterize Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, etc., as the new kids on the block that "have never seen the horror of war" either.
posted by lizs at 12:00 PM on February 25, 2002

A little radiation never killed anyone...ohhhh, wait....
posted by Greener at 12:07 PM on February 25, 2002

let's tell everyone else that having nukes is really, really bad while we hang on to all of ours. that seems fair.
posted by zoopraxiscope at 12:16 PM on February 25, 2002

the current action in Afghanistan was downright contemplative - especially for a Republican administration.

Which is why this kind of chest-puffing is so ridiculous. On the one hand, the Bush Admin. continues to tout the fact that they were very careful and selective of targets during the operation in Afghanistan, which is arguable, yet on the other they want to publicly reserve the right to respond in the most indiscriminately violent way possible. Can we please keep the propaganda consistent, people?

Moreover, all or most of the looneys in the world do not want an H-bomb dropped on their locality. So there is a deterence value to this.

I doubt it. It's understood that one of the goals of terrorism is to induce your enemy into a disproportionate response, drawing ever more former civilians into the conflict. We already know that al-Qaeda are fanatics, so don't doubt for a minute that they would mind dying along with several hundred thousand locals.

i wouldn't exactly characterize Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, etc., as the new kids on the block that "have never seen the horror of war" either.

Reality check: Powell was a soldier with distinguished service. Rumsfeld spent a few years as a Navy aviator (never in combat), Cheney, nothing. Cheney and Rumsfeld are the definitive armchair warriors.
posted by Ty Webb at 12:22 PM on February 25, 2002

Seems to me the existing policy was working just fine for the last 24 years with regard to all the "rogue nations". The very existence of nuclear weapons is suitable deterrence, as decades of toe-to-toe armament with the Soviets demonstrated.

Governments do not change policies like these lightly. This is preparatory to military action in Iraq. They wanted to use nukes in Afghanistan not to beat the Taliban, which apparently was possible using only men on horseback, but to root out OBL from the mountains. Only when it became clear that he'd slipped their grasp yet again did the nuclear option fall out of the Pentagon's rhetoric. They made this change to prepare themselves for trying a similar tactic if Saddam doesn't give it up quickly.

I smell Paul Wolfowitz all over this.
posted by briank at 12:25 PM on February 25, 2002

"They wanted to use nukes in Afghanistan not to beat the Taliban, which apparently was possible using only men on horseback, but to root out OBL from the mountains. Only when it became clear that he'd slipped their grasp yet again did the nuclear option fall out of the Pentagon's rhetoric. They made this change to prepare themselves for trying a similar tactic if Saddam doesn't give it up quickly."

Support, briank? If they "wanted to," why didn't they (they certainly had plenty of time to do so)? I think that would have been political and diplomatic suicide myself, but if you have evidence that they "wanted to," I'd be curious to see it. And using your logic, the current policy didn't influence the Afghanistan strategy, so why would they need to make such a change in preparation for Iraq?
posted by pardonyou? at 12:36 PM on February 25, 2002

reality check: Powell was a soldier with distinguished service. Rumsfeld spent a few years as a Navy aviator (never in combat), Cheney, nothing. Cheney and Rumsfeld are the definitive armchair warriors.

reality check: the fact that they haven't rushed the front line doesn't mean they haven't seen the horrors of war and don't understand the consequences.
posted by lizs at 12:36 PM on February 25, 2002

"Nuclear weapons' main value was always as a deterrent. Our enemies are non-nuclear states. This announcement makes it clear exactly what they risk by acting against us. "

If I belonged to one of these "non-nuclear states" I wouldn't be thinking about "what they (I) risk by acting against "us" (The US)

I would be thinking "I gotta get me some of those nucs"

OK, I wouldn't believe that, but that's the prevailing philosophy. This declaration will increase the nuclear strongholds around the world, not decrease them.
posted by lucien at 12:36 PM on February 25, 2002

I don't see a problem with this. In fact it seems like a good idea. You don't tell an intruder into your home that you aren't going to shoot him since he's unarmed, you use the threat of overwhelming force to influence the outcome you are looking for.
posted by jbelshaw at 12:39 PM on February 25, 2002

the fact that they haven't rushed the front line doesn't mean they haven't seen the horrors of war and don't understand the consequences.

I'm sure they understand it, and that they empathize with the actual soldiers. But that's a far cry from actually having been in combat, as any veteran will tell you, and I'm sure Cheney and Rumsfeld themselves would admit.

Nothing against Cheney and Rumsfeld personally, but the idea that they are "hardened men of war" is just a non-starter. They're politicians.
posted by Ty Webb at 12:42 PM on February 25, 2002

It's not as if any such agreement would stop the US from using nukes where it sees fit anyway. If the situation were truly dire enough to even warrant the consideration, then I doubt you'd find many people high up in the decision chain who would give a second thought to such agreements.

It seems to me that nuclear weapons are never ever going to go away, no matter whether that would be a positive thing or not, so we'd at least do well to figure out how to live with that.
posted by daveadams at 12:50 PM on February 25, 2002

I dunno seems to me that nukes have become much less of an issue.

India? Pakistan? Big worries a while back about them going to war and shaking the nuclear sabre?
posted by holycola at 12:51 PM on February 25, 2002

Here you go pardonyou:

Wolfowitz in November of 2001 calling for nuclear strikes in Afghanistan to drive the Taliban out of the caves, and even as early as September 18, 2001:

"At a bare minimum, tactical nuclear capabilites should be used against the bin Laden camps in the desert of Afghanistan...
posted by briank at 1:01 PM on February 25, 2002

briank: what if that was scare tactics? The other side of C. Powell's seeming dovishness? Don't be so gullible.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:08 PM on February 25, 2002

i'm not so sure i would categorize these Bush people as "classical realists," lizs. Realists are ultimately motivated by pragmatism and I would say that the Bush view of the world is more ideological than pragmatic. I suppose one could argue that they have been more pragmatic in dealing with the aftermath of 9-11, but their overall view of foriegn policy still seems more neoconservative than anything else. Realists probably wouldn't be alienating all of our allies by abruptly pulling out of treaties left and right and building destabilizing missle defense systems in the face of world opposition.

Most of these guys worked for Reagan, who was decidedly NOT a realist by any stretch of the imagination. Why would their views be any different now?
posted by boltman at 1:08 PM on February 25, 2002

i'm not so sure i would categorize these Bush people as "classical realists," lizs. Realists are ultimately motivated by pragmatism and I would say that the Bush view of the world is more ideological than pragmatic. I suppose one could argue that they have been more pragmatic in dealing with the aftermath of 9-11, but their overall view of foriegn policy still seems more neoconservative than anything else. Realists probably wouldn't be alienating all of our allies by abruptly pulling out of treaties left and right and building destabilizing missle defense systems in the face of world opposition.

Most of these guys worked for Reagan, who was decidedly NOT a realist by any stretch of the imagination. Why would their views be any different now?
posted by boltman at 1:09 PM on February 25, 2002

briank: what if that was scare tactics? The other side of C. Powell's seeming dovishness? Don't be so gullible.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:09 PM on February 25, 2002

briank: what if that was scare tactics? The other side of C. Powell's seeming dovishness? Don't be so gullible.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:09 PM on February 25, 2002

Oh shit, ParisParamus has finally snapped. Everyone under your desk!
posted by jpoulos at 1:18 PM on February 25, 2002

Gee PP, I gather you think it was scare tactics and that I'm gullible. :-)
posted by briank at 1:21 PM on February 25, 2002

Hypothetically, if there were a successful smallpox attack against the U.S., causing hundreds of thousands of deaths across North America, and it was known or strongly suspected to have been sponsored by a specific non-nuclear state, what would be the appropriate military response? I would be strongly tempted to nuke the bastards if I were king.
posted by homunculus at 1:27 PM on February 25, 2002

This declaration will increase the nuclear strongholds around the world, not decrease them.

Can you name a single country that is now going to go out and acquire nuclear weapons because of this -- and that wouldn't have sought to acquire them otherwise?
posted by mattpfeff at 1:31 PM on February 25, 2002

boltman: backpedal all you want, spin the definitions for those who aren't in the know, but the consensus is that Reagan-era policies clearly represented a subset of classical Realism.

I know that there are occasional efforts by liberal foreign policy academics to sketch out a theory of realism that conforms to liberal foreign policy goals, but that's not the way the term is normally understood, and by making the claims you have you're simply muddying the waters.

Does anybody care that the point of having a nuclear deterrent is not for "turning countries to glass" on a whim, but against their use of any other weapons of mass destruction? The Bush policy has simply recognized that pure nuclear weapons are not a major part of the current threat matrix, while radiological, chemical, and biological threats are. As with the key importance of putting the screws to the Taliban on the bin Laden issue, this is intended as a warning to any nations who feel they can play at proxy wars and deniability in their support of al Qaeda types of groups. It's also hardly new; Iraq was very clearly warned prior to invasion that if they resorted to chemical weapons they could face certain escalation to the nuclear option. Saddam didn't use his chemical weapons. Most people would consider this a Good Thing.

Ty, cut it out with this dimwitted "armchair general" calumny act. Who do you think makes our policy under any administration? Roomfuls of policy analysts, that's who.
posted by dhartung at 1:33 PM on February 25, 2002

And sometimes I am too. So welcome to the club!
posted by ParisParamus at 1:33 PM on February 25, 2002

I like having those who would hurt us not knowing if even the society they would hope to return to will be there, if they attack.

Yea, holding thousands if not millions of people hostage for the actions of an insane few is cool. Way cool. Too fucking cool.
posted by holycola at 2:04 PM on February 25, 2002

speaking of nukes.... and seriously misguided people possibly seperated at birth from paramus..... this interview with Benazir Bhutto's husband is worth a read. how many people with similar views of the world and our collective humanity are out there.... in islamabad? in new delhi? ... in the white house? were i a betting man, my moneywould be on some bad shit including the use of nukes in most of our life times....

good post briank - nice.
posted by specialk420 at 2:04 PM on February 25, 2002

i am muddying no waters, dhartung. I am simply stating what is a widely-accepted view of the Reagan administration: they were not realists but neoconservatives. In other words they viewed the world in ideological rather than practical terms. They saw thigns in terms of good vs. evil. The soviets were not simply a rival power but an "evil empire." That was a profoundly different approach than that of, say, the Nixon adminstration under Kissinger.
posted by boltman at 2:05 PM on February 25, 2002

I suspect that the experts will probably determine at some point, after doing the math, that some biological threats are too large in size for effective incineration with conventional weapons. How well would a "daisy cutter" work on 100 tons of, say, anthrax? Do we really want to find out?

Richard Butler, described as "the man who led the United Nations' failed effort to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in the late 1990s" is proposing a Council on Weapons of Mass Destruction. This would be a group prepared to take military action against countries which violate non-proliferation or refuse to submit to inspection. (I've mentioned this before.)

I'd like to link to Mr. Butler explaining how a Council on Weapons of Mass Destruction would work in his own words. Unfortunately, his speech at the World Affairs Council of Northern CA was cancelled, and Book TV offers no transcript. So you'll have to read his book yourself! It's called:

'Fatal Choice: Nuclear Weapons and the Illusion of Missile Defense.'

The Washington Post titled its review "Diplomacy: Armed and Dangerous"

A position of "not ruling anything out," including nuclear strikes, would be compatible with Richard Butler's proposals. (Is it any wonder people join the Nipponzan Myohoji?)
posted by sheauga at 2:09 PM on February 25, 2002

briank, your links don't support your claim at all. The first link is a Cal Thomas opinion column, in which Cal Thomas (who, as far as I know, has no role in policymaking and is an all-around ass) opines that the U.S. should use nukes. There is no quote from Wolfowitz or anyone else in the government suggesting such an option.

Your second link is even more remote: ""At a bare minimum, tactical nuclear capabilites should be used against the bin Laden camps in the desert of Afghanistan. To do less would be rightly seen by the poisoned minds that orchestrated these attacks as cowardice on the part of the United States and the current administration." ... These are the considered sentiments of Thomas Woodrow, a former officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency." Sorry, but I don't think "a former officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency" counts as "they" in your claim: "They wanted to use nukes in Afghanistan..." Again, that statement wasn't made by or attributed to Wolfowitz.
posted by pardonyou? at 2:10 PM on February 25, 2002

Ty, cut it out with this dimwitted "armchair general" calumny act. Who do you think makes our policy under any administration? Roomfuls of policy analysts, that's who.

dhartung: Geez, really? I thought it was done by magic 8-ball. So glad you're here to state the obvious. Dimwitted indeed.

I was responding specifically to Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Powell being lumped together in a previous post. It's an important distinction to make between them. It was off topic, I admit, but it's a line that's been pushed by the Bushies, so I see no problem with responding to it.
posted by Ty Webb at 2:15 PM on February 25, 2002

Has no one here heard of tactical nuclear weapons? Nuclear does not have to mean kilaton. What's with the bunch a raven loonies thinking this is a sure sign that Bush plains on leveling cities?
posted by Mick at 2:21 PM on February 25, 2002

Holycola... you betcha.

I'd level a world full of those I don't care about to protect... or even to avenge... those I do care about. I don't take people seriously who say they wouldn't... or who actually wouldn't.

Terrorists would. Therefore I take them quite seriously, and would use the utmost means to discourage them. Including holding a culture hostage.

You wouldn't. Therefore I simply laugh at you as a weak-willed ninny.
posted by dissent at 2:32 PM on February 25, 2002

Say, dissent, would you blow up two skyscrapers full of "those I don't care about to protect... or even to avenge... those I do care about" ?
posted by Ty Webb at 2:46 PM on February 25, 2002

[That was a profoundly different approach than that of, say, the Nixon adminstration under Kissinger.]

Read Kissinger's book 'Diplomacy' some time. He's extremely supportive of the Reagan position.
posted by revbrian at 2:51 PM on February 25, 2002

Mick: You mean kiloton, except you don't; a kiloton weapon would be tactical. (The Hiroshima bomb, small by modern standards, was about 15 KT.) You mean megaton.
posted by nicwolff at 2:58 PM on February 25, 2002

What's with the bunch a raven loonies thinking this is a sure sign that Bush plains on leveling cities?

Quoth the Raven, Nevermore.

Nuclear weapons are measured in kilotonage, and the tactical ones can be as small as .1 kiloton. There is that pesky little problem of ambiant radiation, however. The question is, is the use of them acceptable? Relying on the fact that they're not really all that distructive compared to what their capability is rings far too hollow, especially given the threat of escalating retaliation based on non-aggresors fear of broadened use. So if someone fears the implied threat of nuclear deployment are they Ravens or Loons? I'm just suggesting, Mick, just because someone disagrees in the hypothetical doesn't mean they're loonies.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:00 PM on February 25, 2002

jpoulos: oh shit, parisparamus has finally snapped. everyone under your desk!

If I could interrupt for a moment (off topic): recent posts (in MeFi and MeTa) have decried the lack of "community" and the meaningless of MeFi in general. I just wanted to say that jpoulos' comment had me in stitches, and it it that sort of thing that makes MeFi more than simply a bunch of links and hardened opinions. Thanks for the chuckle, jpoulos & ParisParamus.

posted by davidmsc at 3:09 PM on February 25, 2002

don't forget cobalt bombs! to round out the arsenal :)
posted by kliuless at 3:19 PM on February 25, 2002

Cobalt bombs. Yeah, they're about as rational as a missile defense shield, so why not? What a helluva deterant. Watch out Saddam, or we'll make the most archeologically important region of the world uninhabitable for centuries, and let the fallout take care of those other scamps in the axis o' evil.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:30 PM on February 25, 2002

wow, i didn't know so many countries had neutron bombs. v. scary. i'm scared.
posted by kliuless at 3:55 PM on February 25, 2002

boltman: widely accepted by revisionists, of that I have no doubt. You can argue that all you want, but you should have the honesty to describe your position as a revisionist and minority view. Let's look at what you said:

Realists probably wouldn't be alienating all of our allies by abruptly pulling out of treaties left and right and building destabilizing missle defense systems in the face of world opposition.

You can defend that as a pragmatic view, but classical realism is not dependent on treaties and missile systems -- classical realism views treaties and missile systems as tools, not ends in themselves. This is the problem with many 'multilateralists' today -- they believe that there is an inherent good in joining a treaty such that even treaties which are against our interests are supposedly the 'pragmatic' choice. Yet classical realism would evaluate the treaty on its own merits. In the case of the treaties in question, without arguing the validity of the belief, the Bush administration has clearly concluded that they are not in our national interest -- and that signing onto them would damage our national interest at least slightly more than the price we must pay by briefly appearing 'arrogant' and 'unilateralist'. Given that conclusion, if they are realists, then absolutely the choice must be to pass on the treaty. And under realism 'stability' is not some magical good to which other national interests must be sacrificed -- indeed, some instability is good. The destabilization that has occurred as a result of September 11 has ironically served US national interests in dramatic and nearly unprecedented ways -- certainly far out of proportion to the actual military operations in Afghanistan. The Bush administration, realists, neocons, or not, would be fools to squander this opportunity.

And they have not been fools. We have an open, unchallenged presence in Central Asia. We have a new relationship with Russia, including an oil deal, which gives us more leverage with the Middle East. We have Europe finally moving on a Rapid Reaction Force. (And for all Europe complains about us, they're holding a constitutional convention explicitly modeled on our own.) We've encouraged Germany and Japan to new levels of foreign-policy maturity via troop deployment. We've lent Britain a stronger position in European affairs by dint of their independent military capability. We've seen the opportunity for real end-games with the nations infamously labeled.

(In the same way, the Reagan administration saw clearly that the tipping point had been reached -- or could be, quickly. They sensed they could force an endgame with totalitarian communism, and seized it. That was a very, very Realist thing to do -- and in the wake of that policy, a billion more people found themselves living under democracy.)

Before September 11 the great challenge of US foreign policy was seen as, um, Mexico. We were hoping we could put off a confrontation with China, maybe. We had the same certain knowledge as under Clinton that hte Cold War paradigm was in the dustbin, but nobody quite knew how things were going to sort themselves out. Everybody knew that America was the last superpower, but we were viewed as isolationist and skittish, unconfident, politically divided, and preoccupied as a nation and culture with minutia. Now that's laughably forgotten, America's power is understood to be so far beyond our nearest rivals that to challenge it would be foolish, and the citizenry has not only pulled together, proving that to exploit believed cracks in American unity is a sucker's game, but is now looking outward, asking direct questions of the world with which we're engaged.
posted by dhartung at 7:18 PM on February 25, 2002

America's power is understood to be so far beyond our nearest rivals that to challenge it would be foolish...

So all we have to watch out for are the fools.
posted by solistrato at 9:22 PM on February 25, 2002

Can you name a single country that is now going to go out and acquire nuclear weapons because of this -- and that wouldn't have sought to acquire them otherwise?

You know I can't. Unless I was a high official in the country which was considering this policy, I'm not privy to that kind of information. Here we have something that has just happened and we are trying to predict the effects of it. You are, and I am.

I still stand by my belief that this statement will increase both the number of countries that have nuclear weapons, and that America's nuclear policies as a whole (such as their missile defence systems) will cause countries that do have nuclear weapons, to get more of them. I base my beliefs on the accumulated knowledge of what has happened when similar policies were implemented in the past. Your opinion differs from mine, and for what it's worth, I hope it's you, and not I, who are correct.

I think that will see more the world's nuclear strongholds increasing again, and this increases the possibility that things will go wrong. I also think that this is far from being a perfect strategic move so far as a preventative warfare goes, other countries can and may well exploit internal vunerabilities, using methods and actions that we haven't even fully considered yet.

"Nuclear weapons' main value was always as a deterrent"

.....and the main danger inherent in the increasing stockpiles of nuclear weaponry exists predominantly in the unpredictable realm of human error.
posted by lucien at 10:14 PM on February 25, 2002

Before September 11 the great challenge of US foreign policy was seen as, um, Mexico.

Before September 11, the great challenge was motivating anyone to even attempt cleaning up our government's act! Why do they hate us? Howabout utter cluelessness, a little like the old beatnik couple having an argument: "Remember the time back in Greenwich Village when your old lady broke a beer bottle over your head?" "Oh yeah, I remember that- you were really upset with me. What were you upset about, anyway?"

On a practical note, the Cleveland Plain Dealer ran one of its typically straightforward headlines today: "US runs low on weapons that a strike on Iraq would require." (Plain Dealer, you rock! The original, sanitized title was: "Anti-Iraq Rhetoric Outpaces Reality- Military Not Primed For New War Soon.")

If we're a little low on smart bombs for a complete campaign on Iraq, a few public statements to the effect of "we're keeping our nuclear options open" might be in order, just so nobody gets the idea that they can get away with doing something dumb. I get the feeling that Saddam Hussein isn't a total suicidal crackpot like the some of the other nutcases out there. Perhaps he'll figure it out that it's in nobody's best interest, including his, to have so many world leaders sitting around with their fingers on the button all the time.
posted by sheauga at 10:16 PM on February 25, 2002

sheauga, thanks for the links. I have a lot of respect for Richard Butler.
posted by lucien at 10:21 PM on February 25, 2002

and the main danger inherent in the increasing stockpiles of nuclear weaponry exists predominantly in the unpredictable realm of human error

not necessarily. our nuclear sophistication has increased over the years, not only in the development of the weapons themselves, but in the development of the command and control systems used to manage and deploy them. the mythical "red button," is, in reality, a fairly complex set of protocols. if you're referring to some accidental "pushing of the button," that can't happen, given the way our current systems are set up.

in 1963, kennedy predicted (upon signing the Limited Test Ban Treaty) that by the 70s there would be at least 25 nuclear states. by 1968, there were 5 formally declared, and 3 rumored. at least 30 others had the capability to manufacture nukes, but did not.

joe nye theorizes that the primary reason was a sort of deterrence-by-proxy whereby the U.S. and other superpowers gave other countries security guarantees, lest any armed state be tempted to threaten unarmed rivals. this is still generally the case. the fact that a country is capable of developing or obtaining nukes (or developing or obtaining *more* nukes) doesn't necessarily mean it has a rational incentive to do so.

i think rational deterrence works, and the real danger lies not with possession of the weapons themselves but with states that lack the 'safety mechanisms" - i.e., permissive action links (PALs) - to effectively manage their arsenals. we openly shared PALs with the Soviet Union during the Cold War (although Soviet intelligence already knew about it, much to our chagrin) and there's an long-running debate about whether we should do the same thing for countries we know have nukes (whether they openly admit it or not). an ex-security council member i know used to compare it to giving condoms to 13 year olds. you don't want to condone certain things, but you want them to be safe.
posted by lizs at 12:11 AM on February 26, 2002

so the Rogue States of America is pursuing it's policy of terrorizing the general population of this planet. Some of you seem to think this is a good course of action:

dissent - 'Fear is a useful tool, not to be forsaken.
I hope we never need to use nukes. But if Iraq, for instance, was linked to a chemical attack in the US, then that would be an example of an appropriate time to use nuclear weapons on someone who didn't nuke us first.'

Many people so wanted to be able to implicate Saddam, but
'Investigators are virtually certain of one thing, though: it was an inside job. The anthrax attacker is an American scientist-and worse, one from within the US's own biodefence establishment. And only now, four months on from the posting of the first letters, are the frightening implications of that beginning to sink in.' (discussed here)

The RSA is the only country to have been irresponsible enough to use a nuclear weapon before, and now they are using that threat again. The concequence of this threat is a lack of trust and respect for the RSA, as no other modern country would consider this kind of posturing useful in any circumstance. The RSA may well carry a big stick, but that does not engender respect, just more hate.

dhartung - 'The destabilization that has occurred as a result of September 11 has ironically served US national interests in dramatic and nearly unprecedented ways'

That is, if you see the threatening of nuclear holocaust as serving the people of the RSA. I would say, like the death penalty, all this does is up the stakes, promoting a more fundamentalist approach. The use of any nuclear weapon would show the world that the RSA is a dangerous bully, incapable of learning from past mistakes.
The oportunity to forge a global coalition of countries dedicated to peace has been squandered in the rush to revenge and retribution.

'A declassified 1995 study by the U.S. Strategic Command argued that America must exploit its nuclear arsenal to portray itself as "irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked." Such a strategy, the report further observed, could be "beneficial to creating and reinforcing fears and doubts within the minds of an adversary's decision-makers" by cultivating the impression "that some elements" of the U.S. government "may appear to be potentially 'out of control.'"

i had written this post before i went looking for articles to back it up. i am glad to say that i was not disapointed with the calibre.
posted by asok at 3:22 AM on February 26, 2002

And asok weighs in with the same sing-song ideology. Have we used nuclear weapons before? Yes, during the greatest war the world has ever seen, one which we didn't even start, and one where our enemies happened to be engaged in some of the worst atrocities in history. (Poland, Pearl Harbor, Holocaust, Nanking, op. cit.) Given the strategic situation at the end of WWII, using nuclear weapons was the responsible choice. A troubling one, one which we ought to always regret -- but in your small-minded world of ideology, you'll never grant that military commanders must sometimes choose not between idealism and barbarism, but between a number of choices all of which are very bad.

Of course, dissent was speaking of Saddam, a national leader who has actually used chemical weapons in the past, and speaking hypothetically of an attack in the future -- but you have to play like he was talking about anthrax. Sure, sweep the real threat under the rug.

As for destabilization, asok, if any world leaders think like you, we all should fear the future. Your hatred of the United States is palpable, but baffling. You seem to live in Western Europe, which has been free of war for half a century, and is now prosperous and fully democratic, largely because of the nuclear umbrella you so despise. Unless you harbor fantasies of your nation (whatever it may be) acting as a superpower itself, what purpose can be served by denying the very real benefits you have received and fighting the inevitable? Maybe we just should have left you all for the real fascists; then you wouldn't have this unbalanced view of reality. We could have, you know -- but we had this odd sense of principle, and we still do, no matter how ungrateful you are.
posted by dhartung at 7:23 AM on February 26, 2002

The Bush Administration turning its back on another cornerstone of the nuclear nonproliferation regime by signaling an abandonment of the United States commitment not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that promise not to acquire their own nuclear weapons and sign the global Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or one of the regional nuclear weapons free zone treaties (otherwise known as a negative security assurance guarantee) should be highly disturbing to anyone with a serious interest in nuclear disarmament studies. This action is like... well, like a nuclear bomb going off, blowing away another reason countries should not attempt to acquire their own nuclear weapons in their self-defense. (Many countries that could create nuclear weapons feel very strongly that if they have given up their right to them, they should be free from the possibility of being attacked by them as well.) And while abrogating the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was mostly a bilateral US/Russia issue, this policy turnabout by the current Administration seriously wounds the very viability of future global nuclear nonproliferation efforts - and conveniently 'allows' the President to nuke the bloody hell out of anyone he damn well feels like... including Iraq, who is a signatory (though obviously not in good standing) to the NPT. This may be the first indicator that the current Administration is seriously considering the use of weapons of mass destruction against Saddam Hussein ('bunker-busting' nuclear weapons, perhaps?) in their quest to drive him from power in Iraq, whether he uses WMD against US and allied forces or not.

Ah, but that's not all. The Bush Administration's future plans to upgrade and further develop the US nuclear arsenal (as outlined in the recent Nuclear Posture Review) may violate the spirit of the NPT as well, effectively precluding further US "good faith" participation in international negotiations on nuclear disarmament as obligated by nuclear weapons states under Article VI of the Treaty.

Y'know, the current Bush regime's negative view of international treaties in general (and predilection for ignoring them when they're inconvenient) doesn't help us when we go to China (this past week) or Russia for example, and ask them to cease providing nuclear technology and know-how to other countries because of the same treaties and agreements we're undercutting ourselves.
posted by SenshiNeko at 7:31 AM on February 26, 2002

That's United Rogue States of America to you, asok.

URSA... hey, I like that. Pity the Russians already have the bear as their symbol.

asok, fear is a most useful tool because, if used properly, one achieves exactly what one wants, without having to hurt anyone. I'd rather be feared and not have to fight, than regarded as a pleasant pushover, and have to fight every ten minutes.
posted by dissent at 3:48 PM on February 26, 2002

"not necessarily. our nuclear sophistication has increased over the years, not only in the development of the weapons themselves, but in the development of the command and control systems used to manage and deploy them. "

You assume that I am referring to the US, their use, testing, storage and management of nuclear materials and weapons, which I am not. I am referring to the worldwide proliferation of nuclear weapons that will occur as the result of recent policies that the US have decided on.

Not everyone else is going to the ability or the incentive to have and/or maintain high standards, as the United States does. Even if you don't care what is happening in the rest of the world, that doesn't mean you don't have to worry about accidents occurring in other countries. The nuclear fallout could well affect people in the United States, not to mention what it would do to the world economy as a whole.
posted by lucien at 4:18 PM on February 27, 2002

and dhartung weighs in with the usual sing-song justifications of mass-murder.
Call the pot whatever colour you like, mr kettle.
invoking the second world war, and expecting that to be the end of the argument is extremely presumptuous. i am glad that the war resolved as it did, but for entirely selfish reasons. i find your 'we should have left you to the real fascists' remark to be as daft as it is naive. the use of a nuclear weapon against civilian populations was genocidal in intent. just like the 'they wont have a society to go home to' argument, this shows a fundamental lack of respect for the human race. i would contend that it is possible that the neo-colonialism of america/free-market capatalism is leaving many people as unhappy, or dead, as the fascisism of the german nazi party did in their day. just not white people.

if any world leaders think like you, we should all fear the future. your inability to understand the past, and alter your behaviour accordingly would lead us into another nuclear war, this time with many players wanting to use their arsenals. there is no going back, or at least the likelyhood of recovering from the brink of a nuclear war is infintessimally small once the game is started.
GRAB YOUR ANKLES AND KISS YOUR ASS GOOD-BYE!

nobody has the right to blight an area of the world and make it uninhabitable for a generation (land-mines), let alone generations. the previous use of nuclear weapons showed a lack of imagination/humanity in targetting non-military populations. i concede that the dropping of two bombs may have been neccessary to scupper the rumour that only one was built, but genocide was the outcome, and the RSA has never appologised for this. not having an emotional memory is a sign of sociapathic tendencies, which the RSA promotes with it's stupid threats of nuclear attack. if you really are paranoid enough to think that sadam hussein would attack the RSA at home with a chemical attack, then you must ask yourself how this situation occured. the RSA is part of the problem in that case in particluar, as well as many other cases where 'strong' leaders have been backed by your tax dollars via the CIA due to some mistaken belief that any good would come of it.
if you think that i hate america then that is your business, what i hate is the mind-numbing arrogance and hubris that 'america' (read 'the military/industrial complex') passes off as reasoning. they are in the business of destroying my home, our planet and our future, for that there is no justification.
posted by asok at 9:59 AM on March 5, 2002

and another thing....
it is revealing that you feel that a comparison with WW2 is pertinant. some have said that the us is always looking for a war, in order to be on the 'right' side and appear heroic, sometimes these wars are manufactured. ever since the end of the second world war america has floundered around unable to accept that the world has changed for them. there is no evil other, just evil within to be combatted, there are no heros. no amount of distraction can hide that truth.

i should just add the thought that the use of nuclear weapons was not required to end WW2, it simply precipitated this. you may say that more of 'our' boys would have died in the 6 months - year that the winding up of the war would have taken. whilst that is an arguable point, they would have died as heros, not as civilian victims of mass-murder.

oh, and the 'nuclear umbrella' had little impact on the democracy or prosperousness of europe. seriously, if you believe that i'd like to see your evidence. and europe has been, and continues to be, riddled with conflicts both major and minor. or had you forgotten about them too?
posted by asok at 6:56 AM on March 6, 2002