Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear War: a new era?

According to the New York Times, the Pentagon has put together an assessment of the new and changing risks to US security that appear to justify the use of nuclear weapons even if the attack that takes place is not itself of a nuclear kind. The article states:

Gary Samore, who was a top nuclear adviser to President Barack Obama, said much of the draft strategy “repeats the essential elements of Obama declaratory policy word for word” — including its declaration that the United States would “only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.”
But the biggest difference lies in new wording about what constitutes “extreme circumstances.”
In the Trump administration’s draft, those “circumstances could include significant non-nuclear strategic attacks.” It said that could include “attacks on the U.S., allied, or partner civilian population or infrastructure, and attacks on U.S. or allied nuclear forces, their command and control, or warning and attack assessment capabilities.”
The draft does not explicitly say that a crippling cyberattack against the United States would be among the extreme circumstances. But experts called a cyberattack one of the most efficient ways to paralyze systems like the power grid, cellphone networks and the backbone of the internet without using nuclear weapons.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/u...T.nav=top-news

The policy should raise awareness of the military options being considered, because they depart from a basic concept of the use of force in self-defence as 'proportional' to the attack that has been made, but also because there is a crucial problem with cyberwarfare: it may not be made by an identifiable state or even sub-state actor such as Daesh who can be attacked in 'self-defence'. Moreover, suppose a clever nerd in Iowa brings down the internet in the US, including the Pentagon, CIA, Federal Government -clearly a nuclear option will not be used, so where is the logic of the proposal here?

Moreover, the use of nuclear weapons is illegal in international law, even in the case of the new generation of smaller, 'lighter' tactical weapons that can be used, the military tells us, with minimal nuclear fall-out but maximum target effect.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8162351.html

We may indeed need a new set of policy guidelines on nuclear warfare now that the 'Cold War' has ended and Communism is not a 'threat' to the 'free world' if it ever was. How this debate unfolds must surely focus on the reduction of nuclear weaponry, not its advancement; and a commitment to not only declare a 'no first use' policy by all those states with nuclear weapons, but a practical commitment to reducing their stock of nuclear warheads and missiles. This has become more urgent because the current US administration, though it has so far barked like a mad dog without actually biting anyone, may in the not too distant future decide the time has come to take that extra step, if only to prove that Obama was a weakling and that there is a new kid on the block who is mad as hell and won't take it anymore...but we must live in hope that even the military extremists can be brought back from the brink.

If I'm not qualified to propose a rational approach to Global Warming, I'm SURE not qualified to assert any authority on Nuclear War discussion. Other than to say I'm against it.
I would guess we spend more money on surveillance of our enemies and friends than the GNP of several shithole countries.

Quote:

---

If I'm not qualified to propose a rational approach to Global Warming, I'm SURE not qualified to assert any authority on Nuclear War discussion. Other than to say I'm against it.

---

You're thinking about this all the wrong way.

Two birds & one stone here--- you start the nuclear war but toss only a few icbms instead of the whole arsenal, cluster the targets together and use the resulting nuclear winter as a cure for global warming. Repeat as needed to control global temperatures.

...and don't worry 'bout the strontium90 in the milk. It tastes so good your kids will literally light up.

Supported by the government of Little Britain, the USA has announced its intention to withdraw from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Agreement [INF] that was signed by President Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987. The INF banned the ground deployment of missiles with a reach of between 500-5,500 km, and led to the (verified) destruction of thousands of existing cruise missilles by both the USA and the USSR. INF was recognized at the time as the most significant arms reduction agreement of the Cold War and more than just a symbolic statement of intent to reduce the threat of nuclear war.

The US claims that Russia has been in violation of the INF since 2007 owing to the presence of a long-range missile system which it claims can attack any target in Europe, a claim the Russians deny. The US is also considering withdawing from the 2010 New START Agreement limiting the number of strategic warheads on both sides to 1,550.

An expert in arms control has stated-
“This is the most severe crisis in nuclear arms control since the 1980s,” said Malcolm Chalmers, the deputy director general of the Royal United Services Institute. “If the INF treaty collapses, and with the New Start treaty on strategic arms due to expire in 2021, the world could be left without any limits on the nuclear arsenals of nuclear states for the first time since 1972.”

The President has said
“Russia has violated the agreement. They’ve been violating it for many years and I don’t know why President Obama didn’t negotiate or pull out. “We’re not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement and do weapons and we’re not allowed to. We’re the ones that have stayed in the agreement and we’ve honoured the agreement but Russia has not unfortunately honoured the agreement so we’re going to terminate the agreement, we’re going to pull out.”

If he wants to know why President Obama did not negotiate he could always call him on the phone and ask, but why would he do that when at root it is because Obama negotiated limits on nuclear capability that is the policy the USA seeks to end. If Obama made it, we will destroy it.

Hovering over this insane policy is John Bolton, who like the other neo-cons was left seething with rage when President Reagan betrayed them with the INF treaty, something for which they never forgave their one-time idol. But the real victor in this is Vladimir Putin, who may or may not have violated the 1987 treaty but now sits in the Kremlin with a big grin on his face as his poodle in the White House delivers him an early Christmas present. There are times when you do get what you pay for. This is one of them. It is also good news for China and North Korea, though they were not part of the INF treaty, and must also justify the development of nuclear capability in Iran (which they deny they intend to develop) and the developmet of nuclear weapons in Saudi Arabia, currently being developed with US help.

So-called Evangelical Christians are also delirious as the prospect of nuclear armageddon has brought closer that day when they shall see the glory of the coming of the Lord, albeit in a fog of nulear fall-out, for with John Bolton in charge the world has got closer to the first use of nuclear weapons than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis. If looking for a target, why not drop a few on the Yemen, which at the moment is a laboratory of death for Slaughterhouse Arabia and its friends in the US and the UK?

But the last word goes to Alexandra Bell, formerly of the State Department-


“What shocks me is that this president who is constantly telling us he is deal-maker has failed utterly to save Reagan’s nuclear legacy. He did nothing with his relationship with Putin. There were trades to be made to fix this treaty and he couldn’t pull it off.”

She added: “Why would the North Koreans have any reason to believe in any deal made with this president, with Bolton whispering in his ear.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-treaty-russia

So to clarify the policy of the US-
-the INF treaty is now defunct, so states can build a system many nuclear weapons as they like...but
-the US continues to impose sanctions on Iran and makes threats on the basis it has violated the Joint Agreement. Which it has not, but some in Iran want to scrap the agreement and do exactly what the US does not want...while
-A second round of negotiations between the US and North Korea will take place in Vietnam this week, based on the idea North Korea should not have nuclear weapons...but
- the US is proposing to sell the 9/11 butchers of Saudi Arabia as many nuclear weapons as their lovely dollars can buy.

A report by the New York Times today opens a new debate on Turkey and nuclear weapons, not least because Turkey has its own Uranium resources and is in the process of developing a nuclear energy sector. And it will come as no surprise that the country offering the most direct help to this NATO member in its nuclear development is....Russia. The article looks at the pros and cons of the argument over a weapons development in the context of NATO, and also points out that while the Obama Presidency created a plan to remove NATO/US nuclear warheads from Turkey, it was his successor, the Commander-in-Grief who publicly revealed their existence, and even gave the world the address should they or any terrorist group want to make an assault on the place, far-fetched though that might seem. At least the Commander-in-Grief believes in this case in 'transparency' even if it must have drive is 'over-rated' Generals to despair. One wonders why they don't all resign, since there is only one man who believes he has the 'wisdom' to determine the USA's military affairs.

Whatever, this is a genuinely interesting read, but a depressing one too if it leads to the one thing sane people do not want: nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/20/w...gtype=Homepage

I grew up in the last of the heated days in the cold war.. I've had a doomsday plan since I was like 8 years old that has been progressively updated to it's current state.. I actually own a Geiger counter and I have radiation tabs.. :tongue:

I look at this from an economic & global control point of view.. The fascist plutocracy of the USA is not going to give up control of the world's reserve currency or the world bank. It would sooner see the east annihilated in a ball of fire than loose control of the world's financial system..

There's a reason that the Pentagon has built multiple underground communities.. :geek:

I do see the status quo continuing though, heading toward a Blade Runner type future..

Here we are again: the US is walking away from another international treaty, this one the Open Skies Treaty which dates from 1955. Even if some weary diplomats in Europe accept it was going to happen, this is yet another act by the US which benefits the Russians, but from which the US does not appear to benefit at all. And again, this President doesn't negotiate -in the three cases, Iran, the INF and Open Slies the US could have referred to the Security Council for a review, or opened a new round of talks, but no. I guess even Pompeo can't be bothered, even if he can read and write, and allegedly wants the White House in 2024...


Brief assessment from Guardian:

"It is unclear how Russia will respond to US withdrawal. They will now be able to fly over US bases in Europe but the US will no longer be allowed to overfly Russia.

Under the 2020 defence spending act, the administration is supposed to explain to Congress how leaving OST serves US security interests and give assurances that Washington has consulted its partners, 120 days before serving formal notice of withdrawal.
“Reckless deal wrecking and the collapse of US leadership continues,” Kingston Rief, director for disarmament and threat reduction policy at the Arms Control Association said.
“The treaty benefits US and European security. Our allies value it and don’t want us to leave. It has been an important tool for responding to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. This is a propaganda coup for Moscow.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rump-pulls-out

It is most curious how the one state that has benefited most from the foreign policy decisions of the US (other than Israel but for different reasons), is Russia. I wonder, should Congress appoint a Special Investigator? Hmmm..or is this just another hoax? A friend of mine, much learned in the ways of the world, did shake his head once, not long ago, and muse 'they must have something on the guy'...

My mistake -the Open Skies proposal began with Eisenhower in 1955, but went nowhere until GHW Bush revived the idea and negotiations with a more willing USSR took place, and the end result was a treaty in 2002.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/openskies

post 1991, it's been essentially which countries have hte power or will to nuke the USA. Only North Korea, really. That's why nukes are not as big in geo-politics as they were during the Cold War.
This only will change if Russia gets majorly more anti-West, or China does.
Or some other country emergs with nukes that the USA won't.
Say if some Islamists unite some Arab countries hostile to America and develop nukes.

To add to the USA's withdrawal from the INF and Open Skies agreemens, last month the USA decided to 'reinterpret' the 1987 Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR)-

The United States plans to reinterpret a decades-old arms control agreement so that US weapons companies can sell more unmanned aerial drones to nations including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, whose air strikes in Yemen have killed thousands of civilians.

An unnamed US government official and several arms industry executives told Reuters that the Trump administration wants to sidestep the Cold War-era Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), a multilateral export control between 35 nations that seeks to limit the proliferation of missiles and missile technology. One of the pact’s goals is preventing the export of rockets or cruise missiles that can carry nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction.
MTCR is not a treaty and is not legally binding; it is an informal understanding between signatory nations. However, the agreement has been credited with helping to stop or slow the several ballistic missile programs around the world, including the joint Argentine-Egyptian-Iraqi Condor II program and others in Brazil and South Africa. Some former Warsaw Pact nations, including Poland and the Czech Republic, scrapped their ballistic missiles in order to join the MTCR.

and
As if to underscore the issue, a Saudi-led air strike on a vehicle traveling in the Shada area of Saada province, a Houthi rebel stronghold, killed the driver and all 12 passengers, including four children, on Monday, according to the Associated Press. The Houthi-run Health Ministry said it has identified 11 victims, including a woman and four children aged 12-14. Ministry spokesman Youssef al-Hadri said another two bodies were burned beyond recognition.
https://ethicsintech.com/2020/06/16/...l-more-drones/

Even the Cato Institute, which you would expect to welcome this 'free enterprise' approach to arms dealing, is against it:

...instead of market leadership, the U.S. should seek moral leadership, working with other nations to set guidelines for the responsible development and deployment of new technologies. In the short run, the U.S. might benefit from being the world’s leading arms exporter. But in the long run, the failure to curb the sales of emerging weapons technology puts the whole world at risk.
https://www.cato.org/publications/co...l-drone-policy

Other than countries like Saudi Arabia that might benefit from the relaxation of international guidelines on the sales of such arms, who else will benefit?
Yes, you guessed right first time: Russia.