posted
Iced slurry afficianados of the world unite!
You know what? I don't understand the indignation. I usually do. I'm usually on the side of the Canadians, because I fear them and their chilly arctic ways. But...we're supposed to see something incredibly and uniquely sinister in a government...designing contigency plans? Because how terrible would it be for a nation to be prepared for all possibilities? The horror of planning for unpleasent situations!
I suppose I've just marked myself as an unthinking agent of the American Hegemon, destined to be first against the wall when the revolution comes.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
You know, now that I think about it, US probably has all sorts of contingency plans. There's probably plans to nuke Russian ICMB farms if there's a terrorist take-over, irradiate Washington if there was some uncontrollable outbreak, or level Los Angeles if it gets taken over by giant space creatures shaped like bunnies.
What's truly stupid, is Bush actually telling people there are such things. You do NOT tell people about your contingency plans!
-------------------- "God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Yeah, because we all know his Pentagon advisors, and the heads of the Military, NSA, FBI, CIA, CBS, ABC, FOX, UPN, and Playboy are all golfing and not actively participating in the whole American Fortress of Solitude/Attack those damn Russkies plans. Nor are they paying attention to what the POTUS says.
That silly Bush. Never know when he'll give out the code to Cheyenne, eh?
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
It isn't so much the fact that it has a contingency plan for some kind of crisis that bugs me, Simon... it's moreso the points that are raised in this story.
quote: According to the paper, the report lists three situations in which the weapons could be used.
These include "retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons" and "against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack".
The third category - "in the event of surprising military developments" - is described by the BBC's Washington correspondent, Paul Reynolds, as a "catch-all" clause.
...
The report clearly referred to nuclear arms as a "tool for fighting a war, rather than deterring them", he added.
Anti-nuclear campaigners pointed out that the reported instruction to build new tactical nuclear weapons indicated that the administration of George W Bush was more willing to lift the old taboo on using nuclear weapons except as a last resort.
[ March 10, 2002, 01:14: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
So. . . the other side shouldn't know you possess a weapon that will destroy everyone if you're faced with no other choice (like, say, actually losing and therefore having nothing to lose)?
quote:The third category - "in the event of surprising military developments" - is described by the BBC's Washington correspondent, Paul Reynolds, as a "catch-all" clause.
Personally, I thought "pre-emptive/first strike" scenarios when I read that.
You aren't not suppose tell the PUBLIC about your doomsday machine. You subtly let your enemies know... And they would return the favor.
-------------------- "God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I think the problem is that these plans aren't "What do we do if China/North Korea/Iraq attacks us?". They're "What do we do if China/North Korea/Iraq attacks Taiwan/South Korea/Israel?". Somehow, I doubt that other nations come up w/ "contigency plans" on how to butt into other people's wars.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
There have always been a large number of nuclear attack scenarios considered by the government in the event of nuclear weapons release. Many of the various options have existed since the early days of the Cold War. They've just added a few new possibilities.
Does anybody remember "War Games," at the end, when the computer is running through all the simulations?
That's all these new scenarios are. New simulations for the computers to consider. Russia (or the USSR) has been in the scenarios for years. They know it already. We're in theirs. too. EVERY other non-friendly nuclear power is on that scenario list somewhere.
And with a list of objectors to Kyoto 17.000 scientists long, withdrawing from it was the right thing to do.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, what a surprise, not. I was expecting Rob to dodge the main issues here. Yes, we know these are just contingency plans. I believe someone has already pointed this out. But of course we have to wait for his final word on this subject.
Now, let's see if we can get back on track here, shall we? There's the fact that they're once again looking to develop small-yield tactical nuclear weapons to use as and when they feel like it, and the step away from nuclear weapons as a deterrent, towards being acceptable military assets. Please, someone entertain us by trying to defend the indefensible, and do try to come up with something a bit better than "it's not true, and even if it was true that's too bad because TEH BUSCH ROOLEZ!"
posted
One of the big drawbacks to the 'deterrent' aspect of the threat of the use of nuclear weapons has been the US's demonstrated unwillingness to let anybody ELSE suffer civilian casualties. You can blow up OUR civilians all you like, but if we kill any of yours, accidentally OR deliberately, it guarantees our 'touchy-feely' subculture will have a collective hissy fit.
Maybe we're into preparing more and smaller nukes, because we still want to blow up as little as possible, and it's silly to use 20 megatons when a kiloton will do?
You know, if you want to blow up an enemy camp surrounded by civilian towns and villages, the smaller nuke will suffice, and you'll irradiate less noncombatants. That's what the whole concept of "tactical nuke" was about.
It's good for propaganda purposes too. It shows that WE are the ones willing to use tiny bombs and attack only military targets, while our enemies still want everyone to use big, megadeath-age city-buster bombs.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The problem is that we don't trust the people who have control of the bombs. If all they have is really huge bombs, they might think before blowing stuff up. But if they have these little baby bombs that they can toss about w/ reckless abandon and "minimal" damage, they're likely to be a lot more trigger-happy.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Yeah, on the other hand, our "live with parents until thirty with a massive inferiority complex" subculture usually has a problem if the United States isn't going around acting like a bully and threatening to blow stuff up.
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic