Page 1 of 1
Ok...this is seriously Effed up
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:53 am
by Nightshade
Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told
Ian Traynor in Brussels
Tuesday January 22, 2008
The Guardian
A Trident missile
A British Trident missile. Photograph: AP
The west must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the \"imminent\" spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, according to a radical manifesto for a new Nato by five of the west's most senior military officers and strategists.
Calling for root-and-branch reform of Nato and a new pact drawing the US, Nato and the European Union together in a \"grand strategy\" to tackle the challenges of an increasingly brutal world, the former armed forces chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands insist that a \"first strike\" nuclear option remains an \"indispensable instrument\" since there is \"simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world\".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/nato/story/0,,2244782,00.html
And not long after this little fun little bit was announced:
Russia ready to use nuclear weapons if threatened - army chief
MOSCOW, January 19 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's top military commander said on Saturday that the country is prepared to use its nuclear weapons to defend itself and allies in the event of a severe external threat.
The Chief of the Russian General Staff, Gen. Yury Baluyevsky, told a conference at the Academy of Military Sciences in Moscow: \"We do not intend to attack anyone, but consider it necessary that all our partners clearly understand, and that no one has any doubts, that the Armed Forces will be used to protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, including preventative action, and including the use of nuclear weapons.\"
Baluyevsky's comments come amid growing tensions between Russia and NATO over the alliance's expansion into the former Eastern Bloc, the United States' plans to deploy missile defense elements in Poland and the Czech Republic, and Moscow's increasingly assertive military stance.
Russia resumed strategic bomber patrol flights over the Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic oceans last August, and on December 12, 2007 imposed a unilateral moratorium on the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, a key arms reduction pact.
Baluyevsky said that in order to protect Russia's interests, military force \"can and must be used\" when \"all other means prove ineffective.\"
Programs to develop Russia's military must be closely linked to national fiscal planning, \"taking into account the state's economic resources,\" he said.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080119/97339084.html
Throw in a little Iran...a little bit of Kosovo/Serbia...maybe a sprinkle of Pakistan/India...hrm.
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:47 am
by AlphaDoG
Hell let's throw in N./S. Korea.
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:01 am
by Gekko71
How disturbingly tragic (and chilling) that McNamara's lessons in The Fog Of War still remain unheeded.
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:30 pm
by Cuda68
I grew up with these threats. They have been around a long, long time. I was taught at a very early age how to place my head between my legs and kiss my butt good bye. But that was 45 years ago. Not sure I can do it anymore. Besides, I really doubt anyone would go that far, except for terrorists. But wait, that means Bush may have been right about the world all along. That should light a few fires under someones craw
Re: Ok...this is seriously Effed up
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:26 pm
by TechPro
ThunderBunny wrote:
Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told
Russia ready to use nuclear weapons if threatened - army chief
Well ... DUH !
If you've got nuclear weapons,
of course you'll have them in mind as an option should you feel threatened.
I see nothing new here. It's all old stuff that was a national worry when I was a kid ... and we're still breathing. Let's move on.
Remember, "Duck and cover!" (that'll work everytime)
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:26 pm
by Nightshade
The difference here is the term \"preemption.\"
There was a pledge of \"no first use\" of nuclear weapons. It appears that this pledge has been thrown out- this is a big difference, Tech.
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:59 pm
by WillyP
No, nothing new. Pre-emptive threats, is what it really is. What difference does it make?
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 pm
by Ford Prefect
TB: I strongly suggest you read \"House of War\" by James Carroll.
and get some perspective on what you read.
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:08 pm
by Dedman
I see no major difference between the “pre-emptive” use of nukes and using them after the fact. The result is most likely nuclear winter. The rest is just semantics.
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:27 pm
by Krom
I wonder if anyone has seriously calculated how many nukes it would take before there would really be a \"nuclear winter\" and how long it would last if we surface detonated the worlds entire arsenal.
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:13 pm
by Duper
I'm not sure that is possible. Not accurately at least. there is a variable of the amount of soil that would be thrown into the atmosphere along with the amount of debris caused from the blast itself. That all depends of course on altitude of detonation.
i would imagine that the time span in which they were detonated would matter also. i.e. all at once (hypothetically) within a few minutes, over a day or number of hours or over a week.
The same goes with the amount of tonnage of pollution. It's always delivered on the news in stunning, nicely packaged numbers. But I would surmise that those numbers are at best a rough estimate.
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:24 pm
by Nightshade
Compared to a volcanic eruption, a nuclear war would be a fart in the wind in comparison. The real damage/danger would be in the fallout. \"Nuclear winter\" is a laugh...it's like saying you're afraid of inhaling the smoke from the gun that shot you.
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:25 am
by Ferno
\"slappy is just acting out. He hasn't had a beating from his parents lately.\"
