| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: WoT | |
| White House Is Rethinking Nuclear Weapons Policy | |
| 2010-03-01 | |
| |
| Posted by: |
| #9 Again the double standard of the paleo-cons(neo-nazis) versus Israel... It's OK for Iran to nuke the Jews or Pakis to nuke India, but God forbid them Jews defend themselves! By the way Israel have NEUTRON bombs, which are VERY OK to use on ragheads because of the non existent fallouts!!! Hate the sin, love the sinner! Hate the rags, love the oil fields!  |
| Posted by: Hotspur666 2010-03-01 15:55 |
| #8 trailing wife: The major powers still balance against each other, so the protocol would have to be strict. Only aggressive first use of nukes could be responded to with such retaliation. This would be done just to let Israel know that while it could freely attack Iran, for example, it could not do so with nukes, as that could cause a medium sized nuclear exchange that would affect even us, on the other side of the planet. The true power of the MAD theory is that it is too horrible to put into practice. It always has been that. There is some theory that this MAD-extension is already in effect, because when Pakistan and India looked like they were going to go nuclear, Richard Armitage flew from the US to both countries, and overnight persuaded them to "keep it conventional." Which had to be one hell of a threat. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-03-01 13:12 |
| #7 the US, Russia, China and France as the major powers, and North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and Israel as the minor powers told to behave themselves. I'm really, really not comfortable with Russia and France holding Damocles' Sword over Israel's head, Anonymoose. Really not at all. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2010-03-01 12:17 |
| #6 They're trying to figure out how many they need for 'fly over' country. The area is so dispersed, vice the concentration of the blue metro areas, that to have enough would basically be MAD because of the collateral consequences. However, the reverse is not as true if they initiate such an exchange and get a reply. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-03-01 11:59 |
| #5 China, for example, has to be prepared to march into North Korea if its government collapses. Ummm, "Moose" don't you mean When? |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2010-03-01 11:03 |
| #4 There does need to be some serious revision of nuclear warfare theory, both offense and defense. Actual numbers of missiles needed for the major powers is pretty formulaic, so most of the effort needs to be on eliminating the utility of nuclear weapons for rogue nations. The best way to do this is by expanding the old MAD theory, the major powers threatening the small nations that if they use nuclear weapons against their hated enemy, the large powers will annihilate them. Right now, this would seem to be a four way game, with the US, Russia, China and France as the major powers, and North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and Israel as the minor powers told to behave themselves. But this is a two way sword, because in exchange for preventing the use of nukes, the powers have to some extent guarantee sovereignty, or at least guarantee surety, of these small nations nuclear weapons. China, for example, has to be prepared to march into North Korea if its government collapses. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-03-01 09:00 |
| #3 --It's like 'watching paint dry', bookmark it: LINK |
| Posted by: Tom- Pa 2010-03-01 07:50 |
| #2 The changes appear to be driven entirely by "pressure" from the left wing of the party, whose motives in turn appear to be entirely driven by some vague pacifist ideology that has little connection with reality. One wonders whether this heritage of pacifism is simply a left-over from a time when it "conveniently" matched the military objectives of the Soviet Union to weaken western defenses. The enthusiasm for theater missile defense and Prompt Global Strike is a bit of a surprise however. |
| Posted by: Fester Thaiger8930 2010-03-01 07:48 |
| #1 Entrusting nuclear strike strategic decision making capabilities to this bugger makes me nauseous and dizzy. My God in heaven what have we wrought with this man? |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-03-01 07:15 |