Nuclear Logic?

[BBKing]

"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."

Anyone else spot the fundamental flaw in this one?

[bopdude]

Originally Posted by BBKing

"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."

Anyone else spot the fundamental flaw in this one?

yep

[jkat]

quick draw mcgraw!

[Stuart W]

Fundamental flaw.... not sure.

I would agree with the statement.

If no WOMD was ever used and everyone started collecting them, we could end up with a global catastrophe the moment one was launched (because everyone else would launch theirs)

I feel you may be confusing "first use".
In this instance, "first use" would refer to testing.

So, we build the WOMD and test it.
We see it's awesome destructive power and keep it to one side.



I am happy for anyone to bring Hiroshima and or Nagasaki, Enola Gay, Big Boy etc. etc. into the discussion.

[Stuart C]

I think the point is that with Nuclear weapons, while a lot of people have them, no one sane* will ever dare launch a nuclear attack against another country, for fear they will be obliterated themselves. Note: this doesn't apply to extremists.



*Yes, I know America is the only country to have launch Nuclear weapons and detonated them in war, but I am not sure I count them as sane.

[NitroNutter]

The real art would be the ability to successfully conceal the 'smoking gun'.
Well how else is the balance going to be restored ? Acts of nature, yet another holocaust or 2, mass riots and anarchy ?

[BBKing]

It has a lovely nostalgic ring about it, like 'we had to destroy the village to save it'. Dr. Strangelove lives.

no one sane* will ever dare launch a nuclear attack against another country, for fear they will be obliterated themselves

NitroNutter has it in a nutshell - if you have more than two proper nuclear powers/groupings then deterrent is useless*, as country C can nuke country A if they can find a good way of getting country B blamed for it (Pakistan nukes India and blames China? As Indian PM, how sure do you have to be before you launch back? Play eeny-meeny-miney-mo?).

The original quote is from NATO commanders, and should be worrying for everybody, since it's pretty commonly accepted that if you're in a position where you have to use nuclear weapons you've already lost. Imagine the head of the Iranian Republican Guard or some mirrored sunglasses secretly pro-Taliban Pakistani General saying it. Or Putin, but I suspect he doesn't need to bother announcing it.

There are only two NATO nuclear powers, anyway, us and the US. The French aren't in NATO, so what they're saying is that Britain should have a first use doctrine on nuclear weapons. This doesn't make me feel safer.

* Or if, say, your enemy is a loosely connected disparate pan-national group like al-Qaeda. You don't use a flamethrower to clean behind the cooker.

[Stuart W]

Does anyone remember a particularly scary episode of "the Cook Report" in the late '80s?

He (Cook) went to Russia and got contacts to purchase Uranium and Plutonium.
He used that to build a small nuclear weapon in a business style briefcase.

He took that (with dumb metal instead of nuclear active material for obvious reasons) to Mi5 to see what they had to say.

Needless to say, the guy behind the desk at MI5 looked more than a little glum when he opened the case and saw so blatantly just how easy it could be.

My point is, if you have the money, you can go buy weapons grade materials on the black market today, just as you could in the 80's.

[soap box]
The biggest terrorist acts are usually the responsibility of the government.... along with those terrible acts which force a country to become involved in a massive war... best examples being Vietnam, Pearl Harbour, 911, the Lucitania, Messopotamia and the press.
[/soap box]

Originally Posted by BBKing

There are only two NATO nuclear powers, anyway, us and the US. The French aren't in NATO, so what they're saying is that Britain should have a first use doctrine on nuclear weapons. This doesn't make me feel safer.

Last time I checked France were in NATO..........

Not that it matters as long as we have nukes. We should never give up our Nuclear capability.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

I think the point is that with Nuclear weapons, while a lot of people have them, no one sane* will ever dare launch a nuclear attack against another country, for fear they will be obliterated themselves. ...

I thought the phrase was Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Last time I checked France were in NATO..........

Not that it matters as long as we have nukes. We should never give up our Nuclear capability.

Nah, they're members of OTAN, it's the dyslexic version of NATO

Being cheese eating surrender monkeys, they only deal with the political side of NATO rather than the dangerous bits.

[BBKing]

Needless to say, the guy behind the desk at MI5 looked more than a little glum when he opened the case and saw so blatantly just how easy it could be.

I thought that had been mythbusted? Just because a Russian says he'll sell you something doesn't mean he's telling the truth. Plenty of conmen came out of the Cold War.

Nah, they're members of OTAN, it's the dyslexic version of NATO

The French *were* in NATO and obviously engage in exercises with NATO countries, since most of their neighbours are in it, even Luxembourg. They did, however, pull out of the full on military aspect many years ago in a cloud of Gallic hauteur. The main consequence of this is that they don't let NATO troops deploy to their soil or supply troops for NATO missions, plus their completely independent nuclear deterrent.

However, one of the five military bigwigs/warlords who made this rather alarming statement is French (the others are a Yank, Boche, Cloggie and Rosbif), which implies it's a political rather than military statement. Mr. Sarkozy, on the other hand, is currently flying round the world giving people nuclear reactors.

Originally Posted by wikipedia

France withdrew from the integrated military command in 1966. From then it had remained solely a member of NATO's political structure. Its forces have not rejoined the military command.

OTAN of course is NATO in French, but the Belgians count as French speaking, as do the Canadians. NATO's SHAPE HQ is in Belgium, of course, moving there after the French withdrawal so you can actually guard it with NATO troops, which the French of course wouldn't allow on their soil.

The other surprising omission from NATO is Austria, which is after all buying Eurofighters. Perhaps they're a little reluctant after the last time one of their boys tried to show a bit of military leadership.

[Stuart W]

Originally Posted by BBKing

I thought that had been mythbusted? Just because a Russian says he'll sell you something doesn't mean he's telling the truth. Plenty of conmen came out of the Cold War.

The plutonium and uranium actually purchased was passed on to British Nuclear Fuels who tested & disposed of it, confirming it to be usable in a weapon of this type, but more likely to detonate as a 'dirty' bomb than a big flash. This means, if they had made the real thing, it would most likely have caused a small (ish) explosion and released radiation comparable to Hiroshima / Nagasaki.

[BBKing]

And dirty bombs, as we know, aren't really that scary*. The 'suitcase nuke', in the sense of a suitcase-sized city-destroyer, are the myth.

* i.e. would you have a doctrine of first-use nuclear strike to be used if a country is suspected of supplying a dirty bomb?

[Mr_love_monkey]

Originally Posted by BBKing

* i.e. would you have a doctrine of first-use nuclear strike to be used if a country is suspected of supplying a dirty bomb?

Depends on who it was... if it was France you'd have to argue long and hard to convince me against it