A "Mini-Nuke" for when we feel like unleashing just a lite fiery holocaust

Discussion in 'Politics and Religion' started by Rivercard, Sep 12, 2017.

  1. Rivercard

    Rivercard Too much good stuff

    Posts:
    16,556
    Likes Received:
    620
    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Location:
    Is everything
    This is insane.....

    ----------------------------------------------------------

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/09/trump-reviews-mini-nuke-242513

    Trump review leans toward proposing mini-nuke

    The Trump administration is considering proposing smaller, more tactical nuclear weapons that would cause less damage than traditional thermonuclear bombs — a move that would give military commanders more options but could also make the use of atomic arms more likely.

    A high-level panel created by President Donald Trump to evaluate the nuclear arsenal is reviewing various options for adding a more modern "low-yield" bomb, according to sources involved in the review, to further deter Russia, North Korea or other potential nuclear adversaries. Approval of such weapons — whether designed to be delivered by missile, aircraft or special forces — would mark a major reversal from the Obama administration, which sought to limit reliance on nuclear arms and prohibited any new weapons or military capabilities. And critics say it would only make the actual use of atomic arms more likely.

    The push is also almost sure to reignite concerns on the part of some lawmakers who say they already don’t trust Trump with the nuclear codes and believe he has dangerously elevated their prominence in U.S. national security by publicly dismissing arms control treaties and talking opening about unleashing "fire and fury" on North Korea. "If the U.S. moves now to develop a new nuclear weapon, it will send exactly the wrong signal at a time when international efforts to discourage the spread of nuclear weapons are under severe challenge," said Steven Andreasen, a State Department official in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

    The details of what is being considered are classified, and a National Security Council spokeswoman said "it is too early to discuss" the panel's deliberations, which are expected to wrap up by the end of the year.

    Joe Cirincione, president of Ploughshares Fund, a foundation that advocates reducing nuclear arms, also took issue with the argument for more nuclear options. "It is difficult to imagine the circumstances under which we would need a military option in between our formidable conventional capabilities and our current low-yield nuclear weapons capabilities," added Alexandra Bell, a former State Department arms control official. "Lawmakers should be very wary of any attempt to reduce the threshold for nuclear use. There is no such thing as a minor nuclear war."

    In Cirincione's view, the idea is fueled by economic, not security reasons.

    "This is nuclear pork disguised as nuclear strategy," he said. "This is a jobs program for a few government labs and a few contractors. This is an insane proposal. It would lower the threshold for nuclear use. It would make nuclear war more likely. It comes from the illusion that you could use a nuclear weapon and end a conflict on favorable terms. Once you cross the nuclear threshold, you are inviting a nuclear response."

    But others involved in the deliberations contend that if the administration seeks funding for a new tactical nuke, it might get a far more receptive audience in Congress. Already Republicans are pushing to build a new cruise missile that some say would violate the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia — a direct response to Moscow's violations of the arms control pact. The Senate is expected to debate the issue next week when it takes up the defense policy bill, which includes a controversial provision similar to one already passed by the House.
     
  2. puckhead

    puckhead Waxing Gibbous Contributor

    Posts:
    4,916
    Likes Received:
    1,006
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Location:
    Moment, AZ
    Silver lining is they're more proportionate to the President's hands.
     
  3. Russ Smith

    Russ Smith The Original Whizzinator Contributor

    Age:
    51
    Posts:
    49,167
    Likes Received:
    981
    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    It really is amazing that in this day and age we still haven't learned the fundamental lesson here. There just is NO guarantee you can end a conflict by dropping a nuke. The only reason the A bomb ended the conflict with Japan is they didn't have one and neither did their allies, if they'd had one they would have retaliated.

    As the 80's movie War Games so clearly showed, there just is no scenario where you can use nuclear weapons without more being used by your "opponent", there is no way to win.

    I do agree with the story too other than just being a loose cannon the primary reason Trump wants to do this IMO is to create "jobs". People want funding to build this and he sees it as a way to boost the economy.
     
    Absolute Zero likes this.
  4. LoyaltyisaCurse

    LoyaltyisaCurse Posts About Nothing.

    Age:
    42
    Posts:
    29,744
    Likes Received:
    1,137
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Location:
    CA
    Dip stick.
     
  5. UncleChris

    UncleChris Retirement Doesn't Suck Contributor

    Age:
    65
    Posts:
    15,188
    Likes Received:
    1,473
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Location:
    New River, AZ
    A Strange game... the only winning move is not to play....
     

Share This Page