No.When Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands; when the US failed in Vietnam; when Russia rolled into the Crimea; the concept of MADestruction was show to fail.
When you have weapons you cannot use, they can be no deterrent. — Sculptor
You are bing absurd,What these moments shows is that decision to escalate to nuclear weapons isn't taken lightly. The Falklands war is especially a good example, because the Argentinian junta could totally count on the British NOT nuking Buenos Aires or even using nuclear weapons on their ships. That (nuking Buenos Aires) would have been simply insane and a deathknell to Thatcher and the conservative party. — ssu
The last time we were truly on the verge of a nuclear war was during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when unknown to the US, the Soviets had deployed also tactical nukes into Cuba. Those would have been used, especially Fidel Castro's insisted they would be used, to counter the Marines landing in Cuba. — ssu
?? In your view, we'd not be able to attack North Korea, say, with nuclear weapons today, but we would be able to in September? — Terrapin Station
A Western diplomat who knows Bolton told me, “The trouble for Bolton is, Trump does not want war. He does not want to launch military operations. To get the job, Bolton had to cut his balls off and put them on Trump’s desk.”
I was hoping you'd answer, "So that's a more specific idea, no?" — Terrapin Station
Im not trying to be so provocative. If I call it a nuclear war, then I get weird people from the Middle East writing me and asking for my support in their criticisms of the USA. — ernestm
I'm stumped at what that response has to do with the simple question I was asking. — Terrapin Station
No. Nuclear weapons are for last resort. Hence every nuclear armed country also has a conventional army.You are bing absurd, — Sculptor
The UK actually didn't even need to spend on a better new navy, It simply should have spent to retain it's flat top aircraft carrier Ark Royal that had F-4 FG.1 Phantoms. The Sparrow-armed Phantoms likely would have posed enough of a deterrent to Argentinian aircraft that had just short-range IR missiles. And of course, the "Jump Jet" hadn't been proved in combat. So thanks to the policy of making the Royal Navy to only fight Soviet subs, we had the Falklands war. Now btw the British have understood this and have new flat top aircraft carriers.Had the British government spent the same money on a better navy, Argentina would not have invaded. — Sculptor
First, the Soviet response was more about the "Bay of Pigs" and saving their new ally.This crisis was caused by the USA installing nukes in Turkey. We were never "on the brink". As soon as the US agreed to move them Khrushchev, pulled his nukes out of Cuba. — Sculptor
See actual document hereThere is remote possibility that some local Soviet commander in Cuba may order firing a missile
Nuclear weapons indeed are weapons of last resort. — ssu
In 1999, at a time when renewed war in Chechnya seemed imminent, Moscow watched with great concern as NATO waged a high-precision military campaign in Yugoslavia. The conventional capabilities that the United States and its allies demonstrated seemed far beyond Russia’s own capacities. And because the issues underlying the Kosovo conflict seemed almost identical to those underlying the Chechen conflict, Moscow became deeply worried that the United States would interfere within its borders.
By the next year, Russia had issued a new military doctrine whose main innovation was the concept of “de-escalation”—the idea that, if Russia were faced with a large-scale conventional attack that exceeded its capacity for defense, it might respond with a limited nuclear strike. To date, Russia has never publicly invoked the possibility of de-escalation in relation to any specific conflict. But Russia’s policy probably limited the West’s options for responding to the 2008 war in Georgia. And it is probably in the back of Western leaders’ minds today, dictating restraint as they formulate their responses to events in Ukraine.
But likely that the Russians have a concept of de-escalation through a limited nuclear strike is making the US also to think the same way with the low-yield weapons. — ssu
The Russians ALWAYS say the US did it first and meticulously make their point of them just reacting to US aggression whereas the US only sometimes make this point. Yet the Russian answer, attacking and annexing parts of Georgia, attacking and annexing parts of Ukraine, are on a different category to the actually fumbling US foreign policy that typically just makes a mess and doesn't solve anything.Well the Russians say the USA did it first, then the USA says its the Russians fault, so I will be staying out of that catfight. — ernestm
No.If they had been available when Syria was reported to be using sarin gas, Trump would have used tactical nuclear devices in his largely unimpressive massive strike of conventional weapons on a Syrian airbase. — ernestm
Again no.But I think Korea is in real trouble. As soon as the USA has nuclear bunker busters, If N Korea does another nuclear test, even one, a nuclear bunker buster response would be immediate. — ernestm
Why on Earth would he have done that? Or why on Earth would have the military lead by Mattis a) purposed using nuclear weapons and b) accepted their use? — ssu
Clinton really contemplated a strike on North Korea and decided not to because of the high estimates of casualties. Bush didn't strike either, even if he called North Korea the axis-of-evil. One might argue that there is this closing "window of opportunity" in the same way as in 1962 when the nuclear superiority was such a huge advantage that the US joint chiefs of staff did want to go to war. Yet it's extremely unlikely to happen. — ssu
Nukes are a waste of money, what you need is boots on the ground. — Sculptor
Won't be used, will stop, we would be told, won't happen. — ssu
Reclassification? And why the UN? What does the UN have to do with US nuclear policy? What does Trump have to do with the UN?So the reclassification will definitely be reaching the UN Security Council soon, but probably not until August. That's the way it is is now. — ernestm
Why wouldn't he be in Washington DC? He met Greek Defence Minister there last Friday.We don't know where Acting Defense Minster Shanahan is at the moment, — ernestm
Please try reading correctly the articles. No aircraft carrier is carrying any strategic bombers, especially something as big as a B-52.The USS Aircraft Carrier Lincoln is carrying some B52s from Shanahan's nuclear exercise last month. It was meant to be in Croatia, but suddenly appeared in the Red Sea. One of the B52s landed in Qatar. — ernestm
These new assets will join the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group and a U.S. Air Force B-52 bomber task force in the Middle East region in response to what the Pentagon calls “indications of heightened Iranian readiness to conduct offensive operations against U.S. forces and our interests.”
Please try reading correctly the articles. No aircraft carrier is carrying any strategic bombers, especially something as big as a B-52. — ssu
Aircraft carriers dont just carry aircraft they can fly. During the Gulf was they carried road pavers, which are much larger than B52s. We dont know what they carry, and we dont know where nuclear bombs actually are. All we know is that one of the B52s landed in Qatar and there is a state visit next week. — ernestm
Indeed, your comments are stupid. Needless to say, but you simply cannot fit a B-52 into an aircraft carrier and why would such totaly ludicrous thing be done WHEN AIRCRAFT CAN FLY TO QATAR. B-52's wingspan is 52m, length 48,5m and height 12,4m, which is far larger than any road paver. Perhaps you are mistaken it for something else.And this has got simply stupid. I — ernestm
And INF treaty is not about if nuclear weapons are WMD's or not — ssu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.