Nuclear option creep

The use of sub-kiloton devices may indeed be the optimal means of destroying dangerous chemical and biological munitions stored in deep underground bunkers. The surest way to guarantee destruction is by extreme high temperature, a nuclear fireball is 100% certain to destroy chemical and biological substances. The use of such weapons does not present more than a minimal risk outside the targeted area. Detonations would be designed not to breach the surface, so no surface effects beyong a strong shake would occur.

I don't believe that the United States will use small nuclear munitions to destroy chemical and biological stockpiles, because of the political furor that would result. People have some really strange notions about the effects of nuclear weapons that bear little relation to actual effects. We will almost certainly use conventional pyrotechnics to destroy the offending materials, even though the risk of releasing some of them to do lethal damage is increased.

Asherman

Strange or not their use would open a door which would not easily if at all be closed.. Further IMO the administration should not even have mentioned the possibility of their use. I should note that this is not the first time that the use of nuclear weapons has been bandied about. Several months ago it was tactical nuclear weapons.
We already have one nation who thinks we will soon be nuking them. Do we need more.

Au1929 -- Your title for this discussion says it all. In every sense of the word, creep is what we've been suffering from since January of 2001.

Yes, I recall writing some stuff describing the effects of nuclear weapons that is in the public domain. The weapons being pondered at that time, if I recall correctly, was exactly the same as here. Sub-K weapons used subsurface to destroy chemical and biological materials. Both then and now, I doubt that nuclear devices will be used event though they may be the best option for the task. The problem, both then and now, is that people get hysterical whenever the idea of nuclear weapons gets on the table.

Let's look at the idea. Let's say that a subsurface sub-K device is used to destroy a large bunker filled with chemical and biological agents that pose great risk if any other means of destruction is used. That's the only time the nuclear option is contemplated. The earth shakes, the offending materials are destroyed. negligible collateral damage results. How do you think that would lead to Armageddon?

Neither Iraq nor any of its supporters have the capability of countering with a nuclear attack anywhere, not even on Israel. BTW, who supports Saddam anyway? Iran has nuclear ambitions, but hasn't any warheads yet. Pakistan and India will be no closer to an nuclear exchange than they have been for these many years. I don't thing Britain, France, or the countries that formerly made up the Soviet Union will use this scenario to launch nuclear weapons against anyone at all. China has a modest arsenal of nukes, but why would China launch against the United States. The response would reduce the population back down to under a billion, and ruin the existing power-structure. That leaves the DPRK.

Kim has threatened preemptory nuclear strikes if the UN and the United States only increases its presence in South Korea. Would they do it? Knowing that the U.S. used a nuclear device in Iraq would certainly give Kim pause. He believes we haven't the nerve to ever use nuclear weapons and that is why he wants the ability to use that threat to achieve his aims. Kim is crazy but not stupid, so the probability is that he would promptly abandon his nuclear program -- at least publicly. He has two or three crude weapons and an unproven delivery system. He can hit South Korea, but that would be counter productive to his long-range goals. He probably could hit most of the Japanese Islands, and Okinawa is the prime military target. If he launches even one bomb, it will be the end of Kim and the DPRK. Many Americans would scream for nuclear retaliation, but I doubt that we would use nuclear weapons when we have other more conventional means of utterly destroying North Korea. I expect that China would be quite happy to see the end of Mr. Kim.

Asherman
You may be aware of the effects of the use of these nuclear devices. And therefore have rationalized that there use is quite acceptable. I disagree their use is never acceptable. The psychological effect of their use or even talk of their use would be devastating.
Instead of looking at things based on what you know or think you know look at in light of the real world.

au1929 and asherman me thinks the biggest problem is the "talk" oh, so often public "talk" coming out of this administration that everything including nuclear is on the table. whether it is or not, whether it would be used or not, it is unconscionable to bandy about this kind of "talk' in a environment as sensitive as the world is today.

rendered temporarily speechless...ok, that's over

Speak up. These guys are insane. Likely, in their noggins, dropping a tactical nuke anywhere anytime is less offensive and closer to God's wishes than it was for Clinton to get a blowjob in the oval office.

We've had trhis discussion here on a2k - no? I know we can't know exactly what would happen were we to deep-bomb a factory in the desert. Not to deplete the validity of the previous statement, I think that Au and Dys have the most valid point on this topic. If nukes are used, especially preemptively, the rally of anti-american sentiment will be astounding. And very dangerous.

Re: Nuclear option creep


The two statements there don't quite jive. If "even planning for the possibility" is a grevious mistake then what was the value of those promises made by prior Presidents? I am personally aware of plans that were already in existance (when I became aware of them) as far back as 1982 for the use of nukes against non-nuclear nations...

Fishin',

Continguency plans go back alot further than that.

Mao said that nuclear weapons were a paper tiger. They are, only if a government doesn't use them. U.S. nuclear capablility is our best means of deterinig their use against us. They should only be used after careful consideration, including the political whirlwind that will result. Kim Jong-Il will use nukes if he believes that they will achieve his goals. What will convince him that he shouldn't drop a warhead on South Korea, Japan, or if he can manage it, onto the American mainland? He will continue to try blackmail and threats to play upon our fears. We must make the DPRK nuclear weapons a paper tiger. How do we accomplish that?

I believe that rogues like Kim, Saddam and others have to believe in their bones that if America is challenged/attacked that their string will have run out. We must insist that every weapon in our arsenal is available and will be used in appropriate circumstances. Hopefully, no one will ever again use a nuclear device against a city. Hope, but don't hold your breath. It is entirely possible that the DPRK, or a terrorist organization will use a radiological/nuclear weapon in the next decade. If they can, they will.

The long-standing dispute between Pakistan and India is another location where one or more nuclear devices might be used in a military situtation. Many will die, but the world will not end.