I read a news article on the BBC news website today and thought that I’d get on my blogging soapbox.
Please take a look for yourself …
Nuclear Posture Review: US wants smaller nukes to counter Russia
… but just in case you don’t, here’s a synopsis.
The Americans think that their nuclear arsenal, already capable of destroying the planet a number of times over, has potentially stopped acting as an effective deterrent because using it is inconceivable (given the mega-tonnage and likelihood of significant overkill).
Mutually assured destruction is apparently an out dated concept.
The thinking gets more delusional – the solution is that instead of just having large, overly destructive nukes, the US should have some smaller ones (more like those used in Japan in WW2 for fuck’s sake) that could be used tactically without making such a mess. The idea is that if America is known to have nukes that it would actually use, that would enhance the deterrent effect. Is it me, or is that bollocks?
That kind of justification reminds me of negotiating with my ten year old daughter. When she wants something, she’ll come up with all sorts of nonsense reasons why she should get her own way.
The USA wants to be better placed to respond to different kinds of threats with a nuclear option. Existing nukes will be repurposed so that, in theory, the yanks aren’t breaking all the rules of nuclear non-proliferation.
I’ll be honest, I am struggling with all of the above.
If the US has a range of tactical nuclear weapons, surely that will mean that the Russians, the Chinese, the Israelis and even the bloody North Koreans will want to have the same. Then what happens in terms of nuclear proliferation?
And how does having more “flexible” nuclear options make a country less likely of using any of them? The critics that suggest having more “usable” nuclear weapons might well increase the likelihood of nuclear conflict, sound more sensible to me. God help us all if they are right!
Blog Home
Blog Library
Home
Please take a look for yourself …
Nuclear Posture Review: US wants smaller nukes to counter Russia
… but just in case you don’t, here’s a synopsis.
The Americans think that their nuclear arsenal, already capable of destroying the planet a number of times over, has potentially stopped acting as an effective deterrent because using it is inconceivable (given the mega-tonnage and likelihood of significant overkill).
Mutually assured destruction is apparently an out dated concept.
The thinking gets more delusional – the solution is that instead of just having large, overly destructive nukes, the US should have some smaller ones (more like those used in Japan in WW2 for fuck’s sake) that could be used tactically without making such a mess. The idea is that if America is known to have nukes that it would actually use, that would enhance the deterrent effect. Is it me, or is that bollocks?
That kind of justification reminds me of negotiating with my ten year old daughter. When she wants something, she’ll come up with all sorts of nonsense reasons why she should get her own way.
The USA wants to be better placed to respond to different kinds of threats with a nuclear option. Existing nukes will be repurposed so that, in theory, the yanks aren’t breaking all the rules of nuclear non-proliferation.
I’ll be honest, I am struggling with all of the above.
If the US has a range of tactical nuclear weapons, surely that will mean that the Russians, the Chinese, the Israelis and even the bloody North Koreans will want to have the same. Then what happens in terms of nuclear proliferation?
And how does having more “flexible” nuclear options make a country less likely of using any of them? The critics that suggest having more “usable” nuclear weapons might well increase the likelihood of nuclear conflict, sound more sensible to me. God help us all if they are right!
Blog Home
Blog Library
Home
RSS Feed
