Nuclear weapons scare the bejeesus outta me

[Uryoces]

Originally posted by tw
Did you read the Union of Concern Scientist analysis? Highly accurate nuke is inferior to highly accurate conventional weapon - during a non-nuclear war. Some additonal reasons why are not even explained in the UCS report but should be quite obvious to the reader.

Aside from the small problem of nuclear contamination, what should be obvious to me?

[tw]

Originally posted by Uryoces
Aside from the small problem of nuclear contamination, what should be obvious to me?

I forget. Thirty years later and the current generation forgets the lessons from history. Aside from a major problem of lethal nuclear contamination. So be it. We want the whole world to hate us anyway.

Lets make nuclear weapons akin to 500 pound bombs. After all, its only someone else's land and problem. "If you got 'em, then use 'em I always say". After all, "might makes right". There are no consequences to unimpeded and unrestrained use of nuclear weapons - obviously. We should have used them in VietNam as Gen Curtis LeMay so strongly advocated. Why were politicians so stupid back then as to restrain the military? Obviously they must have been stupid because we lost the VietNam war.

[Torrere]

I assume that you are talking about this article?.

The Bush administration's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which was completed earlier this year, explicitly calls for US nuclear weapons to deter and respond to a "wide range of threats," including attacks by conventional, chemical, or biological weapons as well as "surprising military developments."

I thought that the popular story was that Bush had stopped snorting crack when he was young.

Although I did not see any obvious reasons that were not gone over in some detail within the report. I found it to be very persuasive, and am now Very Opposed to use of nuclear weapons in future warfare, as contrasted with the earlier stance of "It Isn't Even Worth Thinking About, It Won't Happen, My Hair And My Chin Are Feeling Somewhat Sandy".

I am now faced with the realization that nuclear weapons are not just a historical footnote. The last 50 years have been part of a peaceful interlude, and I think that it is almost inevitable that there will be another massive conflict in which nuclear weapons will be used. I doubt that they will play a role in the current conflict, and maybe they will not be used for fifty, a hundred, maybe a hundred and fifty years. Who can predict what international tensions could trigger a war a hundred and fifty years from now?

[tw]

Originally posted by Uryoces
... what should be obvious to me?

The article cited by Torrere only goes into the immediate technical reasons. But what should have been most obvious to Uryoces is the purpose of war. Extremists think of war only until it ends. To them, the purpose of war is to win. Realists understand the purpose of war is to take a conflict back to the table - back to a peacetime condition. What happens after the war is over? Then the victor must take responsibility for cleaning up; for healing the wounds.

Rumsfeld and his administration forgot the mistake made by the George Sr administration. They too only saw the war as an isolated entity; failed to plan for 'after-war' actions. Now we have reality because Rumsfeld, et al made absolutely no plans for the end of their war. We now have hundreds dead and amputees because the leadership forgot about basic concepts of war.

The lessons of war say that the victor must live with the consequences of a nuclear weapon. That should have been so painfully obvious to Uryoces. Just another (and obvious) reason why nuclear weapons are never used in a conventional war - especially when all such wars are suppose to be wars of liberation. Nuclear weapons on the people we are suppose to be liberating? How much more obvious could it be?