Nuts. All through the Cold War the US refused to renounce first use of nuclear weapons. It could not afford to. It simply could not station enough troops in Germany to stop the Warsaw Pact and the cost of doing so would have been astronomical.
US and Germany Disagree Over NATO No-First-Use
The new German Government - a Social Democratic Party/Green Party coalition - has raised the issue of NATO's doctrinal preparedness to use nuclear weapons first. Writing in Der Spiegel magazine on 21 November, Joshka Fischer, the new Foreign Minister and leader of the Green Party, advocated the adoption by the Alliance of a no-first-use policy.
acronym.org.uk
The report concludes with a set of recommendations designed to enhance the global nuclear non-proliferation regime, through a carefully selected program of risk reduction steps. They include reducing the alert status of nuclear weapons, ending the deployment of tactical weapons, and ending NATO’s policy of first use. These steps would signal a clear reduction in the political and military significance of nuclear weapons, thereby reducing their worth to potential proliferating states.
basicint.org
Now why would they be talking about eliminating a first-use policy if there was none?
Since both NATO and the Warsaw Pact were defensive, status-quo alliances, "No First Use unless vital interests are threatened" equaled "No Use".
WAIT A MINUTE! If you assume nobody ever attacks anybody, you don't even need an ARMY! If what you say is true, why did NATO and the Warsaw Pact even exist? Obviously because the assumption WAS made that they just might be needed and better be in place if they were.
The U.S. has now abandoned the Cold War's deterrence, in favor of new doctrines: preventive war, "useable" small specialized nuclear weapons, tactical (as opposed to strategic or deterrent) use.
I'd suggest you cuddle up with some history books. The US never, ever said it would not use nuclear weapons first in spite of repeated prodding by the Soviets and in spite of the fact that the Soviets made much propaganda hay out of that.
Throughout the Cold War, there was a consistent pattern of seriously exaggerating the Red Menace.
That may be in some areas, but Eastern Europe wasn't one of them.
"But we knew that the Soviets maintained something in the neighborhood of 175 divisions active in Europe at all times. The United States had twenty divisions, only five of which were in Europe." Dwight Eisenhower [5 star military general, former President of the United States]_Mandate for Change: The White House Years, 1953-1956_1963, at 453.
"In the greatest war in human history, the United States had struggled to mobilize 90 Army divisions. In 1947 the Soviet Union had 193 divisions and 10,500 aircraft to thrust into Europe. What force would stop them?" Dr. Stephen L. McFarland [professor of military history, Auburn University (Ala.). former visiting professor, Air War College, Maxwell AFB, Alabama]_The Air Force in the Cold War, 1945-60 Birth of a New Defense Paradigm airpower.maxwell.af.mil
web.ask.com
When American and Soviet weapons were matched up, in Israeli-Arab wars, the Israelis always overcame large numerical disadvantages.
Because that Soviet equipment was being operated by Arabs, not Russians.
And that does not change the fact that the Soviets had great numerical superiority and the West planned on using nukes to whittle it down.
I was involved in that movement, and you are 100% wrong.
You were what Lenin referred to as a "useful idiot".
Communists kept quiet about their Communism
Yes, did you think they were going to tell you they were using you to advance the interests of your country's enemy?
You know what you sound like? You sound like all those leftists who screamed bloody murder about McCarthy. In case you haven't heard, there's a problem with that approach: In essence, McCarthy was right. The US Gov't WAS stuffed with hundreds of Communists agents and spies. Doubt it? Try these:
amazon.com
amazon.com
If N. Korea were ever to attack S. Korea, the damage would be done with nuclear weapons
Both the US and the S. Koreans would prefer NOT using nuclear weapons there. It's a small heavily populated area. If the other guys know they are going to have to first drive through land mines that were going to tear there forces up, they may decide not to come at all. It's called "deterrence". It worked through 45 years of Cold War.
But didn't you say the US wouldn't use nukes first?
Q: Secretary Powell, you said, if I noted correctly, that you hope for a dialogue on conventional forces. Is that a precondition to the Bush Administration, or will you go ahead if the North Koreans were to talk only about missiles?
Secretary Powell: We're not setting any preconditions right now. I think it's important for us to have an open dialogue on all of the issues that are of concern, and this is an area that should be of concern to all of us because of the size of the North Korean army on the border. And it seems to me you can't really have a full set of discussions without raising this particular issue, but we're not putting any preconditions down.
web.ask.com
Pre-emptive war to overthrow North Korea's regime is an unpalatable option. Given the proximity of Seoul to North Korean artillery, the huge size of the North Korean army, and the ferocity of North Korean fighters (assuming they retain some of the attributes they displayed in the Korean War 50 years ago), any such war would almost surely lead to hundreds of thousands of casualties. And pre-empting North Korea's nuclear program, as the Clinton administration threatened to do eight years ago, can only work against large, fixed, known sites. It is probably not an option against a secret basement-bomb program. So, military force is a last resort.
web.ask.com |
