Ed Rasimus wrote:

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.)

Don't disagree with this observation. Use of nuclear weapons (even
nuclear energy) is fraught with emotional and political bias. But that
is the world in which decisions on use must be made. That's the way
it is, rightfully or not. It simply will not be possible to make a
decision on military use based solely on military concern.

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.

Well I don't remember experiencing "one spanking" by my daddy and
forever after eschewing the path of wickedness and irresponsibility.
I remember being spanked on many occassions. Color me a slow learner!

This seems to me to be the worst possible use of nuclear weaponry, but
perhaps because I can not see an example of the type of use you were
proposing (sorry, I don't remember the details of your scenario).

Nuking a "trouble spot" in Iraq like Samarra? Making eastern Afghanistan
unlivable and thus no longer a viable hiding spot for Bin Laden? What
of the characteristics of nuclear weapon use that don't exist in
traditional weaponry; specifically residual radiation effects? Is this
quality a part of the weapon's "effective" use?

Outside of World War or where the very existence of the nation is truly
threatened, I just can't picture an example of the use you seem to be
suggesting. Haven't seen one anytime since Nagasaki actually, with the
possible exception of later stages of the Korean War.

Did Vietnam offer a possibility of your possibly strategic, one time
demonstration of nuclear weapon use?

What would you have done if you could have strapped a nuclear bomb on
your Thud and dropped it where you wished in NVN in '65-72? What
would it have accomplished? What of Soviet/Chinese side effects? Even
after a successful use, what of other nations later (e.g. Soviets in
Afghanistan)? Would we live in a safer world?

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.

I lived in Cameroon a couple years. We definitely don't want Cameroon
making national interest decisions for the US!

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.

Perhaps the world has a weapon that by its definition, is a deterrent.
It is a deterrent because of those very beliefs and emotions that make
it "too terrible to use". Weaken those [perhaps erroneous] beliefs,
and the deterrence value weakens.

I still wonder if every nation from the US to the Seychelle's had a nuke,
would the world be a safer place? The very fact that two intensely
hostile towards one another, armed to the teeth, military powers faced
each other in intense competition over a period of 50 years, yet never
went to war [directly] against one another is quite remarkable
history. Why did war not happen? Probably lots of reasons, but I
think having "too terrible" weapons at their disposal was a strong
part of it.

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.

The "too terrible" characterization of nukes may very much be nothing
more than emotionalism. But that may be what makes nukes so potent.

Once upon a time, the cross bow was too terrible. Just before WWI, it
was believed total war would no longer occur because it had become "too
terrible". As we know, we got over those self imposed, "emotional"
restrictions. We'll certainly get over similar limits on nukes at some
point in the future.

But at the moment, the freedom and independence of the US is not weakened
by a definition of nuclear weaponry, using primarily political and
emotional terms, as being "too terrible" to actually be used.


SMH