Skip to comments.No Longer Unthinkable: Should US Ready For ‘Limited’ Nuclear War?
Posted on 06/08/2013 2:48:03 AM PDT by Olog-hai
For more than 60 years, most Americans have thought of nuclear weapons as an all-or-nothing game. The only way to win is not to play at all, we believed, because any use of nukes will lead to Armageddon. That may no longer be the game our opposition is playing. As nuclear weapons proliferate to places that might not share our reluctance to use them in small numbers, however, the US military may face a second nuclear age of retail Armageddon for which it is utterly unprepared.
Outside the US, both established and emerging nuclear powers increasingly see nuclear weapons as weapons that can be used in a controlled, limited, and strategically useful fashion, said Barry Watts, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, arguably the Pentagons favorite thinktank. The Cold War firebreaks between conventional and nuclear conflict are breaking down, he wrote in a recent report. Russia has not only developed new, relatively low-yield tactical nukes but also routinely wargamed their use to stop both NATO and Chinese conventional forces should they overrun Moscows feeble post-Soviet military, Watts said this morning at the headquarters of the Air Force Association. Pakistan is likewise developing tactical nukes to stop Indias much larger military. Iran seeks nuclear weapons not only to offset Israels but to deter and, in the last resort, fend off an American attempt to perform regime change in Tehran the way we did in Baghdad. The US Air Force and Navy concept of AirSea Battle in the Western Pacific could entail strikes on the Chinese mainland that might provoke a nuclear response.
(Excerpt) Read more at breakingdefense.com ...
Sounds like an ominous warning for Obama. He screws up in Benghazi, and still gets re-elected to the White House. The IRS scandal doesn’t affect his job approval ratings. He fools Americans into believing that he’s not spying on anyone’s emails. So now he’s raising his stakes. I mean if you’re the first African-American President in US history, with a fawning MSM and Democrat Party, along with roll over Republicans, then it’s time for Obama to have some real fun (according to his thinking) and perhaps start nuking other countries. He could even mock the world by wearing the Nobel Peace Prize Award on his neck while he pushed the Nuke button.
He’s too “Kumbaya” in his foreign policy to think of doing anything like that.
I’m sure many people thought the same about Obama before he expanded the military drones program.
He is still shrinking the USA’s military in the face of the expansion of many others’ militaries.
Nuke Iran or North Korea? Not a chance. Nuking North Dakota or Texas? I would not be shocked.
That’s true, so he can blame the Sequester for cutting Defense spending, which left him no other alternative but to use the nukes.
“Hes too Kumbaya in his foreign policy to think of doing anything like that.”
War only comes to those who are unprepared for it. That’s why I loved GWB. He managed to bluster so convincingly that nobody risked doing anything anti-American. But Obama encourages every little tin-pot dictator to poke us in the eye. That’s incredibly dangerous. I think our forces are exhausted. I also suspect, that like every other Democrat, Obama hasn’t bought the necessary spares and logistics support. After 8 years of Clinton the US had no bombs or bullets. Half of the nation’s military aircraft couldn’t fly on any given day for want of an engine, a radio or a maintenance.
The way things are going, the only ones that could successfully launch the nukes are the Red Chinese, who hack into our defense networks daily.
Which probably ought to be considered seriously as a real possibility. After all, if you wanted to rise up at some point and throw out the Chicom regime you'd need to be in a position of some power over the use of American economic and military might in the region.
That simply can't be ruled out ~ it's the way Sun Yat Sen did it when he set in motion the movements that eliminated the hated Manchu Regime.
Besides, the Chicoms don't control all the Chinese in the world with these capabilities. I can real quick name 5 countries where the Chinese own and operate all such capabiliy. Again, they paid for Sun Yat Sen in an earlier time too. They didn't stop paying to remove totalitarianism from China.
Now, about what NSA is doing with the phone call stuff, they could be trying to track down an organized alien presence in the USA ~ ....... ~ and that can be taken any way you want.
Since when is this new, we had tactical nukes for limited nuke warfare, all the way down to 155 shells, and the Neutron bomb was so that we could use nukes against Soviet military forces without destroying European cities.
Personally, I think that he’d never use a nuke unless he could collect his enemies in this country together in one spot without losing too many of his own voter constituents.
As for limited exchanges, I also think that our DHS and other collected agencies will eventually screw up worse than they have and some Muslim is gonna get something pretty nasty here and render some city useless for quite a long time.
November 15, 1981, New York Times.
‘Limited’ Nuclear War
“”Linkage to the Europeans meant that any Soviet attack on their territory must be regarded by the Americans as an attack on the United States, triggering an all-out strategic response. It still does. But today we operate under an evolved version of John F. Kennedy’s ‘’flexible response,’’ meaning that the Western reply to Soviet attack would not necessarily be massive. It could be limited to tactical nuclear weaponry, or even conventional arms if they were sufficient.””
Obama is too busy buying 1.6 Billion bullets to use to fight Americans with.
Too busy disarming US to worry about disarming Iran or N. Korea.
Too busy destroying our military with queers and women in combat.
This Administration is unprepared for anything, except to lie when the next scandal breaks.
Obama is shutting down Red River Army Depot which is a main resource for our troops. An army without equipment ain’t much of an army.
Back to old skool..
Too busy arming Al Qaeda and other enemies.
"Nuclear war will soon come to the unprotected, undefended
American Homeland and my mission will -at last- be accomplished, by allah"
“He is still shrinking the USAs military in the face of the expansion of many others militaries.”
With our Navy’s aircraft carrier groups going into mothballs, the nuclear warfare option will be our only resort. Bombs are much cheaper.
I am unable to diagram your 1st sentence.
As an ex-SAC B-52 aircrew member during the early 1970s I STRONGLY object to the concept of a “limited nuclear war”.
You can successfully limit conventional warfare because the weapons’ affects are limited in area and duration. If you are outside the weapon’s immediate affects when it detonates you have an excellent chance of surviving. Look at the survival rate for German civilians during the “thousand plane” bombing raids of World War II.
Nuclear, and other weapons of mass destruction, are a totally different animal. Even for small, “tactical nuclear weapons” you are talking about primary affects extending for miles from “ground zero”. Add to this fallout’s plume as it spreads down wind the primary and secondary affects from a nuclear weapon is massive. Look at the pictures for Hiroshima and Nagasaki and remember those were the affects of nuclear weapons at the lower end of “tactical nuclear weapons” Look at the evacuation area surrounding Chernobyl and you can get an excellent idea of the impact of a non-nuclear “dirty bomb”.
Am I an alarmist about this issue? based on my military, non-combat, exposure to nuclear weapons from the low kilo-ton range through the low mega-ton range I don’t think so. Enough said.
Well, that isn’t stopping other countries from embracing the concept, as you can see. And I agree that it will lead straight to “Har Megiddon”.
Answer: A tactical nuke is designed to blow up in West Germany.
Air bursts do NOT produce any significant fallout.
To get that, you need the fireball to hit lots of dirt—either a VERY low airburst or ground burst.
Sounds like that’s just what barry’s been waiting for.
obama will false-flag nuke a place in america before he’d ever do it somewhere else in the world.
Star Wars must be reconstituted. It won’t be, under this regime.
This doesn’t worry me at all — Zero and his criminal thugocracy setting up a police state, not defending our borders, feeding our armed forces to the guns via foolish ROEs, and stockpiling billions of rounds, that worries me.
Don’t kit yourself - millions of people are starting to ‘catch on’ to Obama.
Here is an even smaller tactical nuke, the Davy Crockett was a recoilless rifle on a tripod for firing the M388 atomic round.
"Two distinct calibers of the gun were ultimately built: a smaller 120mm (XM-28/M-28) model with a range of 1.24 miles and a larger 155mm (XM-29/M-29) unit having a range of 2.49 miles. The entire projectile weighed 76 pounds and was 2 feet, 6 inches long with a diameter of 11 inches. The W54 warhead portion encased in the projectile weighed 51 pounds. The weapon had an automatic lethal radiation exposure radius of 10,000 rem out to164 yards (150m) at the blast site and a delayed fatal dose of 600 rem within 150 yards (137.16m) of the blast center - of course this was all dependent on wind direction. The M-388 three-man crew would be exposed with this lethal dose - in effect making them expendable assets. A typical Davy Crockett detachment consisted of three personnel."
Way back when the youngest was about 15 he was able to hack into Chinese military systems WITH EASE ~ they imagine their security has improved over time but there are backdoors ..............
Matching a low-yield nuclear weapon with another low-yield nuclear weapon is engaging in a losing game of "escalation".
Instead, adversaries should be aware that the USA will match a low-yield nuclear weapon with a high-yield nuclear weapon.
If we're at war, the object is to win -- not to play for a tie.
Odds are that, in the long run, there will be less damage and fewer casualties by virtue of ending the conflict decisively than in extending the conflict toward stalemate.