BF2S Forums A return to Massive Retaliation.

The US has already hinted as to its willingness to completely retaliate in the event of another homeland disaster.

Seriously, have you not heard of a dictionary?  It's this little book where there are definitions for words.  Made by lots of different people.  You should try reading one sometime.  Unless of course the US army has somehow infiltrated all the dictionaries in your local area.  By magic, or something.  You see, it very clearly defines terms like army.  And the fact that an army is any armed force (or, more broadly, can be any large group moving toward a purpose i.e. Salvation Army).

No we are still in the M A D times. The Russians still have nukes and they are growing ever more powerful by the day. Now the Russians have done very little condemning of Irans ambitions. In fact they are doing deals with them. Iran was an proxy state to mother Russia in the "good old days" and it seams they still are.

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?

Lets rephrase this policy in more clear terms: Respond to genocide with a bigger genocide. The legal, ethical, moral and political repercussions become much clearer when you read it like that.

Also, that kind of policy validates any country's pursue of nuclear weapons. Only the possession of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them can a country compete with such policy. If that's the kind of muscle that's going to run the world, then all countries should develop nukes.

Last edited by EVieira (2007-02-26 08:26:33)

Elamdri wrote:

EVieira wrote:

Also, that kind of policy validates any country's pursue of nuclear weapons. Only the possession of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them can a country compete with such policy. If that's the kind of muscle that's going to run the world, then all countries should develop nukes.

Exactly. The more countries with nuclear weapons in the system, the more stable it becomes. Hell, lets send a few of our extras off to our allies as gifts. Force is the compelling element in the political system.

"Strong states do as they will, weak states suffer what they must."

But anyway, the goal of MR is not to start a nuclear war, but to prevent further war through fear and brinksmenship.

Well, there's your catch-22. In this scenario, weak states will pursue strength, they aren't going to simply remain weak. In other words, develop nukes. As more countries develop nukes, the closer we get to nuclear wars. So ruling by fear of nuclear exchanges, in effect you are pushing the world to nuclear exchanges.

Nuclear powers will slow down the development, but they can't stop it altogether. And if a nuke is ever used to stop such development, such action will fully justify other countries to develop their own nukes so they can defend themselves.

Elamdri wrote:

EVieira wrote:

Elamdri wrote:

Exactly. The more countries with nuclear weapons in the system, the more stable it becomes. Hell, lets send a few of our extras off to our allies as gifts. Force is the compelling element in the political system.

"Strong states do as they will, weak states suffer what they must."

But anyway, the goal of MR is not to start a nuclear war, but to prevent further war through fear and brinksmenship.

Well, there's your catch-22. In this scenario, weak states will pursue strength, they aren't going to simply remain weak. In other words, develop nukes. As more countries develop nukes, the closer we get to nuclear wars. So ruling by fear of nuclear exchanges, in effect you are pushing the world to nuclear exchanges.

Nuclear powers will slow down the development, but they can't stop it altogether. And if a nuke is ever used to stop such development, such action will fully justify other countries to develop their own nukes so they can defend themselves.

Actually, as more countries develope nukes, the farther we get from nuclear war. Nuclear war is expounded by fewer states having nukes, not more.

Thats the same argument saying the if everyone had guns, crime would down. Maye it would, but gun shot kills would rise. If most countries had nukes, it would only be a question of time when in one of those countries came to power some crazy fanatical fuck with the guts (or stupidity) to use a couple. And I'm not ruling out any of the current nuclear powers as the place where such leader could appear.

Elamdri wrote:

Actually, as more countries develope nukes, the farther we get from nuclear war. Nuclear war is expounded by fewer states having nukes, not more.

I don't think so. I suspect there is a "tipping point", where stability decreases on either side. Simplifying the matter to more = more stable, less = less stable is just that - simplifying. If all states have nuclear arms, nuclear warfare risks becoming conventional. If no states have nuclear arms, only economic superpowers / those with large volumes of extremely valuable resources can act as stabilising forces. There are pros and cons to both sides, but having no nuclear weapons whatsoever runs the risk that someone else develops them and we're back at square one.

Therefore, an equal spread of responsibility would provide, in theory at least, greatest stability. Any nuclear power would thus have other nuclear powers to fear, while non-nuclear powers would have to fear -all- the nuclear powers. This would eventually lead to, at the least, uneasy peace between the world's most powerful states... which is what we have currently. Moving in either direction without first creating greater stability (without the use of nuclear threat) would appear to be unwise, IMHO - too much margin for error, too many unstable variables.

Further, on a subject that popped up-

The Geneva Convention...

Part 1, Article 3 wrote:

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:



(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; <---

...doesn't that rule out the use of nuclear weapons except in tactical form?

Last edited by Auqakuh2213 (2007-02-26 13:58:22)

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

[pt] KEIOS wrote:

Elamdri wrote:

Actually, Massive Retaliation is more like, you blow up a boat of ours, we'll blow up your damn country.

it is more like: you kill one - we kill mankind

massive retaliation is bullshit. there is nothing worth it, to destroy the whole planet. if some freak uses a nuke, send the army and kill these suckers - don´t punish the whole country and its neighbourstates for it.

if your neighbour rapes a child, would it be ok to kill everyone including you in the street, for retaliation?

Unfair, isn't it? Welcome to life.

I guess you think the same about the Holocaust? "Oh who care's, it's life."

The US has been using massive retaliation since the soviets, we just retaliate with conventional means because dropping nukes means losing votes.

Bubbalo wrote:

Seriously, have you not heard of a dictionary?  It's this little book where there are definitions for words.  Made by lots of different people.  You should try reading one sometime.  Unless of course the US army has somehow infiltrated all the dictionaries in your local area.  By magic, or something.  You see, it very clearly defines terms like army.  And the fact that an army is any armed force (or, more broadly, can be any large group moving toward a purpose i.e. Salvation Army).

Army, n. pl.,armies, military land force


This would make you.......100% correct as a guerrilla force is not an "army" and does not operate as an army.

Pernicious544 wrote:

CannonFodder11b wrote:

Thats why we have the MOAB. Is deffinatly cheaper then a nuke without all the nasty side effects.
Dump a few of them around Iran, and drink some Chi tea.

The only problem is that they are carried out of a C-130 cargo plane. This plane: is not stealthy, is slow and has no defenses. Also a MOAB, while it does make a big ass boom, doesn't even compare to a nuke.

I'm fairly certain the MOAB can be carried by other means then a c130.  The first MOAB dumped was from a 130 off he coast of florida, it was a test thus the reason the MOAB was painted BRIGHT orange, the concussion of the MOAB was felt accross the eastern states and some reports said it hit the mid east.  It shattered windows almost 100 miles away.  And remember its not the Boom that kills most people, You drop a MOAB into a confined city space, and the Over pressure alone is going to turn people into goo, and level buildings.  WITHOUT the nasty radiation.  A daisy cutter (what the MOAB is based on) can level a mountain, and crush the bunkers burried within..Imagine what a MOAB will do in a tightly packed city, Ok so the buildings will stop some of the over pressure.... but its safe to say about 6 city blocks will be down and out, sewage systems will be gone, water...power, name it and its gone, and a massive blackout will ensue until someone grows the balls to go in there and assess and repair the damage down.  The (pardon my use of this overly coined phrase) "Shock and Awe" of the MOAB would deffinatly commense the shitting of pants, and you really think Tehrain, will send in a radiation responce team right away?  The MOAB does create a mushroom cload of nuke proportions... Many will think it was a nuke, people will run havoc will ensue, wash, rinse repeat as needed until desired effect is reached.

As for a C130 not being stealthy and having no defensive capabilities.... well my friend hows does that explain a spectre gunship?  Granted a Spectre cannot carry the cargo, that a c130 would carry let alone a MOAB....
The Spectre is still a C130 (its nomenclature is AC-130) You cannot tell me that a C130 (which btw has many different configurations) cannot be fitted with some type of ECM/Anti Radar device...
Where theres a will...theres a way.  Im sure a B52 can be retrofitted to carry a MOAB.  (I do not believe all the "Buffs" are mothballed, and its an easy cheap fix to get one modified and airworthy. Or maybe even a B1, or B2...all depends on retrofits and techno crap I don't know about, but If we can have a 747 that carries a space shuttle from Texas to Florida..... I'm sure we can find a way to fit a MOAB into atleast 1 of our long range bombing platforms.