Support NeoGAF

[Instigator]

This might not be new for some of you but the story keep resurfacing.

And though originally from Agence France Presse, I trusted Common Dreams to have their own version posted so that we can all finally have our *Common Dreams Circle Jerk Thread* with extra patting on our backs and sanctimonuous exchanges. I nominate Raoul Duke as the main speaker for this thread.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0911-02.htm

Draft US Defense Paper Outlines Preventive Nuclear Strikes

A new draft US defense paper calls for preventive nuclear strikes against state and non-state adversaries in order to deter them from using weapons of mass destruction and urges US troops to "prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively."

Archive picture of a US nuclear bomb exploding over Nagasaki, Japan, on August 9, 1945. A new draft US defense paper calls for preventive nuclear strikes against state and non-state adversaries in order to deter them from using weapons of mass destruction and urges US troops to 'prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively.' (AFP/File)

The document, titled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" and dated March 15, was put together by the Pentagon's Joint Staff in at attempt to adapt current procedures to the fast-changing world after the September 11, 2001, attacks, said a defense official.

But the official, who spoke to AFP late Saturday on condition of anonymity, said it has not yet been signed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and thus has not been made official policy.

"It's in the process of being considered," the official said.

A copy of the draft obtained by AFP urges US theater force commanders operating around the world to prepare specific plans for using nuclear weapons in their regions -- and outlines scenarios, under which it would be justified to seek presidential approval for a nuclear strike.

They include an adversary using or planning to use weapons of mass destruction against US or allied forces as well as civilian populations.

Preventive nuclear strikes could also be employed to destroy a biological weapons arsenal belonging to an enemy, if there is no possibility to take it out with conventional weapons and it is determined the enemy is poised for a biological attack, according to the draft.

They could also be seen as justified to destroy deep, hardened bunkers containing enemy chemical or biological weapons or the command and control infrastructure required to execute a chemical, biological or nuclear attack.

However, a number of scenarios allow nuclear strikes without enemy weapons of mass destruction in the equation.

They could be used, for instance, to counter potentially overwhelming conventional adversaries, to secure a rapid end of a war on US terms, or simply "to ensure success of US and multinational operations," the document indicates.

In the context of the US-led "war on terror", the draft explicitly warns that any attempt by a hostile power to hand over weapons of mass destruction to militant groups to enable them to strike a devastating blow against the United States will likely trigger a US nuclear response against the culprit.

Regional US commanders may request presidential approval to go nuclear "to respond to adversary-supplied WMD use by surrogates against US and multinational forces or civilian populations," the draft says.

The doctrine also gives the Pentagon the green light to deploy nuclear weapons to parts of the world where their future use is considered the most likely and urges troops to constantly train for nuclear warfare.

"To maximize deterrence of WMD use, it is essential US forces prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively and that US forces are determined to employ nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use," the document states.

The doctrine surfaced after the US Congress moved over the past several months to revive a controversial weapons research program aimed at enabling the US military to conduct precision nuclear strikes against hardened underground facilities.

In separate measures, both the Senate and the House of Representatives approved four million dollars for fiscal 2006 to study the feasibility of the so-called Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, also known as the "bunker-buster" bomb, a program that was interrupted last year under intense international and domestic criticism.

Moreover, under the 2002 Moscow Treaty, the United States will be able to retain up to 2,200 operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads all the way through 2012.

The doctrine reminds that while first use of nuclear weapons may draw condemnation, "no customary or conventional international law prohibits nations from employing nuclear weapons in armed conflict."

This boggles the mind. The potential for abuse is enormous, under any BS pretense and the US will likely be the only country to ever used nukes on others, not just the first one to use them.

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

Geez man...using nukes you sons of bitches, nukes?!!

 

[Christoff Yurievich]

so we can have all the nukes we want but we don't want them to have any (Iran, etc) in case they want to retaliate...does that sound about right?

 

[LegendofJoe]

This sickens me. Did people just all of a sudden forget what happened at Hiroshima?

 

[Deleted member 1235]

that is fucking bananas. whichever country lets off one of those things first deserves to go down. holy shit what a nutcase idea.

 

[123rl]

So the US can nuke countries as a threat? For what?

"We'll nuke you so you won't think of nuking us?"

Yeah, that'll work! We'll have World War 3 by 2008

 

[whytemyke]

yayyyy... fireworks!

 

[goodcow]

that is fucking bananas. whichever country lets off one of those things first deserves to go down. holy shit what a nutcase idea.

 

[olimario]

the U.S. should never use nukes.
I'm glad we have a stockpile and I'm in full support of limiting the amount of countries who do have them, but fuck, we can't go nuke somebody.

 

[Instigator]

The part about nuking an enemy with overwhelming conventional force will sound like the Chinese entering the Korean War to history buffs.

 

[LegendofJoe]

The part about nuking an enemy with overwhelming conventional force will sound like the Chinese entering the Korean War to history buffs.

That is exactly what came to my mind when I read that.

 

[whytemyke]

The part about nuking an enemy with overwhelming conventional force will sound like the Chinese entering the Korean War to history buffs.

I believe it does pertain to a DPRK move on Seoul through the DMZ. The latest JTF wargame put estimates of US Casualties from such a move as 10,000 within the first 40 hours. I had a friend who was doing his AT for Reserves during that game and had to assist, and he said it was phenomenal, just watching entire infantry units evaporate, literally evaporate.

Basically the DPRK artillery fucked up our conventional forces insanely, and ours was no good because we were hitting them but they'd already have people on our artillery units by the time we could adjust. Our Air superiority is the only thing that kept the casualties as low as 10,000 in that first 1 and 3/4ths days.

In this situation, I could see us using tactical nuclear warheads on the DMZ to keep the DPRK from crossing and wiping us out like that.

 

[Phoenix]

In this situation, I could see us using tactical nuclear warheads on the DMZ to keep the DPRK from crossing and wiping us out like that.

There are nuclear mines buried in the DMZ actually, and there may still be some buried in parts of western Europe. The plan in both of these cases was to use the nukes to slow the advance of enemy forces as well as attrit supply lines necessary to maintain operations. Once you destroy the lines of supply or make them hellish to travel through, overwhelming conventional force doesn't matter as much as most military vehicles require insane amounts of fuel and ground units will require considerable consumable resources in order to press their advance.

There are many vehicles that are sealed to move through this environment (most modern battle tanks for example), but your average supply vehicle is going to have a tough time moving through rough irradiated terrain.

 

[Deku]

It's a sound strategy.

 

[Shinobi]

Looks like I need to hasten my planned move to Greenland...

 

[Triumph]

It's a sound strategy.

I'M SHOCKED AND APALLED

Ok, really just apalled. Coming from you that's not so shocking.

*cue 1,000 word response justifying stupidity*

 

[FightyF]

It's a sound strategy.

According to your logic, the 9/11 attacks were sound strategy as well, right? I mean, because the US could have nuked Al Qaeda bases in 2011, so it was a good idea to have a pre-emptive strike that will result in a lot of collateral damage, am I correct? Sheesh!

I question intelligence sometimes on this board...but what's worse is that sometimes I'm forced to question morality and the humanity of some other people.

 

[Diablos]

the U.S. should never use nukes.
I'm glad we have a stockpile and I'm in full support of limiting the amount of countries who do have them, but fuck, we can't go nuke somebody.

You voted for this shit. So I don't want to hear it. Hopefully you will think about what party you will go with in 2008 regardless of how poor you think the candidate is.

 

[Nameless]

"Nuke'em.....Nuke The Bastards"

 

[whytemyke]

What politician in his right mind would let 10,000 of their troops die in order to keep the people attacking them alive? A large-yield weapon just gets the job done cheaper and without thousands of soldiers lost.

I know the idea of nukes is apalling to many, many people, but should they have to be used, a situation such as the one I described against the DPRK is one in which I would wholeheartedly support it.

 

[karasu]

What politician in his right mind would let 10,000 of their troops die in order to keep the civilians that aren't attacking them alive?

yeah.

 

[whytemyke]

yeah.

did you even study what I wrote? The intel I have says that the civillian casualties in the area where tactical nuclear weapons would be used, the DMZ, is minimal at best. I'm not advocating redoing Hiroshima all over again (although if I had to make the decision today that they did back then, knowing what I do now, I'd readily do it), but if nuking a foreign military with a small amount of civillian casualties is going to end a conflict in 30 minutes which would end with hundreds of thousands of deaths and even more civillian casualties over months, I don't know a single person in charge who wouldn't use nukes to finish it fast.

 

[FightyF]

Losing 10,000 soldiers, that's NOTHING. Once that number gets to 50,000+ THEN you have a situation to consider nuking a country that doesn't and never had the capability to attack your nation...but 10,000? In 3-4 days? Please!

Nasser took out 17,000 of his own civilians overnight...10,000 over 3-4 days...C'mon![/G.O.B.]

 

[Nerevar]

OUR WORDS ARE BACKED WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

 

[DJ Snackcake]

theres only one solution.....

ROCK FLUTE!!!!

ZOMG!!

 

[Whimsical Phil]

The only winning move is not to play.

 

[Forgotten_Taco]

The only winning move is not to play.

That's a bad analogy, whose ever turn it is next wins. You get an F in analogies.

 

[Shompola]

did you even study what I wrote? The intel I have says that the civillian casualties in the area where tactical nuclear weapons would be used, the DMZ, is minimal at best. I'm not advocating redoing Hiroshima all over again (although if I had to make the decision today that they did back then, knowing what I do now, I'd readily do it), but if nuking a foreign military with a small amount of civillian casualties is going to end a conflict in 30 minutes which would end with hundreds of thousands of deaths and even more civillian casualties over months, I don't know a single person in charge who wouldn't use nukes to finish it fast.

Maybe the zealots in charge of NK are thinking about a similiar scenario. NK attacks SK, USA protects SK by attack NK, NK nukes the crap out of SK, american troops and itself in the process. Or USA nukes NK and NK retaliates with nukes. Your reasoning is extremely dangerous.

 

[suaveric]

I'm not sure why everyone is appalled. This has been the idea since we first invented nukes. To inflict massive casualties with a minimal amount of our own. Obviously a last resort, but I wouldn't want the weapon taken off the table.

According to your logic, the 9/11 attacks were sound strategy as well, right? I mean, because the US could have nuked Al Qaeda bases in 2011, so it was a good idea to have a pre-emptive strike that will result in a lot of collateral damage, am I correct? Sheesh!

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, but the 9/11 attacks were a sound strategy for al Qaeda.

 

[Phoenix]

did you even study what I wrote? The intel I have says that the civillian casualties in the area where tactical nuclear weapons would be used, the DMZ, is minimal at best. I'm not advocating redoing Hiroshima all over again (although if I had to make the decision today that they did back then, knowing what I do now, I'd readily do it), but if nuking a foreign military with a small amount of civillian casualties is going to end a conflict in 30 minutes which would end with hundreds of thousands of deaths and even more civillian casualties over months, I don't know a single person in charge who wouldn't use nukes to finish it fast.

If you drop nukes on a country - any country, its pretty much a given that the conflict will last more than 30 minutes. Using WMD is a lose lose proposition for everyone involved because the use of any one type opens the floodgates for the use of the other types, and any of those will make New Orleans pale in comparison.

 

[FightyF]

I'm not sure why everyone is appalled. This has been the idea since we first invented nukes. To inflict massive casualties with a minimal amount of our own. Obviously a last resort, but I wouldn't want the weapon taken off the table.

I agree with your last statement, and that is the very reason why everyone is appalled. You need them because it is a great deterrent for others to even think about striking your country with their own nuclear weapons. But when it comes to attacking countries that don't have the ability to attack yours, just because you want to achieve your own personal objectives and gains, it's appalling.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, but the 9/11 attacks were a sound strategy for al Qaeda.

Not really, it made things far worse for them. In the same manner, if the US nuked another country that was relatively harmless, that country will have people hell bent on making the US pay, even decades after dropping the nuke.

 

[suaveric]

I agree with your last statement, and that is the very reason why everyone is appalled. You need them because it is a great deterrent for others to even think about striking your country with their own nuclear weapons. But when it comes to attacking countries that don't have the ability to attack yours, just because you want to achieve your own personal objectives and gains, it's appalling.

No where in that story does it say the US is just going to drop nukes on anyone for no good reason. It says that nukes would be used against things like overwhelming forces. Which was the original idea behind nukes. They were made to be used in certain situations. Now their main purpose is deterrence, but they still can work as originally intended.

Not really, it made things far worse for them. In the same manner, if the US nuked another country that was relatively harmless, that country will have people hell bent on making the US pay, even decades after dropping the nuke.

Al Qaeda was only going to get one free shot like 9/11. Outside of using a WMD, they did the "best" they could. Things were going to turn bad for them afterwards no matter what, and I'm sure they knew that.

 

[whytemyke]

Maybe the zealots in charge of NK are thinking about a similiar scenario. NK attacks SK, USA protects SK by attack NK, NK nukes the crap out of SK, american troops and itself in the process. Or USA nukes NK and NK retaliates with nukes. Your reasoning is extremely dangerous.

That's why it's not our first line of defense and is only implemented in nations which we know for a fact have no WMD programs.

If you drop nukes on a country - any country, its pretty much a given that the conflict will last more than 30 minutes. Using WMD is a lose lose proposition for everyone involved because the use of any one type opens the floodgates for the use of the other types, and any of those will make New Orleans pale in comparison.

See above. And the conflict wouldn't last much longer, because when you decide to nuke them and take that route, you make sure that anything or anyone that may even be interested in looking poorly at you from the other side of the DMZ is burned up in the blast radius, too. You use them to accomplish your goal-- protect your troops from certain devastation.

Now, would we really use them in a DPRK/SK/USA scenario? Probably not. Too much ethnic identification between the south and north, too much global political blowback, and too many chinese to be angry at us. Don't really wanna give the PRC any reason to go and pick a fight with us. But you can rest assured that our military commanders would like to have that option should they be caught in a situation where there's no carrier group nearby and we end up having to take on 200,000 men with only the troops there w/o air support. I couldn't imagine the deathcount it'd take to seize korea back from the DPRK were they to wipe out most of our forces in theater and get a strong foothold in the country. Basically, if you thought Normandy was bad...

 

[Phoenix]

That's why it's not our first line of defense and is only implemented in nations which we know for a fact have no WMD programs.

See above. And the conflict wouldn't last much longer, because when you decide to nuke them and take that route, you make sure that anything or anyone that may even be interested in looking poorly at you from the other side of the DMZ is burned up in the blast radius, too. You use them to accomplish your goal-- protect your troops from certain devastation.

That's foolishness. As soon as the prevailing winds blow south you'll lose many of your troops, they will still be able to respond with biological weapons from missile bases in their country static and mobile. The use of nuclear weapons does not prevent the use of other weapons, and heaven help you when the fallout starts landing in China. The use of any WMD (with the possible exception of certain types of chemical variants) pretty much guarantees a significant response from not only the countries you attacked, but also the countries that were impacted (who might have told you not to do it to begin with).

Lets not forget, also, that Seoul is a scant 30 miles from the DMZ as well so your weapon choice is likely to have countless innocents in Seoul sitting under toxic/irradiated air within hours of your attack. You're going to kill the people you're trying to protect?

Now, would we really use them in a DPRK/SK/USA scenario? Probably not. Too much ethnic identification between the south and north, too much global political blowback, and too many chinese to be angry at us. Don't really wanna give the PRC any reason to go and pick a fight with us. But you can rest assured that our military commanders would like to have that option should they be caught in a situation where there's no carrier group nearby and we end up having to take on 200,000 men with only the troops there w/o air support. I couldn't imagine the deathcount it'd take to seize korea back from the DPRK were they to wipe out most of our forces in theater and get a strong foothold in the country. Basically, if you thought Normandy was bad...

There is ALWAYS a carrier battle group nearby and a significant surface force sitting at Japan - the problem will simply be one of numbers. If NK starts coming through the DMZ, you will endure significant casualties - and a lot of those are likely to come from artillery and ballistic missiles which NK has a metric assload of ... all over the border. Now you can tac-nuke that region (and it will take more than one... its a BIG region) and eliminate most of it, but if you think that it will end with those strikes, you're kidding yourself.

 

[Vennt]

The day the US uses any of it's nukes, is the day it' will lose all respect from the rest of the civilized and uncivilzed world.

World wars have started over lesser shit, do we *really* think it would be impossible to start another?

 

[xabre]

Hardliners in the Regan administration had tossed around the idea of a pre-emptive Nuclear strike on the USSR for a time as well so this sort of thing isn’t new. This is all part of the reason why many countries around the world from Venezuela to Cuba and North Korea to Iran are particularly paranoid about the US, and I think they have good reason to be.

 

[scorcho]

this is the perfect reason why we need strong civilan oversight/control of the military, which is what Rumsfeld and Bush should be. its in the military's best interest to highten paranoia and emphasize a constant ready-state as it'll increase budget resources, supplies and influence in the administration. they should never be in the position to dictate or influence a political doctrine.

 

[Scrow]

AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!

USA! USA! USA!

 

[whytemyke]

That's foolishness. As soon as the prevailing winds blow south you'll lose many of your troops, they will still be able to respond with biological weapons from missile bases in their country static and mobile. The use of nuclear weapons does not prevent the use of other weapons, and heaven help you when the fallout starts landing in China. The use of any WMD (with the possible exception of certain types of chemical variants) pretty much guarantees a significant response from not only the countries you attacked, but also the countries that were impacted (who might have told you not to do it to begin with).

Lets not forget, also, that Seoul is a scant 30 miles from the DMZ as well so your weapon choice is likely to have countless innocents in Seoul sitting under toxic/irradiated air within hours of your attack. You're going to kill the people you're trying to protect?



There is ALWAYS a carrier battle group nearby and a significant surface force sitting at Japan - the problem will simply be one of numbers. If NK starts coming through the DMZ, you will endure significant casualties - and a lot of those are likely to come from artillery and ballistic missiles which NK has a metric assload of ... all over the border. Now you can tac-nuke that region (and it will take more than one... its a BIG region) and eliminate most of it, but if you think that it will end with those strikes, you're kidding yourself.

Well, I'd have to see the numbers estimates of what you're saying before I change my opinion. If the prevailing winds take it out to sea and not south towards Seoul, well, then I don't see the problem with attacks along the DMZ. And don't forget what I said about this having to be coupled with immense attacks to take out every NK missile site that we know about... that's the only way for this to work.

Plus, the US forces in theater (japan) wouldn't do shit. I think we've got roughly 15,000 marines stationed there, primarily for MP duty, and they wouldn't even be able to mobilize fast enough for anything but a counteroffensive after NK took Seoul. But once you expend ships to go get them and bring them, you're cutting your carrier group in half.

Simply put for my stance: the entire NK thing is a horrible situation which could become even worse, and I'm not gonna cut the military off at the knees by saying no nukes allowed.

And for the record, I somehow doubt the rest of the world would do shit but bitch and moan if we used nukes again. Lets be honest here... if they let us get away with something as vile as using depleted uranium rounds in Desert Storm to turn our army into Genome Soldiers

Spoiler

kidding

, then what makes anyone think anyone will take a stand on small tactical battlefield nukes in an area of operation? I'm not saying it won't happen, the rest of the world doing more than whining about it, I'm just saying it isn't an absolute.

 

[Phoenix]

Well, I'd have to see the numbers estimates of what you're saying before I change my opinion. If the prevailing winds take it out to sea and not south towards Seoul, well, then I don't see the problem with attacks along the DMZ. And don't forget what I said about this having to be coupled with immense attacks to take out every NK missile site that we know about... that's the only way for this to work.

So then you're nuking locations all over north korea. You're talking about a pretty large strike from convention and or nuclear forces. The NK military isn't all huddled up next to the DMZ.

Plus, the US forces in theater (japan) wouldn't do shit. I think we've got roughly 15,000 marines stationed there, primarily for MP duty, and they wouldn't even be able to mobilize fast enough for anything but a counteroffensive after NK took Seoul. But once you expend ships to go get them and bring them, you're cutting your carrier group in half.

United States Forces Japan, or USFJ, refers to the various divisions of the United States Armed Forces that are stationed in Japan. There are currently 47,000 U.S. military personnel in Japan, and another 5,500 American civilians employed there by the United States Department of Defense.

By the terms of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security, USFJ is responsible for the security of the Japanese archipelago past its 12-nmi territorial waters. Within this limit, the Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) are responsible for security.

The USFJ headquarters is at Yokota Air Base, about 30 km west of central Tokyo. The main USFJ bases are:

United States Air Force:

Kadena Air Base, Okinawa Prefecture
Misawa Air Base, Misawa, Aomori Prefecture
Yokota Air Base, Fussa, Tokyo
United States Army:

Fort Buckner, Okinawa
Camp Zama-Kastner AAF, Zama, Kanagawa prefecture
United States Marine Corps:

Camp Butler, Okinawa
Camp Courtney, Okinawa
Camp Foster, Okinawa
MCAS Futenma, Okinawa
Camp Hansen, Okinawa
Ie Jima AAF, Okinawa
MCAS Iwakuni, Iwakuni, Yamaguchi prefecture
Camp Kuwae, Okinawa
Camp Lester, Okinawa
Camp McTureous, Okinawa
Camp Schwab, Okinawa
Camp Shields, Okinawa
Camp Zukeran, Okinawa
United States Navy:

NAF Atsugi, Atsugi, Kanagawa prefecture
Sasebo Naval Base, Sasebo, Nagasaki prefecture
Yokosuka Naval Base, Yokosuka, Kanagawa prefecture

There is also no need for anything from a carrier battle group to go back and get anyone from Japan as none of the ships in those battlegroups have that sealift capability anyways. The carrier battle group consists of the carrier and various cruisers, frigates, submarines, destroyers, and assorted support vessels that can operate independently. They would be involved in active attacks on any encroaching enemy forces while our subs kill their subs and then start cruise missiling targets inland. USFJ has its own lift capability by both sea and air to transport its forces in-theater.

Simply put for my stance: the entire NK thing is a horrible situation which could become even worse, and I'm not gonna cut the military off at the knees by saying no nukes allowed.

I would, because like Lays Potato chips - no country will eat "just one". To pull off the strategy you're talking about would require considerable strikes all over the country - including several population centers close to the DMZ in order to destroy the entire ballistic missile capability of NK.

And for the record, I somehow doubt the rest of the world would do shit but bitch and moan if we used nukes again. Lets be honest here... if they let us get away with something as vile as using depleted uranium rounds in Desert Storm to turn our army into Genome Soldiers

Spoiler

kidding

, then what makes anyone think anyone will take a stand on small tactical battlefield nukes in an area of operation? I'm not saying it won't happen, the rest of the world doing more than whining about it, I'm just saying it isn't an absolute.

There is a HUGE difference between using depleted uranium rounds and dropping tactical nuclear (of the 100KT - 1MT variety) all over North Korea. You start dropping nukes on people and it escalates very quickly from a regional conflict to a theater-wide one which encompasses all of east Asia.

 

[whytemyke]

So then you're nuking locations all over north korea. You're talking about a pretty large strike from convention and or nuclear forces. The NK military isn't all huddled up next to the DMZ.






There is also no need for anything from a carrier battle group to go back and get anyone from Japan as none of the ships in those battlegroups have that sealift capability anyways. The carrier battle group consists of the carrier and various cruisers, frigates, submarines, destroyers, and assorted support vessels that can operate independently. They would be involved in active attacks on any encroaching enemy forces while our subs kill their subs and then start cruise missiling targets inland. USFJ has its own lift capability by both sea and air to transport its forces in-theater.




I would, because like Lays Potato chips - no country will eat "just one". To pull off the strategy you're talking about would require considerable strikes all over the country - including several population centers close to the DMZ in order to destroy the entire ballistic missile capability of NK.



There is a HUGE difference between using depleted uranium rounds and dropping tactical nuclear (of the 100KT - 1MT variety) all over North Korea. You start dropping nukes on people and it escalates very quickly from a regional conflict to a theater-wide one which encompasses all of east Asia.

Well first off, understand that I'm not saying use nukes all over the country. I'm saying use conventional attacks where it needs to be done and nukes to get what we can't normally get... like the DMZ area, or surface piercing bunker busters with nuclear warheads attatched. I'm not saying to nuke Pyongyang in order to wipe out a few missiles. I'd want them hit with conventional weapons, maybe even that damn MOAB.

And tactical nukes which I'm talking about are NOT 100KT nukes. I'm referring to the little ones we've got for field use (I forget what they're called... Frogs, or jumpers, I believe? Little 1-5KT nukes fired from howitzers).

And the Japanese troop numbers, I know we USED to have that much, but I was pretty certain that Bush decreased that considerably because of Afghanistan/Iraq. how old are those numbers? If they're up to date, then naturally we do have enough troops in theater to put up a stand, and I'll concede that point.

 

[Phoenix]

Well first off, understand that I'm not saying use nukes all over the country. I'm saying use conventional attacks where it needs to be done and nukes to get what we can't normally get... like the DMZ area, or surface piercing bunker busters with nuclear warheads attatched. I'm not saying to nuke Pyongyang in order to wipe out a few missiles. I'd want them hit with conventional weapons, maybe even that damn MOAB.

US forces would fight a withdrawl south of Korea (according to the OPPLAN) and hold until reinforcements arrived and in their numbers, they have the ability to do that unless NK uses chemical or biological weapons, at which point IMO its okay to respond in kind - but until you get to that point, you use your conventional forces - stage in Japan and then proceed to remove NK as a future threat.... which of course China will have some issues with because as much as they are some time annoyed by NK, they absolutely don't want a new western power huddled up against their borders.

And tactical nukes which I'm talking about are NOT 100KT nukes. I'm referring to the little ones we've got for field use (I forget what they're called... Frogs, or jumpers, I believe? Little 1-5KT nukes fired from howitzers).

So roughly half of Hiroshima is okay (yield at 10KT) for field weapons? Sorry if I disagree with that as a valid use for artillery weaponry which fire in volleys on the battlefield. Nuclear weapons should always be reserved at a weapon of deterrent to prevent the use of WMD, not a weapons of 'common use'. But even if the supposed use takes place - you're going to advance forces through it to go after Pyongyang because the stated goal of all of the OPPLANs related to Korea is the unquestioned toppling of the NK government as a player in our twisted game of Civ.

And the Japanese troop numbers, I know we USED to have that much, but I was pretty certain that Bush decreased that considerably because of Afghanistan/Iraq. how old are those numbers? If they're up to date, then naturally we do have enough troops in theater to put up a stand, and I'll concede that point.

Those numbers are about a month old.

 

[whytemyke]

US forces would fight a withdrawl south of Korea (according to the OPPLAN) and hold until reinforcements arrived and in their numbers, they have the ability to do that unless NK uses chemical or biological weapons, at which point IMO its okay to respond in kind - but until you get to that point, you use your conventional forces - stage in Japan and then proceed to remove NK as a future threat.... which of course China will have some issues with because as much as they are some time annoyed by NK, they absolutely don't want a new western power huddled up against their borders.




So roughly half of Hiroshima is okay (yield at 10KT) for field weapons? Sorry if I disagree with that as a valid use for artillery weaponry which fire in volleys on the battlefield. Nuclear weapons should always be reserved at a weapon of deterrent to prevent the use of WMD, not a weapons of 'common use'. But even if the supposed use takes place - you're going to advance forces through it to go after Pyongyang because the stated goal of all of the OPPLANs related to Korea is the unquestioned toppling of the NK government as a player in our twisted game of Civ.




Those numbers are about a month old.

Ok. Per the withdrawal to the OPPLAN, it'd basically be like what they described in Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, is that what you're saying? I'm not knocking you or being a dick by bringing that game up.... just wondered cuz in the game the plan was to retreat and get out of the way and let the DPRK roll through, take Seoul, then form up behind them with the entire 2ID and whatever else they could scrap together, cutting off supply lines, etc.

Anyways, I thought the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was only like half a kiloton? I'm almost positive that's what I read somewhere... it's irrelevant really. Most of the damage done in deaths in Hiroshima was in the radiation poisoning. I know it was devastating.

It's not like I'm hoping we have to use nukes on anyone. I really don't want to see anybody get nuked. All I'm really saying is that I can see it being part of our strategy, should the right circumstances be used. Suppose China moves with the DPRK to take Seoul... do you still sit and wait to get pushed off the peninsula while your backup arrives? Oh well... hypotheticals are really irrelevant to this debate I guess.

Also, wouldn't the point of having nukes be pointless anyways, as a deterrent, if the enemy looked you in the eye and walked on by? It's kind of pointless to consider nukes a deterrent if they know you're not going to use them.

 

[Phoenix]

Ok. Per the withdrawal to the OPPLAN, it'd basically be like what they described in Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, is that what you're saying? I'm not knocking you or being a dick by bringing that game up.... just wondered cuz in the game the plan was to retreat and get out of the way and let the DPRK roll through, take Seoul, then form up behind them with the entire 2ID and whatever else they could scrap together, cutting off supply lines, etc.

To be honest I have never played the game so I have no idea. The OPPLAN isn't a place, its an operational plan which describes your strategy. There have been plenty of them for NK over the years including some recent ones that involve doing military excercises and flying recon missions repeatedly to make them exhaust their resources and expose their warfare plans so you know how and where to be most effective at attacking.

Anyways, I thought the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was only like half a kiloton? I'm almost positive that's what I read somewhere... it's irrelevant really. Most of the damage done in deaths in Hiroshima was in the radiation poisoning. I know it was devastating.

Today’s nuclear weapons are vastly more destructive than the ones that were used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The hydrogen or fusion bomb is the successor to the atomic or fission bomb. The explosive yield of Hiroshima’s "Little Boy" was equivalent to 12-15 kilotons (12-15 thousand tons) of TNT. Nagasaki’s "Fat Man" was slightly larger at 20-22 kilotons. The maximum explosive yield of a hydrogen bomb actually tested was equivalent to 58 megatons (58 million tons) of TNT.

It's not like I'm hoping we have to use nukes on anyone. I really don't want to see anybody get nuked. All I'm really saying is that I can see it being part of our strategy, should the right circumstances be used. Suppose China moves with the DPRK to take Seoul... do you still sit and wait to get pushed off the peninsula while your backup arrives? Oh well... hypotheticals are really irrelevant to this debate I guess.

Absolutely. That case in particular calls for some operational restraint because China is a rocks throw from being able to nuke several of your allies in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. and they are likely capable of hitting large sections of the west coast of the united states. When you decide to use these 'nasty little killtoys' you need to ask yourself if you're comfortable with a nuclear exchange with another (or several) world power. You can't just plan for the 'initial encounter' you have to plan your way through the success of the operation and the peace/rebuilding that will come afterwards. If the US and China start tossing nukes at each other, you will pretty quickly find yourself in a gloabl conflict as opposed to a theater one.

Also, wouldn't the point of having nukes be pointless anyways, as a deterrent, if the enemy looked you in the eye and walked on by? It's kind of pointless to consider nukes a deterrent if they know you're not going to use them.

The point is that you deter them from using THEIRS by having yours. Nukes and other forms of WMDs are deterrence weapons such that people won't use theirs because they know you'll use yours as well. This keeps the game conventional - which is the way we all want it. If you use WMDs, you can bet your ass that they will use theirs. That's why its not a matter of using them and its all over.

 

[TomStrong]

Why are you people screaming bloody Hiroshima for? The US isn't talking about dropping bombs on civilian targets but on an invading army that is overwhelming them with men and arms. This is totally acceptable in my opinion unless you have a conventional weapon that can do the same thing and can be delivered in a timely and safe manner. So the US is supposed to allow 10,000 of its people die to appease so internet jockeys misguided notions about nuclear weapons.

 

[Phoenix]

Why are you people screaming bloody Hiroshima for? The US isn't talking about dropping bombs on civilian targets but on an invading army that is overwhelming them with men and arms. This is totally acceptable in my opinion unless you have a conventional weapon that can do the same thing and can be delivered in a timely and safe manner. So the US is supposed to allow 10,000 of its people die to appease so internet jockeys misguided notions about nuclear weapons.

Well don't complain when someone drops them on US forces or on the United States, its really that simple.

Its opinions like yours that really scare me, people who think that use of nuclear weapons or any WMD is 'okay' because I'm sure you don't understand the ramifications of that action. T+1 of that action is a significant change in the order of battle for everyone involved and greatly increases the liklihood of Hiroshimas in cities at home and abroad. Is not falling back to the inner tier of the country worth that much?

 

[MC Safety]

Sigh.

This is just a draft you're all worrying and bitching about. It's been approved by no one and if it ever is, it will be thoughtfully filed with all the rest of the plans -- you know, the ones dealing with the invasion of Canada and Mexico, etc...

It's not going to become policy.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled teeth gnashing and clothes rending.

 

[Panajev2001a]

although if I had to make the decision today that they did back then, knowing what I do now, I'd readily do it

Let me say a few thoughts on just this sentence.

Let me universalize this thought of yours:

So, we take NATION A which is at war with NATION B in a war that NATION A believes to be just and for which NATION B MUST be defeated.

Since NATION A cannot easily defeate directly NATION B's military and its government or just cannot defeate directly NATION B's military and its government, NATION A decides to kill many thousands of innocent civilian lives attacking the civilian population of NATION B provoking the expected massive innocent civiliant casualties in order to get the population of NATION B to surrender, take away the support under their government's feet thus pressuring the government to surrender to NATION A.

Strange... wouldn't that be almost also... nah... right ?

bah .

 

[SantaC]

time to bring up this pic again:

 

[TomStrong]

Well don't complain when someone drops them on US forces or on the United States, its really that simple.

Its opinions like yours that really scare me, people who think that use of nuclear weapons or any WMD is 'okay' because I'm sure you don't understand the ramifications of that action. T+1 of that action is a significant change in the order of battle for everyone involved and greatly increases the liklihood of Hiroshimas in cities at home and abroad. Is not falling back to the inner tier of the country worth that much?

WTF so the uses of nuclear weapons are worse that having a large number of your army destroyed and possibly losing a war? You can't be freaking serious. Ok lets say the US doesn't use nukes against a Korean onslaught, and 10,000 soldiers get steamrolled, have you thought about how the rest of the troops remaining would feel, knowing their leaders allowed fellow soldiers die when they could have mitigated that number by using a weapon on the enemy. Plan and simple you'd have mass desertion, surrender and turn coats. There wouldn't be any force left in the inner tier for the reinforcements to hook up with when they got there. Think about what would happen at home when people are told 10,000 of their sons and daughters were allowed to be murdered. This should not be misconstrued as advocating the wanton us of nukes, just to point out that there are some situations in which there use is legitimate.