On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 14:51:14 -0500, Stephen Harding
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

I postulated that immediately after 9/11/01 that we had actually
encountered a possible, acceptable nuclear scenario in the mountains
of Afghanistan. Given that the US was struck first, that the leader of
the strike was isolated in an undeveloped and virtually unpopulated
region, that the Russians, Chinese, Indians, NATO (virtually all
nuclear powers) were supportive and would recognize the justification
and lack of threat to their national sovereignty--why not?

I remember that post.

Surely you will admit that nuclear weaponry comes with a lot of
political "baggage". Just having them is a real turn off to many
people, not necessarily our enemies.

Any discussion of nuclear weapons inevitably becomes political rather
than military and the arguments are emotional rather than practical.
Quite clearly (at least to me), anyone who starts the debate with
"just having them is a real turn off" isn't going to be objective in
the discussion. (I'm not accusing you, Stephen, but merely pointing
out one of the problems.)

If the US were to use nukes, say in the tactical role in eastern
Afghanistan in busting bunkers and caves, do you think the political
fallout (no pun intended) would be worth being concerned about? Would
it be no worse than our current political situation where it *seems*
multilaterists define the politcal, anti-American, climate?

My initial proposal (apologies to Swift if I dare to characterize it
as a "modest" one,) was not for tactical use, but rather for one
demonstrable, political, effective and arguably strategic action. It
would be the sort of thing seen in the "micro" level in which daddy
administers a good spanking to prevent future indiscretions by the
rowdy child.

And, while multilateralism is a wonderful goal, when it interferes
with national self-interest, it becomes secondary. A benevolent
hegemon seems to this jaded observer preferable to a non-sovereign,
politically correct subordinate bending to the popular vote of
Cameroon, Gabon, Madagascar, Somalia, et. al.

Do you have nay concerns over "slippery slope" arguments of nuke use?
The US used them for tactical purposes (perhaps with good result), so
now it's "not so bad" using nukes. Eventually, it becomes "not so bad"
to use them to level Samarra, or Tikrit, and on from there? Or an enemy
who has them, to use them against us, stepping up the "reasonable use"
definition?

Here we can view the long experience with deterrence. The "slippery
slope" argument isn't a bad one, but if the results are good, the
political agreement of the justification is obtained (as in my
original scenario) and the US continues to maintain a superpower
military capability applied with justice and supported by deterrence,
it doesn't seem problematic.

There may be little destructive difference between the use of many
non-nuke bombs versus a single atomic one (i.e. Hiroshima versus
Tokyo or Dresden), but I think anything that undermines the "too terrible
to use" belief in nuke use doesn't bode well for the future of humanity.
(Not that I actually believe a full scale nuclear war would necessarily
destroy humanity).

The "too terrible to use" argument is pure emotionalism. And the
linkage to "the future of humanity" is more of the same. It is much
like the objection to napalm or CBU or land mines. Military weapons,
by definition, kill people. The conclusion of that line of reasoning
is that "war is too terrible" and then you find yourself on the
slippery slope to subjugation.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8