NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush administration has written a new doctrine for nuclear weapons (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, Joint Pub 3-12, 2005), including such policies as "showing the determination to use nuclear weapons".

When the next combat deployment of a nuclear weapon will happen?

I think they're going to blow up that nuclear facility used to make nuclear weapons in Iran, and pretty fast, maybe during the next year or so. The Iranians are not going to back down, because they don't really believe that the US would do anything, just like the US didn't do anything effective with North Korea.

No more nuclear weapons. The world should have learned when two cities where leveled in WW2. That they are a bad thing. No one deserves to have nuclear weapons on them. They are the coldest form of weapon to use. Not only do you kill those in the blast by thousands and potentially millions if the wind is right from fall out.

So the US will hit Iran, and then kill Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and all those others around them from the radiation. Got two birds with one stone. Destroyed a nuclear weapons plant AND you have just killed potentially millions of would be terrorists. The wet dream of the US government.

2010 or later - when we (possibly) eventually make contact with alien races, we'll end up at war with at least one of them, and no doubt we'll try nuking the buggers.

No more nuclear weapons. The world should have learned when two cities where leveled in WW2. That they are a bad thing.
It was the lesser of two evils: either drop the bombs and kill a few hundred thousand Japanese, or face a land invasion and risk millions of Japanese and American lives.

They should serve only as a deterrent.

I think that nuclear weapons will be used....

No need for this. ~Euro

So one nation controls the world. Because if another nation resists there is the chance we will rain fire down upon them?

Or is it because the US military as become so small we can only fight effectively on two fronts? The US could handle three but the forces would be stretched thin. So to keep them from gaining up on our smaller military force we have the threat of tactical nuclear weapons, or in some cases pull out the big guns, the 50+ megaton hydrogen bombs?

I hope to never see the use of such weapons again from the stories I have been told by grandparents on what Hiroshima looked like after the blast.

Mount Arhat, enough with your attacks on the US military. You are really starting to annoy me with it.

Begin to learn some history dude.

As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was necessary to do so. Otherwise, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would've had poison gas dropped on there heads. It was called for in the Invasion plans. Would we have done so? Probably because we wanted to save as many of our lives as possible.

Instead, we dropped the bombs to save millions of Japanese as well as Hundreds of thousands of allied lives.

As for our military... The Army is doing ok, they could be stretched thin but we also have specialized units that can also do the job. The Army and Navy are NOT stretched thin at all.

As for the thread, they won't be used again till we get off our own planet.

(Hopefully) No one in charge of the military cares about what a city might look like after ther have bombed it because cosmetic/moral concerns aren't what the military was put in place to consider. The reason why we haven't all started nuking, then, is because of fears of destroying Earth.
So if off world colonies can become self-supporting whoever is in charge will start flinging nukes about because, hey, who cares about fucking up the planet when you can just go next door and get a new one?

Oh, yes, and your poll option for 2008 makes no sense. The only political party to ever use nukes in the history of mankind was the Democratic party, and the same goes for the people who were in charge and funded the creation of the thing in the first place.

Mount Arhat, enough with your attacks on the US military. You are really starting to annoy me with it.

Begin to learn some history dude.

As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was necessary to do so. Otherwise, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would've had poison gas dropped on there heads. It was called for in the Invasion plans. Would we have done so? Probably because we wanted to save as many of our lives as possible.

Instead, we dropped the bombs to save millions of Japanese as well as Hundreds of thousands of allied lives.

As for our military... The Army is doing ok, they could be stretched thin but we also have specialized units that can also do the job. The Army and Navy are NOT stretched thin at all.

As for the thread, they won't be used again till we get off our own planet.

I know the numbers of what would have happened in the US invaded Japan. 7 million Japanese, 3 million American.

And I was in the military I recieved the briefings on force deployment. At our current strength of 400,000 we can only fight successfully on two fronts. Those are conventional battlefield fronts.

I know the numbers of what would have happened in the US invaded Japan. 7 million Japanese, 3 million American.

What about the Aussies, New Zealanders, Canadians, Brits, and whatever else was joining the United States in invasding.

And I was in the military I recieved the briefings on force deployment. At our current strength of 400,000 we can only fight successfully on two fronts. Those are conventional battlefield fronts.

You do know that we have a hell of alot more than 400,000 troops right? Is that just active duty personel only?

I do not recall the number for our allies or if the 3 million including it.

And we are at number of service men and woman that is below where we where at at the start of WW2. And that is below 400,000. Plus the USAF as just cut back on the number of airmen. I know a friend who as just come home from Germany when he was given the option for reserves since the government wants to cut more. And this is when we are at our lowest strength.

What it comes down to is the only responsible use of nuclear weapons is not to detonate them. Any country that would use a nuclear weapon in combat would be sanctioned by the rest of the world and be forced to eliminate all nuclear weapons stockpiles.

Current thinking would lead one to believe that the use of a nuclear device on any country would constitute an attack on humanity itself. About the only way that a nuclear device could be used would be by an organization that does not value its own survival.

I do not recall the number for our allies or if the 3 million including it.

And we are at number of service men and woman that is below where we where at at the start of WW2. And that is below 400,000. Plus the USAF as just cut back on the number of airmen. I know a friend who as just come home from Germany when he was given the option for reserves since the government wants to cut more. And this is when we are at our lowest strength.

First I have heard about a cutback in US Airmen. My father is in the USAFR. So I am going to have to call for proof of it.

You still hven't answered my question though. Is the 400,000 total active duty personnel of all 4 Branches of services?

Yes I believe so. It may be alittle more or a little less. But I do know for sure it is below 500,000.

Yes I believe so. It may be alittle more or a little less. But I do know for sure it is below 500,000.

So what about the Army Reserve? The Air Force Reserve? The Navy Reserve? The Marine Reserve? What about the Army and Air National Guard?

Edit: Here's a nice breakdown of Total Active Duty Personnel across all branches of service. Total Active Duty Personnel is over a million.

The reserves total even less. Why I say our military strength is below 500,000. It may be higher than 400,000 since those where the figures when I got in around 2001. Soo if they have changed then I admit my ignorance and I will change what I have said.

But to the last of my knowledge we where at a point that was lower than what we had at the start of WW2.

The reserves total even less. Why I say our military strength is below 500,000. It may be higher than 400,000 since those where the figures when I got in around 2001. Soo if they have changed then I admit my ignorance and I will change what I have said.

But to the last of my knowledge we where at a point that was lower than what we had at the start of WW2.

http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/rg0508.pdf

An interesting Chart in regards to Active Duty Personnel.

Maybe it was just the AF then XD.

Maybe it was just the AF then XD.

HAHAHA

BTW: I see nothing on cutting back airmen. I saw an article about cutting re-enlistment bonuses but that is about it. :p

The military was closing down the bases and they cut 20,000 airmen from active duty. My friend was in Germany and he came back because of that.

The military was closing down the bases and they cut 20,000 airmen from active duty. My friend was in Germany and he came back because of that.

They also did the same for Army, Navy, and marines too. My Dad's base was on the hitlist too. Read my signature for that result!

Its called consolidation.

Bush administration has written a new doctrine for nuclear weapons (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, Joint Pub 3-12, 2005), including such policies as "showing the determination to use nuclear weapons".

Determination? Sounds more like desperation to me. The ultimate in bread and circuses, really.

If they do use a nuke for show-and-tell America to gawk at, expect it'll be filmed from as many different angles as possible.

Bums on seats, laddy, bums on seats.

It was the lesser of two evils: either drop the bombs and kill a few hundred thousand Japanese, or face a land invasion and risk millions of Japanese and American lives.

They should serve only as a deterrent.

Yes, it was nessicary. Dispite the fact that Japan offered several times to surrender after Okinawa fell. Even though they were posturing to their people, and making preperations for a US invasion of the home island, they wanted to avoid it, and offered to surrender. The thing is, the allies demanded "unconditional surrunder," which the Japanese weren't willing to do, untill we showed them we were willing to commit genicide if they did not.

The bombing of Heroshima and Nagasaki was just the US continueing the policy of attacking civilian populations with conventional bombs and firebombs to break the Japanese reslove.

Hmmm....delibertly attacking civilian populations with military attacks in order to spread terror for the porpose of coercing the government to your political demands....sounds familiar?

The bombing of Heroshima and Nagasaki was just the US continueing the policy of attacking civilian populations with conventional bombs and firebombs to break the Japanese reslove.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitamet military targets. We've had this debate before. I'm sure someone will point out why.

please do, I must have missed the debate. I have been away from the forums for some time now.

The US and British outright said durring WWII that they were bombing civilians to try to force the Germans and Japanese into surrender.

please do, I must have missed the debate. I have been away from the forums for some time now.

The US and British outright said durring WWII that they were bombing civilians to try to force the Germans and Japanese into surrender.

And Germany was bombing civilians as well. You do know that precision weapons were non-existent in WWII I hope.

This depends how you define combat. Does the War on Terror count, if the terrorists are the ones using the nukes?

If not, then never. Nobody is that retarded.

And Germany was bombing civilians as well. You do know that precision weapons were non-existent in WWII I hope.

Of course I know that Germany was bombing civilians. And I know that percision weapons and laser guided bombs did not yet exist. But all of the great powers (including Germany) were going for high civilian body counts. That's one of the reasons that firebombing was so popular, houses and buildings catch fire, and the whole town is ablaze.

It wasn't just the factories and boat yards the Axis and Allies were targeting. WWII, though seen as a glorious struggle of good vs. evil (and there were indeed clear "good" and "bad" guys), was in fact a very dirty war, with the good guys resorting to some very bad methods to beat back the bad guys.

This depends how you define combat. Does the War on Terror count, if the terrorists are the ones using the nukes?

If not, then never. Nobody is that retarded.

You'd be surprised. Israel has first strike nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons plans in place against non-nuclear nations. The US, Pakistan, India, and others are looking into making "more usible" tactical battlefeild nukes. And anybody will use them if they are afraid of being nuked first, are desperate, or think their survival is at stake.

The nations I think are most likely to use nukes in the near future (although I pray they I am wrong about this) are:

Israel
Iran
North Korea
The US
India
Pakistan

Tentions between US-Iran (if they go nuclear), US-North Korea, Israel-Iran (Israel may nuke Iran to prevent them from going nuclear), Pakistan-India, or Israel-pretty much all of it's non-nuclear neibhors, all have to potential for nuclear weapons to be used. And of course, there is always the possibility that some militant or guerilla group will attempt to use a crude nuclear devise against a much stronger foe. A group such as this would have nothing to lose, and thus would be more likely to go to extreme measures. That's why all those missing Soviet nukes scare the shit out of me.

Like I said, sared they'll be nuked first, fear for survival, and desperation are the three factors that I think would lead a nation or group to use nuclear weapons.

(and there were indeed clear "good" and "bad" guys), .
No there wasn’t.

You'd be surprised. Israel has first strike nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons plans in place against non-nuclear nations. The US, Pakistan, India, and others are looking into making "more usible" tactical battlefeild nukes. And anybody will use them if they are afraid of being nuked first, are desperate, or think their survival is at stake.

The nations I think are most likely to use nukes in the near future (although I pray they I am wrong about this) are:

Israel
Iran
North Korea
The US
India
Pakistan

Tentions between US-Iran (if they go nuclear), US-North Korea, Israel-Iran (Israel may nuke Iran to prevent them from going nuclear), Pakistan-India, or Israel-pretty much all of it's non-nuclear neibhors, all have to potential for nuclear weapons to be used. And of course, there is always the possibility that some militant or guerilla group will attempt to use a crude nuclear devise against a much stronger foe. A group such as this would have nothing to lose, and thus would be more likely to go to extreme measures. That's why all those missing Soviet nukes scare the shit out of me.

Like I said, sared they'll be nuked first, fear for survival, and desperation are the three factors that I think would lead a nation or group to use nuclear weapons.

In truth, you're probably right. I'm not convinced it will ever come to nuclear war, but a lot of that is based on my faith in humanity. Yes, I said it. And we all know how dumb that is.

No there wasn’t.

Sure there were. Just depends which side you're on.

So Hitler and his lot weren't clarly the "bad guys"?

Like I said, the US and GB weren't wonderful, and I condem their actions and faults just as readily, but I do believe that it was better that they won the war and not Hitler and Tojo, both of which practiced genocide.

Although the Soviet Union was amoung the worst, as well.

Personally, I call all involved "bad" for what they did, but some were clearly worse then others.

So Hitler and his lot weren't clarly the "bad guys"?

Like I said, the US and GB weren't wonderful, and I condem their actions and faults just as readily, but I do believe that it was better that they won the war and not Hitler and Tojo, both of which practiced genocide.

Although the Soviet Union was amoung the worst, as well.

Personally, I call all involved "bad" for what they did, but some were clearly worse then others.

Yes, but what if you are an anti-semite? Then who are the bad guys? Exactly. It's all subjective.

Yes, but what if you are an anti-semite? Then who are the bad guys? Exactly. It's all subjective.

Very true.

I do not recall the number for our allies or if the 3 million including it.

And we are at number of service men and woman that is below where we where at at the start of WW2. And that is below 400,000. Plus the USAF as just cut back on the number of airmen. I know a friend who as just come home from Germany when he was given the option for reserves since the government wants to cut more. And this is when we are at our lowest strength.

The troop strength is far above 400,000 in the US. Rember active reserves, inactive reserves. Im in the inactive and would be called up in a large war. Serve if I was told to do so. In the 90's when I got out of the army there were 1.3 million or so in all services.

Here is a link for the 2003 numbers. Anyone find a newer count please post.

http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/M05/hst0309.pdf

Not only do you kill those in the blast by thousands and potentially millions if the wind is right from fall out.
.
Nope, at least not with the US's arsenal. Very little fallout in modern fusion weapons. I don't think we have any fission nukes left.

I know the numbers of what would have happened in the US invaded Japan. 7 million Japanese, 3 million American.
Why the sudden contradiction?? In any case, you defeated your own point
I do not recall the number for our allies or if the 3 million including it.

This depends how you define combat. Does the War on Terror count, if the terrorists are the ones using the nukes?

If not, then never. Nobody is that retarded.

Our superior morals, peace loving nature, and common sense prevent us from commiting the atrocity of droping a nuclear weapon on a city. We prefer to take the moral high ground and destroy the city with multiple rounds of carpet bombings.

Yes, but what if you are an anti-semite? Then who are the bad guys? Exactly. It's all subjective.

Depends if you are a moral relativist. I believe hatred of a group of people for no other reason then that they exist is universally and objectively morally wrong.

Depends if you are a moral relativist. I believe hatred of a group of people for no other reason then that they exist is universally and objectively morally wrong.

Victory for propaganda. Hooray.

the US now has a nuclear policy to attack - first strike - against
even non-nuclear countries. if that's not a blue print for nuclear domination,
do as we say....., I don't know what is.
(oh, plus we now have as policy that we will not allow any other country to even attempt to increase their military power to anywhere near ours. plus the US has plans to weaponize space, against international law. plus the US has plans for a "missile defense" system, which too is an offensive weapons system. it is for protection of "forward advancement")


as for Iran and bombing any sites, (also illegal to blow up nuclear sites under international law and thus US constitutional law. due to the environmental impact it would have on the rest of us no matter where on the globe we live)
It is well known that Iran does not keep all their nuclear research stuff at one
site, but several. They learned from Iraq's mistake when Israel bombed their
site, illegally and with harm to the rest of us and the planet with all the extra radioactive material floating around.

Hopefully never again, ONE Hiroshima and Nagasaki are enough, let them stand as warnings why we should never do that again.

In any case, I also find it sad that only former President Carter has visted Hiroshima. You'd think that the man (or woman) in charge of the deadliest weapons on the planet would go to see what using them really means.

Hopefully never again, ONE Hiroshima and Nagasaki are enough, let them stand as warnings why we should never do that again.

In any case, I also find it sad that only former President Carter has visted Hiroshima. You'd think that the man (or woman) in charge of the deadliest weapons on the planet would go to see what using them really means.



I'd like to 2nd that

(both pages in english)

Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum
http://www1.city.nagasaki.nagasaki.jp/na-bomb/museum/museume01.html

Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum
http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/top_e.html


or go in person.
"Japan Travel Bureau" has the cheapest tickets from the states