New Era of Nuclear Doctrine

[Gixer]

Firstly please leave any political opinions at the door this isn't a pro or anti Bush thread. But a debate on nuclear doctrine.

Is the Cold War Nuclear Doctrine relevant today? Or are we in a new era of nuclear weapons and doctrine?

Interestingly Bush is looking to spend millions on nuclear weapons research warheads and delivery. I assume that the argument could be given that.

A new doctrine and new weapons are needed because the world has changed since the Cold War, when the United States deterred the Soviet Union from striking by developing a massive arsenal that promised complete annihilation. Now, they argue that there are new regional menaces from terroism and countries like Iran and North Korea.

To deter these  threats, the Bush administration might/is seeking to research a new stockpiles of both Cold War-era  and new, smaller weapons that can be used for limited attacks. Also tp propose a new policy of possible pre-emptive first use of nuclear weapons in emergencies, even against non-nuclear states.

Question is would you support the use of nuclear weapons in a tacticle role in a pre-emptive strike?

Personally I don't think that the current doctrine is relevant. Though at the risk of a new arms race of sorts and opening a pandoras box of moral issues regarding nuclear weapons. When terroists are willing to launch attacks like 9/11 and the recent diplorable actions in Russia I say the time has come to take the gloves off.



...-Gixer

[rpm]

The US needs to remain on top of the nuclear pile, for everyones sake. Aging weapons should be replaced. Having said that, I'm not sure we need to make new "limited" nukes.

[Lazerus]

What a horrible possibility.

[Nilsen]

I'm sure that the pile of nukes would be large enough by a huge margin if America reduced its stockpile by 90%

Nevermind me tho... im a leftist when it comes to these matters.

[GRUNHERZ]

More good reasons to support president Bush. He is clearly the man who will show these Islamic nutbags that we in the west are firmly in charge today! He will put the mid east in its proper place I tell you!  Thanks to God that he is president in this critical day for Christian Civilization. His new aggressive nuclear weapons use doctrine, his bold vision of a new, rapidly modernized, western oriented, progressive and democratic Iraq, his aggressive stance towards the vile regimes of Syria and Iran, his support for clandestine overseas torture and military trials for terrorists, his unwavering commitment to the expanding global war on terror despite the complaints of our weak allies, stuffy mid-east scholars and the human rights whiners at the ACLU and Amnesty International and his strong commitment to the moral superiority of the Judeo-Christian viewpoint over that of petty Islamic concerns and insecurities combined with his steadfast support of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Israel's aggressive security policies will earn my vote this November! He and his team of NeoCon advisors like: Paul Wolfowitz, Mort Zuckerman, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Norman Podhoretz and Elliot Abrams will provide the best vision for America’s foreign policy in the mid east today and in the future! I say, Bush is the new El-Cid, the new Sobieski, a modern day crusader even!  He will do the right thing to ensure a safe new world for us all!  

Onward Christian Soldiers!

Yep 4 more years! Better get used to it!  

BTW This sarcastic post is just me thinking outloud that sometimes I just don’t get why some guys in particular still support Bush…

Carry on…  

[Gh0stFT]

Originally posted by Gixer
...smaller weapons that can be used for limited attacks. Also tp propose a new policy of possible pre-emptive first use of nuclear weapons in emergencies, even against non-nuclear states.

Nuclear weapons where used in the past and if you ask me, its
just a matter of time when it will be used again.
Human-race opened the pandora box now we have to live with it forever

R
Gh0stFT

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Gixer
Firstly please leave any political opinions at the door this isn't a pro or anti Bush thread. But a debate on nuclear doctrine.

Is the Cold War Nuclear Doctrine relevant today? Or are we in a new era of nuclear weapons and doctrine?

Interestingly Bush is looking to spend millions on nuclear weapons research warheads and delivery. I assume that the argument could be given that.

A new doctrine and new weapons are needed because the world has changed since the Cold War, when the United States deterred the Soviet Union from striking by developing a massive arsenal that promised complete annihilation. Now, they argue that there are new regional menaces from terroism and countries like Iran and North Korea.

To deter these  threats, the Bush administration might/is seeking to research a new stockpiles of both Cold War-era  and new, smaller weapons that can be used for limited attacks. Also tp propose a new policy of possible pre-emptive first use of nuclear weapons in emergencies, even against non-nuclear states.

Question is would you support the use of nuclear weapons in a tacticle role in a pre-emptive strike?

Personally I don't think that the current doctrine is relevant. Though at the risk of a new arms race of sorts and opening a pandoras box of moral issues regarding nuclear weapons. When terroists are willing to launch attacks like 9/11 and the recent diplorable actions in Russia I say the time has come to take the gloves off.



...-Gixer

Sorry Gixer, but by including Bush in your comments, you've turned this into a political thread as well. Looking kind of anti-Bush from how I read it.
You should remove your opening sentences of

Firstly please leave any political opinions at the door this isn't a pro or anti Bush thread. But a debate on nuclear doctrine.

Right or wrong, your post looks like you are taking a position against Bush and his administration which nullifies your opening request.

[GRUNHERZ]

Actually his comments are Pro-Bush nuke policy..

Though you coulkd clearly have this discussion without mentiong Bush.

Just discuss whether the USA should develop new small, prolly cleaner, nukes and be willing to use them as more liberally as an offensive first strike weapon against certain difficulkt targets.

That sort of topic avoids any kind of specifiv political candidate stuff.

[Gixer]

Actually I wasn't talking for or against Bush I didn't mean for it to come across that way. Replace Bush Administration in the text with Government.

If Bush is the government after November then I would understand his reasoning,decision for the development of more tactical nuclear weapons and delivery systems suited for todays environment.




...-Gixer

[-tronski-]

I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.

 Tronsky

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by -tronski-
I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.

 Tronsky

Too damn late. You know if Oppenheimer really was so aginst his little gadget he should have  persued eastern philosophy and religion instead of physics...

What do you think about the new mini nukes tronski?

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by -tronski-
I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.

 Tronsky

Talk about arrogence.  


I am Thrawn, God/King of all!





A nuke is a nuke, size be damned and everyone knows it.  Start some nuclear detonations and find out have fast things turn to ****.  


PS: Grun, "BTW This sarcastic post is just me thinking outloud that sometimes I just don’t get why some guys in particular still support Bush…", I swear to god I didn't know that you were being sarcastic until I read that.

[rpm]

Originally posted by Nilsen
I'm sure that the pile of nukes would be large enough by a huge margin if America reduced its stockpile by 90%

Nevermind me tho... im a leftist when it comes to these matters.

I don't totally disagree with your view, Nils. But, I want to make sure the ones we have are in tip-top shape and top of the line. You have to maintain a stockpile large enough to keep rogue states in line, i.e. N. Korea. Even "Mental Lee" Il isn't stupid enough to go toe to nuclear toe against us.
I'm pretty sure the days of runaway nuke production are over, unless China gets itchy. Russia can't afford to get back in the game, India and Pakistan are only concerned with each other, and Israel is only concerned with their backyard. France? Well...

[Nilsen]

How many warheads do you have atm then rpm?

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Thrawn
PS: Grun, "BTW This sarcastic post is just me thinking outloud that sometimes I just don’t get why some guys in particular still support Bush…", I swear to god I didn't know that you were being sarcastic until I read that.

Go read my last post in the 10,000 thread... It's intersting how I wrote that post at the same time as you made this comment...