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

No.

In fact those wars show quite the opposite what you say. Nuclear weapons indeed are weapons of last resort.

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. The woke people around the World would likely be still be boycotting the UK and the British would have their own guilt-complex like the Germans do. So Argentinians invaded an island basically with just sheep around and few people and the British then would have made Buenos Aires sound as scary as Hiroshima. Doesn't go that way with nukes.

Also that the idea of a small clash somehow could just spiral out of control to all out nuclear war is also an unreal idea, which usually used to create panic among people.

US and Soviet aircraft fought each other many times during the Cold War and US or allied planes were shot down (Gary Powers wasn't the only instant). It was evident that the US was fighting Soviet Air Force jets in the Korean War, but it was also very evident that this was kept secret from the US population.

(Earlier during the Cold War these kind of aviation history books weren't around: )



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. But that wasn't the only time. For example Able Archer '83 was again a hair raising incident which few even noticed (among others like it). Even now during Trump debacle the US has attacked and killed Russian troops, politely named to be 'mercenaries' to save face, yet no threat of nuclear weapons coming into play.

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

You are bing absurd,
Argentina was completely free to invade since the British government had expensive and useless weapons.
Had the British government spent the same money on a better navy, Argentina would not have invaded.
In the same way that Russia was free to roll in to Crimea and Georgia at will.

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

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.
Kennedy used this to try to look tough but basically it was all just childish posturing.

?? 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

It's not my view, no. It is the view of NSA Advisor John Bolton's view that the modifications to the B61-12, scheduled to roll off production from Boeing at Albuquerque in September, mean that it is not a WMD, but only a tactical nuclear device, therefore not breaking the START treaty and therefore not starting mutually assured destruction. So far, the only person stopping him is Trump.

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.”

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/05/06/john-bolton-on-the-warpath

But if Trump thinks he might get impeached, or might lose the election, Bolton is ready.

You already responded to that. I was hoping you'd answer, "So that's a more specific idea, no?"

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.

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.

I'm stumped at what that response has to do with the simple question I was asking. — Terrapin Station

You are welcome to say that nuclear war could start in September. I am just saying that tactical nuclear devices will be ready to destroy bunkers in N Korea and Iran in September, but that the NSA says they are not nuclear weapons. Mattis said they are WMDs, but he was fired.

Acting Defense Minister Shanahan just flew the largest nuclear bomb flight test since the 1950s out of the UK, and Triump is there now with military pomp.

You are bing absurd, — Sculptor

No. Nuclear weapons are for last resort. Hence every nuclear armed country also has a conventional army.

Had the British government spent the same money on a better navy, Argentina would not have invaded. — 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.

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

First, the Soviet response was more about the "Bay of Pigs" and saving their new ally.

Secondly about "not being on the brink". The US was in DEFCON 2 and had the plans to start the airstrikes and invasion on the third week of the crisis. Operational Plan 312/62 was to start on Monday the 27th and OPLAN 316/62, the invasion of Cuba, a week later. The plans were OK'd by the President and just by luck did we get an agreement. And then there was the Russian submarine B59, which had it's commander order the use of nuclear tipped torpedoes after been attacked by depth charges and was only to be talked down by two other officers. And as I already said, the US was blissfully ignorant about the tactical nukes in Cuba. They were simply not in the plans at all and would have been an nightmarish surprise.

Above all, and this is important to understand, there was no MAD. The US enjoyed total superiority in nuclear weapons especially in ICBM's, which Soviet Union had then deployed only a few. Hence the idea of the chiefs was more like "let's have this over then". The commanders had seen WW2, so a few cities being nuked wouldn't end the US. If you read the actual orders from the time, in a top secret document now published, the Joint Chiefs of Staff say that on the 'disadvantages' of invading Cuba and attacking the missile sites the following:

There is remote possibility that some local Soviet commander in Cuba may order firing a missile

See actual document here

The ugly truth why the US would have dared to invade Cuban in 1962:


So I disagree with your idea that we were "never on the brink" is simply wrong. We were on the brink.

Nuclear weapons indeed are weapons of last resort. — ssu

That's true. The current posture is that there is no other option but to use low-yield tactical nuclear devices, such as the B61-12 nuclear bunker buster and B72-2 Trident, on hardened bunkers in Iran and N Korea. Conventional bombs are not strong enough to destroy them. So we will have to use nuclear ones. But they will only be SMALL nuclear weapons.

"The only option should not be to go big."
- Gen Hyten. under nomination for vice chairman of joint chefs of staff



so then Russia could use small nuclear weapons in, say, the Ukraine; and Saudi Arabia could use them in Yemen; and italy, which is buying some, could use them too. And we would not retaliate either. The good news is, so far Israel has not said it will be using them. Otherwise, there has not been international pressure not to deploy them, in fact, Russia and Nato want them too.

Trump has refused to say he won't use them or when he might use them. The USA will have two types in September, and historically, whenever the Pentagon has a new tactical war toy, it wants to use it as soon as possible, because the immediate tactical need was the justification of the spending in the first place.

That is an interesting topic, the idea of "bunker buster" nuclear weapons.

Well, you had the tactical nuclear recoilless rifle Davy Crockett in service, which was a stupid idea, but some politicians loved it. The US doesn't have them anymore. Shouldn't be a wonder to anyone why.

Actually, Mattis in the clip makes the least stupid argument about it: so if someone else uses a tiny nuclear device and the US has nothing as tiny to respond, using ordinary nukes is an escalation. Well uhh... :roll:

Yet after Chernobyl, Fukushima and the typical panics that anything nuclear makes, imagine the public outcry after someone used even small tactical nuclear weapons. Do you think that the size matters? Or do you think that the media would sit idly around and print it on the third page that "Today the US made a pre-emptive (love that word pre-emptive) strike on Iran. Among the munitions used were earth-penetrating weapons, some with unconventional warheads."?

No way.

The media response would be "N U C L E A R W A R !" or "TRUMP ORDERS A NUCLEAR STRIKE ON IRAN". Because how many people would stop and buy a newspaper that has the headline NUCLEAR WAR? And just for a while image the Columns and Editorials after that. That finally third World War has arrived would be the topic in the social media. And the response from all other political leaders in the world. And the Pope. Wonder what they would be saying. Just think what people would be here in this forum saying.

So no, it's a really stupid idea. Bunker busting with nukes that is.

Yet the absolute panic that any use of anything nuclear will do is real. And that what's makes Russia's new de-escalatory use of nuclear weapons so troubling. Because Putin understands that war is a continuation of politics and he is a master in understanding how the West works.

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.

Now that is really stupid and basically dangerous. 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 (which is actually the reasoning there).

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

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.

I don't see the USA using nuclear bunkerbusters in Iran right away.

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. Since then the Russians have claimed the gas scare in Aleppo was invented. So that is a real problem, I agree with you totally there.

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.

Well, just doing some fantasizing and the whole thing could potentially pay off for itself by leasing satellites to NATO allies... Hmm.

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

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.

Besides, they can always retreat to the fact that the West has attacked them twice, first by Napoleon, then by Hitler and sure goddammit they won't let them be surprised for the third time. And Putin has to have a reason just why he has to be in power and have such tight control. He needs the US as the bogeyman. (Just as some would say the US foreign policy blob needs bogeymen too)

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

No.

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? There's no reason for this assumption. Besides, Trump just loved it that he could say to the Chinese leader over eating cake that he just ordered a strike on Syria.

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

Again no.

The losses of well over 100 000 people in South Korea and the possibility, the mere possibility of a nuclear attack on an American city will halt any pre-emptive attack. 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.

No, the real ugly truth never uttered is that the US will let North Korea develop it's nuclear arsenal so that a partial MAD will emerge. Like now is with US and China. China has far inferior number of nuclear weapons compared to the US, but enought that the US cannot be certain to have the ability to destroy them all at once without some being launched and hitting mainland US.

That is the future between North Korea and the US, which basically still are at war.

Reasons why North Korea won't be attacked:

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

Because the retaliatory attack on Syria showed we could not blow up even one of their hardened aircraft bunkers. conventional missiles might be able to blow up a plane or sink a ship, but even a hundred of them don't do much to a military land base.

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

That was why the USA developed these nuclear bunker busters. the reasoning is, as Russia has them too, that Russia will use them to attack, say, a military installation in the Ukraine, and not retaliate on the USA. Russia has no allegiance with N Korea. It really is on its own on this one.

I think, the current visit is to canvas support from the UK for tactical nuclear devices. Shanahan just flew the largest nuclear test attack out of the UK since the 1950s in April, two weeks after taking office. That was 6 B-52s, plus escort fighters.

I will have to try to make this point clear.

a) All these wars the US is fighting, it is fighting with the Continental US in peace. Using nukes would be a PR disaster and a political suicide.

There is no martial law NOW in the US. There is no similar mobilization of resources as during WW2. In truth the American people are living and have lived in total peacetime and they don't care much (or are blissfully ignorant) about US troops fighting in Syria or Afghanistan or in the Sahel region in Africa. Or anywhere else. Hence there is absolutely no reason why to give them a rude awakening, to create a global condemnation with using nukes just to make sure some usually empty storage somewhere under a mountain is destroyed. It doesn't make any sense. You simply have to have the American population scared shitless and in total panic before you can use nuclear weapons (for them to accept it...and be even in a bigger panic).

b) Only in the 1940's and 1950's nuclear weapons were assumed to be ordinary weapons

You can see this from the contingency plans. As ICBM's became reality and their numbers increased, the whole idea towards using nuclear weapons casually deceased. And this is really a fact:

When planning for Desert Storm and the liberation of Kuwait, the US military leadership truly had to contemplate that the Iraqis would use WMD's against them and there was no assurance of Saddam Hussein not having nuclear weapons. Hence they really had to ponder what their retaliation would be if US troops or their allies (or Israel) would be attacked by a nuclear weapon nobody saw coming. They opted NOT to use nuclear weapons, but simply destroy the dams of the Tigris and Euphrates river and make a flood that would have devastating effects on Baghdad.



But who cares about a goddam flood killing perhaps 100 000 Iraqis orthe than the Iraqis themselves? Floods kill people all the time. But OMG if it was a nuke!!!

Hence this idea of using nuclear tipped bombs is just machismo from those who want them or simply or...

C) Nuclear weapons are used when already WMD's are in use.

If North Korea would hit a US City with a missile, perhaps then to respond to the bloodthirsty revenge mentality that would be the immediate response of some Americans (as we saw in 9/11) using those nuclear tipped bunker busters would actually be a more humane thing to do, actually. You see you could say that you are nuking the hell out of North Korea, yet you wouldn't be creating mass civilian casualties as with ordinary nukes. As I have said, the common idiot has absolutely no idea how different is let's say a nuclear tipped torpedoe, a Davy Crocket recoilles rifle warhead and a 1 Mt nuclear warhead are from each other. It's all just nuclear, which is horrible.

You really seem to underestimate just how much people fear and despise nuclear weapons.

Let me anser at simiolar length.

When
Kim Jong Un
performs another nuclear missile test
and
nuclear bunker busters
are available
they
will
be
used
to destroy
missile bunkers
in N Korea
because
nothing else can
and
N Korea wont stop
but
we wont be told
and
the Un security council
All whose members also have nuclear missiles
will
have
agreed
not
to retaliate
with massive force.
It
will
happen
the
only question
is
when

Owning a firecracker and having a picture of an H-Bomb is not the same thing as a real threat the the USA. N Korea is no threat at all, and the solution to any problem with them would not come from the USA who can't hold a picnic in a park when it comes to a foreign war.
With Korea's vast and sieve like border, China has the manpower to take Korea in a weekend, like Russia took Manchuria.
Nukes are a waste of money, what you need is boots on the ground.

Again no.

Won't be used, will stop, we would be told, won't happen.

Nukes are a waste of money, what you need is boots on the ground. — Sculptor

Funny. Thats what Macarthur said.

Whatever one thinks of the stupidity of war, Mattis was right to say there hasn't been anything like WW2 since Nagasaki, and its probably due to fears of escalation.

MAD has worked a long time, and it still works somewhat to stop escalation, but with the division of nuclear weapons into those which are and are not WMDs, MAD no longer prevents the use of nuclear weapons as it did in previous years. It's been known this division would occur for some ti me, and a number of people have tried to stop it, using the slippery slope argument, but they didnt stop it, and this year, its here.

What now exists is a massive public opinion that nuclear weapons wont be used because they havent been, so why even consider it. So it will be a bit of shock to people over the next year when the debate over which nuclear weapons might not be WMDs suddenly appears in the United Nations.

And the UN will have the debate, as soon as the USA has nuclear weapons which might not be WMDs. It's an inevitable debate, but so far, there's been no point starting it at the public level because there weren't any. This year, there are. There's about 200 of these old bombs that will be converted into nuclear bunker busters, mostly in Turkey now, and the first ones are scheduled in September.

The argument is first going to be how directed and confined the nuclear blast needs to be, so as not to be WMDs. Currently the B61-12 is not earth burrowing like the B61-11, and only has a directional blast from the surface. but the B61-11 is too heavy for F35s and B2s, and is not accurate from B52s. So there may be a reprieve, because the B61-11 currently does not have the new GPS-linked guidance tail assembly, which the B61-12 will have in September. The deployment of 6 B52s from the UK in April for 5,000 miles of flight testing probably included some shell drops to test accuracy, and the news we hear about N Korea subsequent to Trump's return from the UK is probably based on their success.

So far, today, there was a Pentagon document which suddenly appeared calling N Korea a 'rogue state,' and Trump is avoiding real issues with his usual cloud of nasty remarks.

That's the first real UN debate on nuclear weapons this year. .

Won't be used, will stop, we would be told, won't happen. — ssu

We will be told, but the argument that some nuclear devices are not WMDs hasnt been presented to the United Nations yet, because there weren't any viable candidate devices before. I would guess it will be raised in confidential August meetings of the Security Council, before it reaches the general assembly floor, some time between Labor Day and MLK day.

It is known from public statements that such tactical attacks with nuclear bunker busters have the support of the USA general in charge of the nuclear arsenal, Hyten, as well as NSA Advisor, Bolton. The Defense Secretary, Mattis, was against the proposal but he was fired and physically left office May 1st. The Acting Defense Secretary, Shanahan, has made no public statement, but since he just flew the largest nuclear test mission since the 1950s in his first month of office, one must assume he is part of the cabal.

We don't know where Acting Defense Minster Shanahan is at the moment, but we know he is in this plane designed to remain operational after the start of a nuclear war. It has three decks, a crew of up to 112, 18 bunks, six bathrooms, a galley, briefing room, conference room, battle staff work area, executive quarters, and 63 satellite dishes. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/29/us-military-doomsday-plane-can-withstand-aftermath-of-nuclear-blast.html



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.

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.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/05/11/patriot-missiles-and-an-amphibious-transport-ship-sent-to-middle-east-to-deter-iran/

Today, the White House announced Qatar's emir would be visiting the USA.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/06/donald-trump-host-qatar-emir-white-house-gulf-tensions-190607194633054.html

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

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?

And anyway, I guess what you are saying we can see in just a few weeks. So we see in few weeks.

We don't know where Acting Defense Minster Shanahan is at the moment, — ernestm

Why wouldn't he be in Washington DC? He met Greek Defence Minister there last Friday.

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

Please try reading correctly the articles. No aircraft carrier is carrying any strategic bombers, especially something as big as a B-52.

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.”

Then again, the US simply has aircraft carriers operating in the Middle East. Quite normal. So normal that they actually made a news article when there wasn't any US aircraft carrier on the high seas.
Above all, there's just ONE aircraft carrier there, Lincoln in the Red Sea. A bit different if there would be two or more. Nothing to see here.

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.

And this has got simply stupid. I am not bothering discussing whether there will be a new INF at the UN.

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

And this has got simply stupid. I — 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 INF treaty is not about if nuclear weapons are WMD's or not, so this is all clueless.

Another topic please...

And INF treaty is not about if nuclear weapons are WMD's or not — ssu

that's the problem. I've repeated the argument half a dozen times, but you want to spittle on irrelevant details.

There is no INF. There's no point arguing about what the INF treaty says because there isn't one. The INF is broke, all say it has been for years, there is no plan to make new treaties at all. And MAD no longer works to stop nuclear weapons. It may stop massive retaliation still, but it no longer stops nuclear weapons.

You'd have to figure out how to peace out the entire military and get Intelligence to give up on Game Theory. Who knows how that can be done?