DescentBB

...it's the first president that will actually use nuclear weapons since Truman- Hillary.

WNU Editor: Just an impression .... based on no facts but a gut feeling .... but after watching tonight's U.S. Presidential debate I had a flash that Hillary Clinton .... if elected President, will be the first since President Truman to use nuclear weapons.

I have that gut feeling myself.

http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.ch/2016/ ... ty-of.html

Try taking Gas-X.

(We just ignoring which of those two people flat-out said that he was okay with using nuclear weapons?)

Did you know there are different classes of nuclear weapons and some of them are nothing like the bone-melting, irradiating monsters of the 20th Century? Not that I want anyone to detonate nukes, but there are ones in the <kiloton range that definitely have tactical use in battle (if it ever came to that, which I hope it never does). When talking about nuclear weapons it is important to ask "which type nuclear weapon?"

I am fully aware of the physics behind nuclear weapons, and I am also fully aware of the massive symbolic baggage that said weapons carry. They CANNOT be used again. Period.

Well, that's kind of dumb.

Trying to justify using a WMD based on it's size is a bit like trying to justify mass murder because the victim count is less than five.

and besides, if one is thinking of using a <1 kT nuclear warhead in battle, there are conventional bombs that can do the job just as well.

Top Gun wrote:I am fully aware of the physics behind nuclear weapons, and I am also fully aware of the massive symbolic baggage that said weapons carry. They CANNOT be used again. Period.

Exactly. Once one is used, all the rest will shortly follow.

As a pacifist who is also anti-gun, please don't misunderstand my comment as an endorsement for nuclear weapons. I am simply saying that, as unlikely as it is, there may be a time when a low yield nuke is the best tool for the job. Our reaction should be based on the specific use case.

If the yield is low enough, we already have conventional options that can essentially level a city block. If the yield gets any greater, then you're getting into WMD territory, which is (justifiably) viewed as verboten.

Top Gun wrote:If the yield is low enough, we already have conventional options that can essentially level a city block. If the yield gets any greater, then you're getting into WMD territory, which is (justifiably) viewed as verboten.

I totally agree and I can think of very few cases where a low-yield tactical nuke would be appropriate. That said, depending on the situation I don't think using a nuke would immediately result in all-out thermonuclear war. Of course, I think there are far more and better options available and the chance of anyone using nukes in the 21st Century are slim to none. Having nukes and talking about them is more about bravado than anything else.

There is no practical use even for low yield tactical nukes in warfare. They are very much a solution looking for a problem.

vision wrote:

Top Gun wrote:If the yield is low enough, we already have conventional options that can essentially level a city block. If the yield gets any greater, then you're getting into WMD territory, which is (justifiably) viewed as verboten.

I totally agree and I can think of very few cases where a low-yield tactical nuke would be appropriate. That said, depending on the situation I don't think using a nuke would immediately result in all-out thermonuclear war. Of course, I think there are far more and better options available and the chance of anyone using nukes in the 21st Century are slim to none. Having nukes and talking about them is more about bravado than anything else.

Well no, I don't think other countries would immediately lob Armageddon at us if we happened to use a very low-yield tactical nuke somewhere (which like Krom said would have no practical purpose), but it would most certainly be a Very Bad Thing in every sense of the word, and would immediately make us an international pariah.