« prev   random   next »
1   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Jan 12, 10:34am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

DoofusRicky says
Sadly the first use of nuclear weapons will most probably be the last year we can turn a Page on the calendar. Very sad that it has come to this.

Hey but we all got a tax cut!
2   MisdemeanorRebel   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 12, 10:56am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

anonymous says
A reflection of Trump’s wish to preserve “peace through strength,” the Republican administration will not limit the role of nuclear weapons to deterrence and counterattacks against a nuclear attack, they said.

The implication of 'unprecedented' here doesn't hold water. The USA has NEVER adopted a No First Use Policy. Even Obama did not do so; the article is wrong.

Google "Flexible Response". It's been NATO Policy forever.
One of the first major exercises involving simulated first use Tac Nukes happened in the 50s. In the 70s, given the perception of huge Soviet Formations combined with the malaise after Vietnam, tac nukes were further expanded in Europe as a means of holding off the Soviets' massive quantitative advantage, short of a general Strategic Nuclear Exchange.

3   FuckCCP89   ignore (5)   2018 Jan 12, 2:29pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

It's merely symmetrical response. Putin has threatened to use tactical nukes against non-nuclear neighboring country three years ago.
4   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 12, 2:34pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

Threats have already been made to use full strength nukes. If he actually starts trying to use tactical nukes, he needs to be removed. What's to stop escalation? If one country uses tactical nukes against another capable country, a two eyes for an eye policy quickly escalates to full on nuclear war.
5   FuckCCP89   ignore (5)   2018 Jan 12, 3:00pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

If one country uses tactical nukes against another capable country, a two eyes for an eye policy quickly escalates to full on nuclear war.

Mmmm, no. It is a standing theory among Russian war planners that if Russia uses tactical nukes in Europe there will be no retaliation because there are no US tactical nukes deployed there and full-scale nuclear response won't be considered for the fear of escalating it into MAD scenario. Moreover, the reasoning goes, because of the above, the mere threat of using tactical nukes guarantees them from full-scale conventional retaliation in case they decide to occupy, say, Baltic states.You see, those Russian fucks are constantly looking for novel ways to fuck their neighbors over.
6   Strategist   ignore (2)   2018 Jan 12, 6:25pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

anonymous says
The Trump administration will consider developing new low-yield, small nuclear weapons intended to ensure military dominance over rival powers like China, Russia and North Korea, the sources said, quoting an outline of the review.

If that's what it takes to subdue North Korea, than so be it.
7   someone else   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 12, 7:30pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

I'm getting the feeling that Trump may soon invite Kim Jong Un to Mar a Lago. If he can convince Kim to become a mere oligarch of a sort-of capitalist country, that might be an OK solution.
8   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Jan 12, 8:32pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Good luck with that. He avoids being swallowed up by south Korea, by keeping his huge military, and not becoming a major trading partner. But it's true that since China is no longer communist in the traditional sense, it seems reasonable that NK could at some point evolve a little too. It's self preservation that would keep him from giving p his nuclear ambitions.

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions