Pages: 1 2

 

2007-02-25 11:56:41
Elamdri
The New Johnnie Cochran
+134|6664|Peoria
The other day in class, a professor of mine was talking on the topic of nuclear strategies over the past 50 years or so. One of the strategies we focus quite a bit on was Massive Retaliation, coined by John Dulles. The principle behind massive retaliation is that the nuclear enabled states in the system should adopt a policy of massive nuclear retaliation against any non-nuclear or very weak nuclear state as a way to keep them in line.

Now, due to the Soviet arms race, Massive Retaliation was replaced by Mutually Assured Desctruction (MAD) as a nuclear strategy, however, since the soviet union's collapse, there has not been a decent threat for years.

Now upstart countries like North Korea and Iran have taken it upon themselves to attempt to develope nuclear capabilities.

So the question is, should the US re-adopt a policy of Massive Retaliation against these countries?

EX. Iran bombs Israel. US then turns Tehran into glass parking lot.

EX. North Korea sells nuclear bomb to Terrorist Organization A. Terrorist Organization A uses nuclear bomb against US or allies. US turns North Korea into big crater.

Both nuclear and conventional attacks can spark a Massive Retaliation when the enemy state lacks retaliatory capacity.

What are the legal, ethical, moral, political repercussions of this policy. Is worth a good hard thought by US politicians?
2007-02-25 11:59:35
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6555|Long Island, New York
It's always been like that for american policy.

You blow up a boat of ours, we'll blow up a port of yours. You blow up a plane of ours, we blow up an airport of yours. You blow up a city of ours...well, you get the picture.
2007-02-25 11:59:51
Belx
Member
+4|6696|New York, New York
I myself am against using Nuclear missiles against any country, even if they do it to us.

The threat of a nuclear missile though, is highly effective and would probably prove useful towards places like Iran and North Korea.
2007-02-25 12:03:24
Elamdri
The New Johnnie Cochran
+134|6664|Peoria

Belx wrote:

I myself am against using Nuclear missiles against any country, even if they do it to us.

The threat of a nuclear missile though, is highly effective and would probably prove useful towards places like Iran and North Korea.
Well, see thats the thing, the point of Massive Retaliation is to fear the enemy into not acting. However, with psychopaths like Amedinijahd, what it really comes down to is the will to retaliate.

Also, Massive Retaliation takes a public media announcement. The whole world needs to know what will happen if they screw up.


...its basically reverse terrorism.
2007-02-25 12:07:29
Elamdri
The New Johnnie Cochran
+134|6664|Peoria

Poseidon wrote:

It's always been like that for american policy.

You blow up a boat of ours, we'll blow up a port of yours. You blow up a plane of ours, we blow up an airport of yours. You blow up a city of ours...well, you get the picture.
Actually, Massive Retaliation is more like, you blow up a boat of ours, we'll blow up your damn country.
2007-02-25 12:35:54
Pierre
I hunt criminals down for a living
+68|6693|Belgium
EX. Iran bombs Israel. US then turns Tehran into glass parking lot.
In this scenario, the US has to announce publicly that they will consider an attack on Israel as an attack on itself, thus the retaliation. Question of politics: how will the 'allies' in the ME respond to such announcement? Will they still trust the US as a partner? Selling huge amounts of weapons and providing substantial aid to Israel is one thing, claiming that you will retaliate in case of an attack is completely different.

EX. North Korea sells nuclear bomb to Terrorist Organization A. Terrorist Organization A uses nuclear bomb against US or allies. US turns North Korea into big crater.
Question of evidence and credibility: how can you trace back the origin of a nuclear device after the blast? We all know from the war in Iraq that evidence can and will be forged, so how can we be sure this time before massive retaliation?
2007-02-25 12:38:52
Belx
Member
+4|6696|New York, New York

Elamdri wrote:

...its basically reverse terrorism.
It is terrorism.

But since when is terrorism not effective?
2007-02-25 12:44:12
cospengle
Member
+140|6505|Armidale, NSW, Australia

Elamdri wrote:

...its basically reverse terrorism.
But without the reverse bit.
2007-02-25 12:44:56
aardfrith
Δ > x > ¥
+145|6810

Elamdri wrote:

The other day in class, a professor of mine was talking on the topic of nuclear strategies over the past 50 years or so. One of the strategies we focus quite a bit on was Massive Retaliation, coined by John Dulles. The principle behind massive retaliation is that the nuclear enabled states in the system should adopt a policy of massive nuclear retaliation against any non-nuclear or very weak nuclear state as a way to keep them in line.

Now, due to the Soviet arms race, Massive Retaliation was replaced by Mutually Assured Desctruction (MAD) as a nuclear strategy, however, since the soviet union's collapse, there has not been a decent threat for years.

Now upstart countries like North Korea and Iran have taken it upon themselves to attempt to develope nuclear capabilities.

So the question is, should the US re-adopt a policy of Massive Retaliation against these countries?

EX. Iran bombs Israel. US then turns Tehran into glass parking lot.

EX. North Korea sells nuclear bomb to Terrorist Organization A. Terrorist Organization A uses nuclear bomb against US or allies. US turns North Korea into big crater.

Both nuclear and conventional attacks can spark a Massive Retaliation when the enemy state lacks retaliatory capacity.

What are the legal, ethical, moral, political repercussions of this policy. Is worth a good hard thought by US politicians?
Does that mean that if Israel makes a pre-emptive strike against Iran, the USA would nuke Tel Aviv and Jerusalem?  It looks far more likely that Israel will move against Iran than vice versa.

And the North Korea thing, firstly how do you prove it was an NK bomb?  Assuming you can do that, you know that NK has adopted capitalist ideals (how many times did the US profit from arms sales to less-than-reputable nations?) and should be praised for their efforts in battling communism, not bombed back to the stone age.
2007-02-25 12:55:00
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6423|North Carolina
I believe in massive retaliation to a point, but as Israel has shown us -- this doesn't work against countries like Lebanon.

I don't normally condone this sort of thing, but Israel would have probably been better off wiping Lebanon from the face of the earth than doing what they actually did a little while ago.

Now, Lebanon is just a hateful wounded animal of a country.  Hezbollah has capitalized on the desperate status of this country to great effect.  It's too bad the people don't realize Hezbollah was the group that got them into this mess in the first place.
2007-02-25 13:37:21
BVC
Member
+325|6713
Remember than famous guy who killed millions of innocent people...what was his name...Adolf Hitler?
2007-02-25 13:57:07
Blehm98
conservative hatemonger
+150|6481|meh-land

cospengle wrote:

Elamdri wrote:

...its basically reverse terrorism.
But without the reverse bit.
not entirely.  Terrorism is the usage of force or threats to terrify a population into doing what you want them to do
we are threatening the government on the premises that if they declare war and use WMDs we will use them also, but we won't start a war with WMDs
2007-02-25 14:45:03
PureFodder
Member
+225|6303

Elamdri wrote:

The other day in class, a professor of mine was talking on the topic of nuclear strategies over the past 50 years or so. One of the strategies we focus quite a bit on was Massive Retaliation, coined by John Dulles. The principle behind massive retaliation is that the nuclear enabled states in the system should adopt a policy of massive nuclear retaliation against any non-nuclear or very weak nuclear state as a way to keep them in line.

Now, due to the Soviet arms race, Massive Retaliation was replaced by Mutually Assured Desctruction (MAD) as a nuclear strategy, however, since the soviet union's collapse, there has not been a decent threat for years.

Now upstart countries like North Korea and Iran have taken it upon themselves to attempt to develope nuclear capabilities.

So the question is, should the US re-adopt a policy of Massive Retaliation against these countries?

EX. Iran bombs Israel. US then turns Tehran into glass parking lot.

EX. North Korea sells nuclear bomb to Terrorist Organization A. Terrorist Organization A uses nuclear bomb against US or allies. US turns North Korea into big crater.

Both nuclear and conventional attacks can spark a Massive Retaliation when the enemy state lacks retaliatory capacity.

What are the legal, ethical, moral, political repercussions of this policy. Is worth a good hard thought by US politicians?
The problem with nukes is the you just kill the civillians who had nothing to do with it while the people who done bad things sit in their bunker and watch.

Any politician who brought about such a policy and followed through on it risks becoming one of the most hated people in history. Plus you can expect a whole bunch of nations to hate your for the forseeable few centuries and a massive political and social outlash accross the globe. Many US companies would quickly find themselves extremely broke as nobody would buy US products. Generally the results of such a policy would likely be catastrophic for the US economy. You could also expect to get your ass voted out of office in the next election as there would be a massive public backlash against the actions and almost assuredly you'd be handing the next decade of political rule over to the opposition party. That is if you didn't find youself in The Hague by then.
2007-02-25 15:52:42
Elamdri
The New Johnnie Cochran
+134|6664|Peoria

Pierre wrote:

EX. Iran bombs Israel. US then turns Tehran into glass parking lot.
In this scenario, the US has to announce publicly that they will consider an attack on Israel as an attack on itself, thus the retaliation. Question of politics: how will the 'allies' in the ME respond to such announcement? Will they still trust the US as a partner? Selling huge amounts of weapons and providing substantial aid to Israel is one thing, claiming that you will retaliate in case of an attack is completely different.
Well, off course, as I said in a later post, the US would need to make this a public declaration. It all depends on the nature of the aggression. A full scale attack on Israel would probably be what would prompt a retaliatory strike.


Pierre wrote:

EX. North Korea sells nuclear bomb to Terrorist Organization A. Terrorist Organization A uses nuclear bomb against US or allies. US turns North Korea into big crater.
Question of evidence and credibility: how can you trace back the origin of a nuclear device after the blast? We all know from the war in Iraq that evidence can and will be forged, so how can we be sure this time before massive retaliation?
You don't need to know where they came from. Part of the beauty of Massive Retaliation is that you can simply say "Iran, North Korea. If a terrorist organization uses nuclear bombs to attack a US ally, or the US proper, we will assume you empowered them, hold YOU responsible, and retaliate against YOU.


aardfrith wrote:

Does that mean that if Israel makes a pre-emptive strike against Iran, the USA would nuke Tel Aviv and Jerusalem?  It looks far more likely that Israel will move against Iran than vice versa.
No, Massive Retaliation is a preventative measure, not a aggressive strategy. If a US ally declares war, thats their problem, we have no obligations. The purpose is to prevent preemptive strikes by the enemy and to retaliate if they do.

aardfrith wrote:

And the North Korea thing, firstly how do you prove it was an NK bomb?  Assuming you can do that, you know that NK has adopted capitalist ideals (how many times did the US profit from arms sales to less-than-reputable nations?) and should be praised for their efforts in battling communism, not bombed back to the stone age.
See above. It doesn't matter if the nuke came from North Korea, you just assume it did and proceed as normal.

PureFodder wrote:

The problem with nukes is the you just kill the civillians who had nothing to do with it while the people who done bad things sit in their bunker and watch.
What good is a nation with no people?


PureFodder wrote:

Any politician who brought about such a policy and followed through on it risks becoming one of the most hated people in history. Plus you can expect a whole bunch of nations to hate your for the forseeable few centuries and a massive political and social outlash across the globe. Many US companies would quickly find themselves extremely broke as nobody would buy US products. Generally the results of such a policy would likely be catastrophic for the US economy. You could also expect to get your ass voted out of office in the next election as there would be a massive public backlash against the actions and almost assuredly you'd be handing the next decade of political rule over to the opposition party. That is if you didn't find yourself in The Hague by then.
You are of course right on many of those points. However, the point of Massive Retaliation is that it places the blame for the attack on the enemy. The enemy invited the attack by stepping over the line.


I believe Dulles said it best. "The US will respond to a Soviet attack at a time and place and in a manner of our choosing."

Last edited by Elamdri (2007-02-25 15:55:28)

2007-02-25 17:41:51
Auqakuh2213
Bianchi Whore.
+53|6687

Belx wrote:

Elamdri wrote:

...its basically reverse terrorism.
It is terrorism.

But since when is terrorism not effective?
"Terrorist" is just what the big army calls the little army.
2007-02-25 18:36:50
Elamdri
The New Johnnie Cochran
+134|6664|Peoria

Auqakuh2213 wrote:

Belx wrote:

Elamdri wrote:

...its basically reverse terrorism.
It is terrorism.

But since when is terrorism not effective?
"Terrorist" is just what the big army calls the little army.
...I guess that would work...if they had an army.


Terrorism is the use of force against civilians in order to create a state of fear in order to advance a political gain.
2007-02-25 18:42:24
ProRacerNorm
Member
+6|6618
Nuke everybody who is our enemy
2007-02-25 19:53:05
Auqakuh2213
Bianchi Whore.
+53|6687

Elamdri wrote:

Auqakuh2213 wrote:

Belx wrote:

It is terrorism.

But since when is terrorism not effective?
"Terrorist" is just what the big army calls the little army.
...I guess that would work...if they had an army.
And what is an army? A group of armed, organised individuals providing and provided with training to create warfighting skills.

So any terrorist group with training camps... has an army. Eta, for example, has a political wing and a military wing. The military wing is the Eta army.

Since almost all national militaries have engaged, attacked, maimed, murdered, raped, slaughtered, and otherwise brutalised civilians either in recent history or fairly recent history... there's no real way to distinguish, unless you say that national armies are somehow more -official- - but official to who? According to the terrorists, the British/US Armies are both terrorist groups, but with a mandate from governments.

But what, when you boil it down, is the real, technical difference? There isn't one. The differences are purely ethical/legal - and in some cases the ethical differences are questionable. Purely as an example, in an all-out war, I do not doubt that our soldiers (at least some) would be prepared to undertake suicide missions in order that "our" side wins.

Terrorism is the use of force against civilians in order to create a state of fear in order to advance a political gain.
You mean like the bombing campaign Clinton carried out in Bosnia?

ProRacerNorm wrote:

Nuke everybody who is our enemy
Since this is a serious discussion, I'll take that seriously.

Pros? Cons? What is your line of reasoning?

Last edited by Auqakuh2213 (2007-02-25 19:55:54)

2007-02-25 19:59:44
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6579
The problem with that policy is that no country will just sit by and watch as other countries start launching nukes.  Even NATO would probably turn on the US.
2007-02-25 20:39:49
Elamdri
The New Johnnie Cochran
+134|6664|Peoria

Auqakuh2213 wrote:

And what is an army? A group of armed, organised individuals providing and provided with training to create warfighting skills.

So any terrorist group with training camps... has an army. Eta, for example, has a political wing and a military wing. The military wing is the Eta army.

Since almost all national militaries have engaged, attacked, maimed, murdered, raped, slaughtered, and otherwise brutalised civilians either in recent history or fairly recent history... there's no real way to distinguish, unless you say that national armies are somehow more -official- - but official to who? According to the terrorists, the British/US Armies are both terrorist groups, but with a mandate from governments.

But what, when you boil it down, is the real, technical difference? There isn't one. The differences are purely ethical/legal - and in some cases the ethical differences are questionable. Purely as an example, in an all-out war, I do not doubt that our soldiers (at least some) would be prepared to undertake suicide missions in order that "our" side wins.
Thats exactly it. Non state actors cannot have an army. They can act as guerilla forces, but not a legitimate army. National standing armies are more official. They are given that officialism by the other nations in the system. So long as the other nations recognize the government of the state, that government can have it's own standing army. There are rules of warfare that having a national army allows the states to take advantage of.

Auqakuh2213 wrote:

Terrorism is the use of force against civilians in order to create a state of fear in order to advance a political gain.
You mean like the bombing campaign Clinton carried out in Bosnia?
Depends. What he explicitly targeting Civilians? If so, then yes. If not, then it falls under collateral damage.
2007-02-25 20:42:20
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6579

Elamdri wrote:

They can act as guerilla forces, but not a legitimate army.
Guerilla forces are forces who engage in guerilla warfare, which is different to a non-state army.

Elamdri wrote:

There are rules of warfare that having a national army allows the states to take advantage of.
Only, no.  If they are signatories to the Geneva convention, yes.  But otherwise there isn't really any difference between a national army and a non-state army.
2007-02-25 20:53:07
Elamdri
The New Johnnie Cochran
+134|6664|Peoria

Bubbalo wrote:

Elamdri wrote:

They can act as guerilla forces, but not a legitimate army.
Guerilla forces are forces who engage in guerilla warfare, which is different to a non-state army.

Elamdri wrote:

There are rules of warfare that having a national army allows the states to take advantage of.
Only, no.  If they are signatories to the Geneva convention, yes.  But otherwise there isn't really any difference between a national army and a non-state army.
I'm making the statement that there is no such thing as a non state "Army"

as for the Geneva convention, thats what I'm referring to.
2007-02-25 20:58:18
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6579
But the Geneva convention only applies to signatories.

Further, there is such a thing as a non-state army.  To say there isn't is like declaring there's no such thing as banks.
2007-02-25 21:18:44
Elamdri
The New Johnnie Cochran
+134|6664|Peoria

Bubbalo wrote:

But the Geneva convention only applies to signatories.

Further, there is such a thing as a non-state army.  To say there isn't is like declaring there's no such thing as banks.
If you not a signatory of the Geneva Convention, your probably not important enough to nuke.

I'm gonna disagree with you on the concept of Non-state armies. If you wanna call them Guerilla forces, I'm totally behind that, but I can't justify giving the title of "Army" to a group acting without the consent of a sovereign state.
2007-02-25 21:41:15
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6579

Elamdri wrote:

If you not a signatory of the Geneva Convention, your probably not important enough to nuke.
But only because all the big nations have signed on.  Being part of a state army is no different from being part of a non-state army.

Elamdri wrote:

I'm gonna disagree with you on the concept of Non-state armies. If you wanna call them Guerilla forces, I'm totally behind that, but I can't justify giving the title of "Army" to a group acting without the consent of a sovereign state.
You see, I can't really argue with you, because there's nothing to argue.  You're just plain wrong.  It would be like me arguing whether hello is a greeting.  What can you say in response?  You're wrong, plain and simple.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard