Nuclear First Strike, insane millitary

Postby Anna » Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:26 am ... _proposal/

They are going MAD, ey?
(MAD is in Germany not only the magazine, it is called Millitärischer Abschirm Dienst = millitary defense shield
Sometimes we're making jokes about it...
I think that's obviuosly not a german term, They all are going mad!)

Former top brass call for first-strike nuke option
Nato to fight WMD with instant sun?

By Lester Haines
Published Tuesday 22nd January 2008 13:09 GMT

A group of former senior military officials has said that Nato must be prepared to launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes to "ward off the use of weapons of mass destruction by its enemies", the Telegraph reports.

The authors of the "blueprint for reforming Nato" - which was written after its authors were "briefed by senior serving military officials who are unable to speak publicly about their concerns with Nato's military strategy" - include the former British chief of the defence staff, Lord Peter Inge, and US General John Shalikashvili, former Nato commander in Europe and chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff.

In it, they stress the need to rethink "Nato's approach to defending its members and their interests" and describe first-strike nukes as an "indispensible instrument" against foes bearing WMDs. The report says: "The risk of further proliferation is imminent and, with it, the danger that nuclear war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become possible.

"The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction."

Inge reportedly comments: "To tie our hands on first use or no first use removes a huge plank of deterrence."

To make the pre-emptive strike option viable, the report proposes a major shake-up of the way Nato operates, including "abandoning consensus decision making so fast action can be taken without the threat of vetoes and caveats imposed by some nations".

It also suggests military action "without ratification by the UN" when "immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings".

The report, which has been delivered to Nato and Pentagon officials, may be discussed at a Nato summit in Bucharest in April, the Telegraph notes. ®

By the way, a terrorist campange want to start a nuclear attack, yes, that's evil, and you want to be the first, but explain me where is your target to prevent it?
Answer: nowhere!

Blow up some mountains in Afghanistan isn't usefull.
Blow up a whole city where the evil islamistic guys are living, you're will kill thousands or millions of innocent people!
User avatar
Worthy Forumite

Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:45 pm
Location: Germany, west, not south.

Re: Nuclear First Strike, insane millitary

Postby Jennifer Diane Reitz » Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:48 am

This is just plain scary.
Jennifer Diane Reitz
User avatar
Jennifer Diane Reitz

Posts: 1218
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:25 am
Location: Olympia, Washington

Re: Nuclear First Strike, insane millitary

Postby draque » Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:19 am

The concept of anyone using a nuke ever for the purposes of war is a pretty scary concept. Since the bombs were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it's been the consensus of the civilized world that the weapons are simply too destructive, poisonous and otherwise antithetical to things that are enjoyable to allow them to be used. The concept of that agreement has power. The fact that it's been followed universally has power. The moment that even a single nation breaks it, the power a consensus against nuclear strikes is broken. Once it's broken... well, I'm hoping that it isn't.
User avatar
Watermelon Graduate

Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:57 am

Re: Nuclear First Strike, insane millitary

Postby ParryLost » Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:15 am

Mr. Prezident... I haz a PLAN!

I find it hard to be scared about this imminent threat of destruction... habituation? :P We've come so close to wiping ourselves out with nuclear weapons in the past... Many don't even realize how close! There were actually at least four points during the Cold War -besides- the Cuban Missile Crisis where human error or faulty equipment led to either the US or USSR believing that the other side was already launching nukes, and in all four cases, only -very- last-second decisions or new information prevented the ICBMs from actually being launched.

This plan sounds like your pretty standard "we want the power to blow people up on a whim because that's the only way to save the world!" kind of deal. The scary thing is, leaders use reasoning like this -all the time.- It is a wonder none have used it with nuclear weapons so far. For me, this is actually a mystery: I study psychology, and I honestly have absolutely -no idea- as to what -actually- kept world leaders from using nuclear weapons in the past, during the Cold War, or even now. It just seems that a lot of the time, the decision-making process is far too irrational for things like Mutually Assured Destruction to act as a real deterrent... so what could it be? Now -that's- scary.
User avatar
Our New Friend

Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Varies as you observe his velocity

Return to The Political Arena

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests