If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
An empty threat?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Do you think that there would be reasonable circumstances under which a nuclear strike would be sanctioned by a Western government now, or in the near future?
Who would be most likely?
And what do you think the international communities' reaction would be?
Who would be most likely?
And what do you think the international communities' reaction would be?
0
Comments
There are lots of contingencies for the use of such bombs, sadly. The Russians' submarine fleet included some attack subs created for the purpose of destroying a whole fleet of NATO/US warships. Rather than having to torpedo every ship in the convoy, simply launch a mini nuclear bomb and the whole fleet would be obliterated easily.
The Americans are working on small bunker-busting nuclear bombs that go deep into the ground before exploding. And then you go the Indians and Pakistanis not too concerned about using them either. My guess is we could well see the use of nuclear bombs in a conflict within this decade (although probably limited to small battlefield devices).
I think the international community would be suitably outraged but there is nothing they can do, given the power of the US there is no need for them to honour any obligations or to respond to any kind of international pressure........
Like I've said, I've only become world-aware in 2000. But it seems to me that the biggest threat from terrorism isn't the horrible deaths caused by attacks, but the economic hits the West is taking. Germany's a mess right now and they haven't even been targeted. Also, I think because of fears of who might already be in their countries, it's affecting the foreign policies of countries like France, Belgium and Germany.
Yes. It would be a reaction though, rather than pre-emptive.
The US, if we're talking "western" nations only.
I would expect India/Pakistan/North Korea to be the first though, mainly becuase of the difference in international/home reactions.
That depends on the provocation, although the US would face massive condemnation in any event because of the anti-US feeling which exists already.
I'm pretty sure the international community would react the same way were North Korea, India or Pakistan to use nuclear force.
India/Pakistan would use it against each other, and it would be part of a larger war. So why would they "care" about public opinion. North Korea is already showing signs of not caring one jot.
Ths US, in spite of their blustering, is actually taking steps to ensure that they have public opinion over Iraq. And that isn't on the same scale as nuclear strike.
If you honestly believe that the US wouldn't face excessive media attention ask yourself this... how often have you heard in the medai recently that the French have been breaking the oil embargo with Iraq, that they have economic interests in there not being a war and that this may be related to their stance. And how often has the US plan been referred to as being "all about oil"?
One rule for one...
Oh and more horrific that nuclear...is biological. From a personal perspective that is...
Perhaps the US faces more scrutiny because as the most powerful nation on earth it is open to abusing its position. The use of nuclear weapons by the US would surely be looked at extremely closely, not only because of the horror of such weapons itself but because as the biggest and most powerful military force in the world there is hardly a valid reason for using nuclear weapons. The only justification might lie in a retaliatory strike, if someone uses nuclear weapons on US forces first... that's what the nuclear deterrent and M.A.D. are about. But otherwise there is no argument, however the tactical advantages of it, for using nuclear weapons on anybody.
The nuclear weapons used in Hiroshima were tiny compared to the ones we have today...they just don't make tiny ones for tactical strikes.
I really hope not but I guess that America will be the most likely country to be mad enough to set one off.
How lovely - and how great that things have moved on!!
And how many times have you personally criticised the French for breaking the embargo, on these very boards?
And how many times have you criticised the US?
That is what I mean, one focus. If the US had broken the embargo, all hell would be let loose on here, you and Clandestine would be shouting about it from the rooftops...
This isn't so much an criticism as an observation, I have always been happy to accept that oil has something to do with the US stance, but then I have, on many occasions, referred to China, Russia and France having such interests too...
I would also argue that their status puts them up there as an easy target. Either they shouldn't intervene where they do, or the should intervene where they don't. Whatever they do people will be vocal in their criticism, myself included in some instances.
And there you go, your first comment was to criticise the US - even though it was something which they haven't even done
On the whole I agree, there is little tactical advantage, but then I would be surprised if the US used nucs in a pre-emptive manner anyway.
(As you can see I've left myself open by the cashing in expression. I won't pretend that France or Russia are acting purely out of consciousness. But they certainly are not the warmongering nation the current US administration is, and frankly when you have a situation where one side wants to go to war for economic interests and the other doesn't for similar economic interests I tend to support the side that doesn't want to go to war. A war is to be avoided at all costs unless there is no alternative left whatsoever.
Hadn't America bombed 21 countries since the end of WWII I'm sure they would not rank so highly on people's minds. Or, if they were true defenders of freedom and justice and had sought to resolve all conflicts where international intervention is required, I'm also sure the world would not be so sceptical. But when you get them bombing one country to "liberate" its citizens and install democracy on one hand whilst actively removing democratic governments to install dictators on the other hand, it is only natural eyebrows will be raised. Or when you see them fighting to implement certain outstanding UN resolutions whilst ignoring others (and protecting the offending country) you can see why so many are vocal in their criticism of America's foreign policy.
Aladdin, the reason there are democracies in the world today is because of America and a few other nations. Maybe you feel some form of socialist/communist government would be better. Maybe by now Hitler would have died and his great nation - stretching from the UK through Russia would be crumbling. Maybe you are the right color and ethinic group to have survived. We'll never know that because of America and the UK.
France and Germany need to get more inspectors in with shredders to hide how much they've undermined the UK. As for Belgium, aren't they some form of fatty chocolate?
On today's NY POST, there's a picture of the American cemetary in Normandy, France.
www.NYPOST.COM
As for buying weapons for attacking "America", well perhaps the spin has taken its toll on you, but unless America is located within a few hundred kilometers from Baghdad, Saddam is no threat to us.
Sacrifice.
Visual: White Crosses in France as far as you could see.
On the contrary pnj, I'm a great believer in democracy. Before you go on praising the US in giving democracy to the world I'd suggest you study some recent history. Read about Spain in the years after WWII, and Chile during the 70s, and you will see how much your country really cares about democracy.
Another inflammatory comment left to wind up people I presume?
If heritage and culture could be bought, how much they could sell you!
Whilst I understand your reticence to continually refer specifically to American government historic policies in contravention of democracy, nonetheless it would help to avoid unwarranted nagative interpretations of personal insult and national labelling, so prevalent in the current trans-Atlantic debate, if such specification is carefully maintained.
I'm well aware of that, but what else was I meant to compare it to?
The Chinese have the biggest military force in the world.
Well...What you said was 'Not a full on, Hiroshima style attack, but probably a tactical one.'
My point is you are saying that a full on attack would be like Hiroshima, as opposed to a Tactiacal one which would be what...damaging to the local area but have no effect on the rest of the planet.
My point is you cant compare it to Hiroshima...its totally different.