gcf@panix.uucp (Gordon Fitch) (02/07/91)
Note that in recent days the Butch, Danforth, and more than one of America's hochkommandatura have quite openly mused on the thought of using nuclear weapons -- especially if things go badly. And so far, they have not gone very well, outside of the media. This is called a "trial baloon." -- * Gordon Fitch | gcf@panix | uunet!cmcl2.nyu.edu!panix!mydog!gcf *
gary@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) (02/07/91)
['alt' groups dropped] > Gordon Fitch > Note that in recent days the Butch, Danforth, and more than one of > America's hochkommandatura have quite openly mused on the thought of using > nuclear weapons -- especially if things go badly. And so far, they have > not gone very well, outside of the media. Not surprising. Jym Dyer just recently posted an article in sci.env from Greenpeace detailing the whole nuclear-weapons issue vis-a-vis the war. In brief, there would be little military utility in the use of nuclear weapons, especially when one considers the political (and other) costs. I personally don't think that one (or more) will be used, because of the above, as well as the very small chance that the war will go so badly that use is even contemplated. > This is called a "trial baloon." In some part, yes, but mostly as a psycho-political guessing game, kind of like a bluff in poker. -- Gary Strand There is only one success -- to be able Internet: strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu to spend your life in your own way. Voicenet: (303) 497-1336 - Christopher Morley
jmc@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) (02/08/91)
In article <4{&&#*^@rpi.edu> rodney@dali.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II) writes: In article <1991Feb7.160946.7474@csn.org> fast@spot.Colorado.EDU (FAST BRUCE ALAN) writes: >Gary Strand refers to a "bluff"; > >>> Note that in recent days the Butch, Danforth, and more than one of >>> America's hochkommandatura have quite openly mused on the thought of using >>> nuclear weapons -- especially if things go badly. And so far, they have >>> not gone very well, outside of the media. >>> ... >>> This is called a "trial balloon." >> In some part, yes, but mostly as a psycho-political guessing game, kind of >> like a bluff in poker. > >The 'Butch' persuaded some reluctant Congressmen to vote in favor of >granting war powers in early January with the argument that it would >send a message to Saddam -- a bluff, as it were; a threat that might >make Saddam back down without having to fight it out. Of course, >Saddam seems totally oblivious to threat and bluff. And Butch didn't >hesitate to forget embargo, bluff, and diplomacy, the moment the >'official' deadline passed. > >When Butch muses about using nuclear weapons, someone should whup him >up side the head. NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! >NO NUCLEAR "BLUFFS", PLEASE! Seems to me that bluffing about nuclear weapons with someone we are afraid will use biological and chemical weapons is at best confusing. What do we gain by hinting that we might use these nuclear weapons? Saddam, if he believes us, will be more inclined to use gas weapons. Do we somehow win something if he calls our bluff like that? No, we just end up with a whole lot of dead people, and an escallated war. If he doesn't believe us, he will ignore us and then we are left with the threat of using nuclear weapons. We'll be nice and accustomed to that idea by the time they decide to use them just for the hell of it -- sorta like the other hightech toys we are using now. It's interesting that since the Soviet Union is largely out of the picture, there's no mutual assured destruction situation to stop us from using our nuclear weapons. Instead, the only things stopping us are practicality and morality. And in politics, morality is like sincerity. Once you can fake that, you've got it licked. Sincerely, -- Rodney Bush is from an older generation. When you talk to men of Bush's generation about nuclear weapons, you get the same considerations advanced as with younger people until you ask the following question: Where were you on August 6, 1945? Then you get answers like, 1. My ship was being refitted after two Kamikaze hits and was scheduled to return to combat in another month. 2. My division had just moved from Germany to California and was about to ship out to take part in the invasion of Japan. Then you ask, What did you think of the bombing of Hiroshima? and get the answer It saved my life. As for me, I was younger and would have finished basic training about the time of the invasion of Japan. If it went well, I would have been spared participation. If it had gone badly, I might have been involved. If there are very large casualties from gas, and Bush doesn't use everything he has that might be useful, there will be some very angry young men returning from the Middle East.
jonesra@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (rex jones) (02/08/91)
gcf@panix.uucp (Gordon Fitch) writes: >Note that in recent days the Butch, Danforth, and more than one >of America's hochkommandatura have quite openly mused on the >thought of using nuclear weapons -- especially if things go badly. >And so far, they have not gone very well, outside of the media. >This is called a "trial baloon." In today's Indianapolis Star, Dan Burton (congressman from northern Indy/Carmel) wrote a 1/4 page article expounding on why tactical 'battlefield' nukes should be used. His main argument seemed to be that the nukes that have been used killed only 160,000, while the Dresden firebombings killed 200,000, so the military probably would kill fewer with the nukes. >-- >* Gordon Fitch | gcf@panix | uunet!cmcl2.nyu.edu!panix!mydog!gcf * -- Alt.desert-storm...the beginning of George Bush's 1992 re-election campaign ---- "Study war no more"--Jesse Jackson (1-14-91, from his MIT talk) ---- ---- "No more war, war ever again"--Pope Paul VI ---- ---- jonesra@copper.ucs.indiana.edu -- Standard disclaimers apply ----
news@ncar.ucar.edu (USENET Maintenance) (02/08/91)
> Bruce Fast >> Gary Strand >> [M]ostly as a psycho-political guessing game, kind of like a bluff in >> poker. > When Butch muses about using nuclear weapons, someone should whup him > up side the head. NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! > NO NUCLEAR "BLUFFS", PLEASE! A bluff is a bluff until it's played. Simply because Saddam didn't think that we'd actually attack him, and we did/are, doesn't mean that Bush et.al. will necessarily use nukes against him. As I said, the military doesn't see much utility in using them, and given Bush's deference to the military (pretty much) I don't think we'll see them used. -- Gary Strand There is only one success -- to be able Internet: strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu to spend your life in your own way. Voicenet: (303) 497-1336 - Christopher Morley
golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) (02/08/91)
In article <jonesra.665970151@copper> jonesra@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (rex jones) writes: >gcf@panix.uucp (Gordon Fitch) writes: > >>Note that in recent days the Butch, Danforth, and more than one >>of America's hochkommandatura have quite openly mused on the >>thought of using nuclear weapons -- especially if things go badly. >>And so far, they have not gone very well, outside of the media. > >In today's Indianapolis Star, Dan Burton (congressman from northern >Indy/Carmel) wrote a 1/4 page article expounding on why tactical >'battlefield' nukes should be used. His main argument seemed to be that >the nukes that have been used killed only 160,000, while the Dresden >firebombings killed 200,000, so the military probably would kill fewer >with the nukes. > If nuclear weapons are used by the coalition against a non-nuclear Third World country, you might as well kiss nuclear non-proliferation good-bye, and jack up the SDI budget. Gerald
prater@oktext.sbc.com (Caryn S. Prater) (02/08/91)
In article <1991Feb7.025838.13793@panix.uucp> gcf@panix.uucp (Gordon Fitch) writes: > >Note that in recent days the Butch, Danforth, and more than one >of America's hochkommandatura have quite openly mused on the >thought of using nuclear weapons -- especially if things go badly. >And so far, they have not gone very well, outside of the media. > >This is called a "trial baloon." >-- >* Gordon Fitch | gcf@panix | uunet!cmcl2.nyu.edu!panix!mydog!gcf * If he does use the bomb, we won't have to worry about him again in '92. Caryn -- Nolite te bastardes carborunodorum Author unknown :-)
rodney@sun.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II) (02/08/91)
In article <1991Feb8.014431.19954@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes: >If nuclear weapons are used by the coalition against a non-nuclear >Third World country, you might as well kiss nuclear non-proliferation >good-bye, and jack up the SDI budget. > >Gerald SDI would be useless against a third world country with nuclear weapons. They would be much more likely to do damage if they walked in with the bomb than if they tried to lob it at us from the other side of the world. -- Rodney
v064lnev@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Zerxes Bhagalia) (02/08/91)
In article <1991Feb8.032851.9642@swbatl.sbc.com>, prater@oktext.sbc.com (Caryn S. Prater) writes... [stuff deleted because of its acenine, bitchy, and "on the rag" type remarks] >Caryn >-- >Nolite te bastardes carborunodorum > Author unknown :-) Caryn...SHUT UP! I don't know about the others on this newsgroup, but I for one have had it with your acenine, bitchy, "on the rag" type remarks constantly! If you still wish to continue posting in this manner, please add the suffix "- Caryn" to your subject so that other people who share my position can avoid having to put up with you any more. Thankyou, and hopefully good ridance! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (Zerxes Bhagalia v064lnev (INTERNET: @UBVMS.cc.buffalo.edu / BIT: @UBVMS.bitnet) ( -==- Bhagalia (INTERNET: @SYBIL.cc.buffalo.edu / BIT: NA ) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
himacdon@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Hamish Macdonald) (02/08/91)
>>>>> On 8 Feb 91 12:51:51 GMT, >>>>> In message <58617@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>, >>>>> v064lnev@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Zerxes Bhagalia) wrote: [stuff deleted because Zerxes can't spell] Zerxes...SHUT UP! I don't know about the others on this newsgroup, but I for one have had it with your misspelling of words such as "asinine" and "riddance" constantly! If you still wish to continue posting in this manner, please add the suffix "- I can't spell" to your subject so that other people who share my position can avoid having to put up with you any more. Thank you, and hopefully good riddance! -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- himacdon@maytag.uwaterloo.ca watmath!maytag!himacdon
gessel@ilium.cs.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Mark Gessel) (02/09/91)
(Zerxes Bhagalia) writes: >(Caryn S. Prater) writes... >[stuff deleted because of its acenine, bitchy, and "on the rag" type remarks] >>Caryn >>-- >>Nolite te bastardes carborunodorum >> Author unknown :-) >Caryn...SHUT UP! I don't know about the others on this newsgroup, but >I for one have had it with your acenine, bitchy, "on the rag" type >constantly! >If you still wish to continue posting in this manner, please add the >suffix "- Caryn" to your subject so that other people who share my position can >avoid having to put up with you any more. Thankyou, and hopefully good ridance! >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >(Zerxes Bhagalia v064lnev (INTERNET: @UBVMS.cc.buffalo.edu / BIT: @UBVMS.bitnet) >( -==- Bhagalia (INTERNET: @SYBIL.cc.buffalo.edu / BIT: NA ) >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To follow up on your statements, I don't know about others on this newsgroup, but if you wish to continue to post this asinine, sexist crap, please put "-sexist" in your subject line so that people who don't want to don't have to put up with you anymore. Seriously, I have nothing against you disliking her statement, but there is no need to go so low as to resort to sexism. To put my $ 2/100 in about the actual subject, a wholesale nuking would probably bring the outrage of the world against the U.S. But it would bring the war to a quick end, and I think _that_ would make Bush popular. The toll of the worlds anger against the U.S. would take time, and Americans might feel it by the time Bush was up for reelection. I don't think, however, that the nuking itself would bring his popularity down. Americans, I think, would see it as a good "last resort" before too many americans were killed. Small scale nukes (if there is such a thing, I've heard nuclear handgrenades exist, never heard if they're approved for use in combat tho'), would probably go unnoticed, considering the degree of bombing that is already going on. Athough it seems taht the leaders of many other contries already seems to be getting annoyed (bored?) with the degree of bombing. If Iraq uses chemical weapons agains Israel, Israel may nuke back. I don't know how the world would react to this. I think it would be split, possibly along Arab/non-Arab lines. Personally, I think you're getting close to justifiable. I don't know that this war is unjustifiable, but I think that there were some mixed signals coming from the U.S. to Iraq. We've used military force in situations where it wasn't called for (I remember best, and most recently Panama). And in "the new world order" big countries aren't allowed to pick on little countries. I don't mean to imply that these situations are paralell, but I just think we ought to get our own house in order. There's alot to fix around here, and it's not getting done. I do think that some of recent military actions the U.S. has taken have been motivated by ego. But then again I think most politicians are motivated by ego, so I'm biased. (My perception of the U.S. political system is that it's ideals are second to none, and that it's implementation is third-rate. Certain facets of life (and socio-economic groups) get short changed IMHO.) Now that I've strayed from the point. I would like the war to end quickly with minimal loss of life. I would like the world to realize "a new world order" which actually brings about world peace (I doubt my vision of "a new world order" is the same as Bush's). Is there any hope that the war will end before many people are killed? I don't think so. I think it's going to be quite a mess. I hope I'm wrong. Dan Sorry if this got posted more than once, the followup group was not what I expected. -- Daniel Mark Gessel Independent NeXT Developer Internet: gessel@cs.swarthmore.edu I do not speak (nor type) representing Swarthmore College.
prater@oktext.sbc.com (Caryn S. Prater) (02/09/91)
In article <1991Feb8.154447.10886@maytag.waterloo.edu> himacdon@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Hamish Macdonald) writes: >>>>>> On 8 Feb 91 12:51:51 GMT, >>>>>> In message <58617@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>, >>>>>> v064lnev@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Zerxes Bhagalia) wrote: > >[stuff deleted because Zerxes can't spell] > > Zerxes...SHUT UP! I don't know about the others on this >newsgroup, but I for one have had it with your misspelling of words >such as "asinine" and "riddance" constantly! > If you still wish to continue posting in this manner, please >add the suffix "- I can't spell" to your subject so that other people >who share my position can avoid having to put up with you any more. >Thank you, and hopefully good riddance! > >-- >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >himacdon@maytag.uwaterloo.ca watmath!maytag!himacdon Thank You. Caryn -- Nolite te bastardes carborunodorum Author unknown :-)
csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) (02/09/91)
In article <1991Feb7.025838.13793@panix.uucp> gcf@panix.uucp (Gordon Fitch) writes: > >Note that in recent days the Butch, Danforth, and more than one >of America's hochkommandatura have quite openly mused on the >thought of using nuclear weapons -- especially if things go badly. >And so far, they have not gone very well, outside of the media. > >This is called a "trial baloon." No, it is called a "veiled warning". Or maybe a "bluff". Saddam watches CNN too. If he gets the idea that maybe, just maybe, the US would start lobbing tacnukes in the event of a chemical or biological attack, he may be slightly more hesitant about using those weapons. -- Dave Mack
jonesra@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (rex jones) (02/10/91)
prater@oktext.sbc.com (Caryn S. Prater) writes: >In article <1991Feb7.025838.13793@panix.uucp> gcf@panix.uucp (Gordon Fitch) writes: >> >>Note that in recent days the Butch, Danforth, and more than one >>of America's hochkommandatura have quite openly mused on the >>thought of using nuclear weapons -- especially if things go badly. >>And so far, they have not gone very well, outside of the media. >> >>This is called a "trial baloon." >>-- >>* Gordon Fitch | gcf@panix | uunet!cmcl2.nyu.edu!panix!mydog!gcf * >If he does use the bomb, we won't have to worry about him again in >'92. The problem with this is that there are enough yahoos in the country who think that anything is permissable in war, and would probably vote for Bush for having the insanity to even consider using the bomb. I think if Bush used nukes and it didn't escalate into a holocaust, he'd be elected with 65-75% of the vote. Remember, this is the country that elected RR. Many said that such an action would eventually lead to war. We're at war now. >Caryn >-- >Nolite te bastardes carborunodorum > Author unknown :-) -- Alt.desert-storm...the beginning of George Bush's 1992 re-election campaign ---- "Study war no more"--Jesse Jackson (1-14-91, from his MIT talk) ---- ---- "No more war, war ever again"--Pope Paul VI ---- ---- jonesra@copper.ucs.indiana.edu -- Standard disclaimers apply ----
jmc@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) (02/10/91)
Bad spelling is a minor sin.
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (02/11/91)
From: jmc@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) >Bad spelling is a minor sin. You must have missed the original note, it was an offensive locker-room scrawl of sexist obscenities (not being hyperbolic here), let's see... > Caryn...SHUT UP! I don't know about the others on this newsgroup, but >I for one have had it with your acenine, bitchy, "on the rag" type remarks >constantly! -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
bhv@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Bronis Vidugiris) (02/11/91)
In article <1991Feb9.075438.17779@alembic.acs.com> csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) writes:
)No, it is called a "veiled warning". Or maybe a "bluff".
)
)Saddam watches CNN too. If he gets the idea that maybe, just maybe,
)the US would start lobbing tacnukes in the event of a chemical or
)biological attack, he may be slightly more hesitant about using those
)weapons.
I think that in the event of chemical warfare attacks, the US might
very well drop a tactical nuke on one of the Republican Guard units.
I'm pretty sure the U.S. population would support such a move - I'm
not so sure of world opinion, but I suspect the reaction would be
negative, but not overwhelmingly so.lhb6v@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Laura Hayes Burchard) (02/11/91)
In article <1991Feb11.050408.10399@ccu.umanitoba.ca> thorntn@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Duncan Peter G. Thornton) writes: >In <1991Feb11.023449.17583@ddsw1.MCS.COM> bhv@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Bronis Vidugiris) writes: >>very well drop a tactical nuke on one of the Republican Guard units. >>I'm pretty sure the U.S. population would support such a move - I'm >>not so sure of world opinion, but I suspect the reaction would be >>negative, but not overwhelmingly so. >I suspect that outside of Britain, and maybe France, the reaction >would be almost uniformly very strongly negative. That goes for >Canada, one of the coalition partners. Oooh, I think it would be negative amongst a lot of us Americans, too. I suspect that even a lot of those who answered yes to the poll would think again when they saw the result. Not incidentally, it would be a violation of treaties which we have signed to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear power. All bets are off, though, if Saddam somehow has managed to put together a bomb, and nukes Tel Aviv. >Whether it is logical or not, using (tactical) nuclear weapons >would seem to be a response very much of a different order. But >I think the reaction would be the same if the U.S. were to use >chemical weapons as well. The U.S. is only barely holding on >to support in a lot of the world, and giving up the position of >moral superiority they can claim by not (since 1945) having used >nuclear or chemical weapons would cost the U.S. very badly. >I think there is some value to having the nuclear threshold as >one which it would cause world-wide horror to cross. What >_clear line_ would there be after tactical nukes? Yes, it would be nasty. Note, for example, what happened after the world more or less winked at Saddam's use of chems against the Iranians; it became integrated into his battle tactics, and now those that stood by now will face chemwar themselves. There's a certain dark justice to it... -- Laura Burchard lhb6v@virginia.edu lhb6v@virginia.bitnet #inc <std.disclaimer> The fact is that one side thinks that the profits to be won outweigh the risks to be incurred, and the other side is ready to face danger than accept an immediate loss. --Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War
bombach@caen.engin.umich.edu (Paul Matthew Bombach) (02/12/91)
> >I think that in the event of chemical warfare attacks, the US might >very well drop a tactical nuke on one of the Republican Guard units. >I'm pretty sure the U.S. population would support such a move - I'm >not so sure of world opinion, but I suspect the reaction would be >negative, but not overwhelmingly so. As my mother used to say "Two wrongs don't make a right." If the U.S. dropped a tactical nuke, I thinked G.Bush should be tried as a war criminal. Paul Bombach
foley@phoebus.meteor.wisc.edu (Jonathan Foley) (02/12/91)
In article <1991Feb11.172446.7039@engin.umich.edu>, bombach@caen.engin.umich.edu (Paul Matthew Bombach) writes: |> > |> >I think that in the event of chemical warfare attacks, the US might |> >very well drop a tactical nuke on one of the Republican Guard units. |> >I'm pretty sure the U.S. population would support such a move - I'm |> >not so sure of world opinion, but I suspect the reaction would be |> >negative, but not overwhelmingly so. |> |> As my mother used to say "Two wrongs don't make a right." |> |> If the U.S. dropped a tactical nuke, I thinked G.Bush should be tried as a |> war criminal. |> |> Paul Bombach Just a thought...with the typical Washington 'doublespeak' going on, I was wondering what George and his friends would call a nuclear bomb used on Iraqi troops? I think I know - a 'tactical fission liberation device'. This goes very well with his 'revenue enhancement' instead of 'new taxes' crap. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Foley foley@meteor.wisc.edu Center for Climatic Research uunet!meteor.wisc.edu!foley@uunet.uu.net and Department of Meteorology foley@wiscmacc.bitnet University of Wisconsin 1225 West Dayton Street (608) 262-0794 Madison, WI 53706 - United States (608) 262-2839 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jmc@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) (02/12/91)
I think George Bush will correctly decide that avoiding the use of tactical nuclear weapons is worth letting a rather large number of American soldiers die. His project of freeing Kuwait, preventing Iraq from being able to do it again, and making sure than conquest is unfashionable faces enough political difficulties as is. Truman was in a quite different political position. If he had let American soldiers die because of failure to use the bomb, his political chances would have been nil.
thorntn@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Duncan Peter G. Thornton) (02/13/91)
In <JMC.91Feb11182258@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU> jmc@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes: >I think George Bush will correctly decide that avoiding the use of >tactical nuclear weapons is worth letting a rather large number of >American soldiers die. His project of freeing Kuwait, preventing Iraq >from being able to do it again, and making sure than conquest is >unfashionable faces enough political difficulties as is. >Truman was in a quite different political position. If he had >let American soldiers die because of failure to use the bomb, >his political chances would have been nil. I would like to give Truman the benefit of the doubt here, and assume that he did not drop both bombs because he was worried about re-election, but because he sincerely believed it would save lives (and not just American soldiers' lives). I could be wrong, but I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt. In any case, as the existence of the bomb was a secret, who among the electorate would have blamed him for not using it? - Duncan Duncan Thornton | When an idea is too weak to stand the test of simple thorntn@ccu.umanitoba.ca | expression, it should be dropped. - Vauvenargues
alain@elevia.uucp (W.A.Simon) (02/13/91)
In <1991Feb11.204302.27201@meteor.wisc.edu> foley@phoebus.meteor.wisc.edu (Jonathan Foley) writes: >In article <1991Feb11.172446.7039@engin.umich.edu>, bombach@caen.engin.umich.edu (Paul Matthew Bombach) writes: >|> > >|> >I think that in the event of chemical warfare attacks, the US might >|> >very well drop a tactical nuke on one of the Republican Guard units. >|> >I'm pretty sure the U.S. population would support such a move - I'm >|> >not so sure of world opinion, but I suspect the reaction would be >|> >negative, but not overwhelmingly so. >|> As my mother used to say "Two wrongs don't make a right." >|> If the U.S. dropped a tactical nuke, I thinked G.Bush should be tried as a >|> war criminal. >|> Paul Bombach >Just a thought...with the typical Washington 'doublespeak' going on, >I was wondering what George and his friends would call a nuclear >bomb used on Iraqi troops? >I think I know - a 'tactical fission liberation device'. >This goes very well with his 'revenue enhancement' instead of 'new >taxes' crap. the vocable already exist, let's try combining it: active measure of dissuasion (AMD) radical dissuasion initiative (RDI) threat eradication measure (TEM) last warning promotion (LWP) limited capability anihilation (LCA) tactical balance redressment (TBR) positive insertion measure (PIM) enhanced retaliatory response (ERR) peace making offering (PMO) show of force (SOF) display of intentions (DOI) war-ending resource application of tactical hardship (WRATH) final solution (FS) free sample (FS) in the Nixon years it would have been: The other thing The unthinkable What we don't want to do We never have and never will Reagan would probably have said: This other voodoo you do Whatchamacallit This new toy you told me about Let's bomb this guy in Lybia, what's his name Tactical what? >Jonathan Foley foley@meteor.wisc.edu -- Alain UUCP: alain@elevia.UUCP
towfiq@FTP.COM (Mark Towfiq) (02/13/91)
Please get this out of trial.talk.politics.peace. Out of all the Newsgroups: above, postings on this topic are LEAST appropriate here. Mark -- Mark Towfiq, FTP Software, Inc. towfiq@FTP.COM Work No.: +1 617 246 0900 Home No.: +1 617 488 2818 "The Earth is but One Country, and Mankind its Citizens" -- Baha'u'llah
alain@elevia.uucp (W.A.Simon) (02/13/91)
In <JMC.91Feb11182258@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU> jmc@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes: >I think George Bush will correctly decide that avoiding the use of >tactical nuclear weapons is worth letting a rather large number of >American soldiers die. His project of freeing Kuwait, preventing Iraq >from being able to do it again, and making sure than conquest is >unfashionable faces enough political difficulties as is. why "correctly"? Pragmatism in war dictates that you use the correct weapon in terms of gains as opposed to losses. Here the use of tactical nukes would be correct. Strategic bombing (as in Baghdad) as been very restrained (so to speak). The loss of a few planes and crews has been judged to be an acceptable cost in order to spare as many civilians as possible. I guess this falls under your definition of "correct". >Truman was in a quite different political position. If he had >let American soldiers die because of failure to use the bomb, >his political chances would have been nil. Truman (and the people who were advising him) decided to use strategic (not tactical) nukes for reasons which have little to do with saving US lives. Saving US lives may have been a convenient rationale, and a good side effect, but the true reason was to scare the Soviets shitless. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the first victims of the cold war. I am not saying it was the only reason, but the two bombs would not have been dropped if it had just been to terminate the war speedily. Japan, by that time, was already quite damaged and about to cave in. There was a need on the part of the US to show superior military strength and the will to use it. In Baghdad, the bombing is meant to do exactly this, with some restraint. The time may come when this will not be enough and more convincing arguments must be used. If it is done under tactical conditions, nobody will blame the US for it. I don't think the US consider strategic nukes at all. I just hope the diplomats get together before anyone wins this war. -- Alain UUCP: alain@elevia.UUCP
jmc@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) (02/14/91)
In article <1991Feb12.195346.8520@elevia.uucp> alain@elevia.uucp (W.A.Simon) writes: In <JMC.91Feb11182258@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU> jmc@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes: >Truman was in a quite different political position. If he had >let American soldiers die because of failure to use the bomb, >his political chances would have been nil. Truman (and the people who were advising him) decided to use strategic (not tactical) nukes for reasons which have little to do with saving US lives. Saving US lives may have been a convenient rationale, and a good side effect, but the true reason was to scare the Soviets shitless. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the first victims of the cold war. I am not saying it was the only reason, but the two bombs would not have been dropped if it had just been to terminate the war speedily. Japan, by that time, was already quite damaged and about to cave in. There was a need on the part of the US to show superior military strength and the will to use it. In Baghdad, the bombing is meant to do exactly this, with some restraint. The time may come when this will not be enough and more convincing arguments must be used. If it is done under tactical conditions, nobody will blame the US for it. I don't think the US consider strategic nukes at all. I just hope the diplomats get together before anyone wins this war. Alain, how old are you? When you ask men slightly older than me, what he thought when the A-bomb was dropped, he is likely to say something like, "My division had just been shipped from Europe to California, and we were getting ready to be shipped out to take part in the invasion of Japan. The bomb saved my life." Another said "My ship was being refitted after taking two kamikaze hits". The invasion of Japan would have been extremely bloody. Given how narrow was the margin of the Japanese decision to surrender after the A-bomb, it seems quite unlikely that they would have surrendered before an invasion without the bomb. If the bomb had been witheld, these men would have found out before very long. Truman might even have been impeached. There were 15 million men in the service at that time.
alain@elevia.uucp (W.A.Simon) (02/15/91)
In <JMC.91Feb13223430@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU> jmc@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes: >In article <1991Feb12.195346.8520@elevia.uucp> alain@elevia.uucp (W.A.Simon) writes: > In <JMC.91Feb11182258@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU> jmc@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes: > >Truman was in a quite different political position. If he had > >let American soldiers die because of failure to use the bomb, > >his political chances would have been nil. > Truman (and the people who were advising him) decided > to use strategic (not tactical) nukes for reasons which > have little to do with saving US lives. Saving US lives > may have been a convenient rationale, and a good side > effect, but the true reason was to scare the Soviets > shitless. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the first victims > of the cold war. I am not saying it was the only reason, > but the two bombs would not have been dropped if it had > just been to terminate the war speedily. Japan, by that > time, was already quite damaged and about to cave in. > There was a need on the part of the US to show superior > military strength and the will to use it. In Baghdad, > the bombing is meant to do exactly this, with some > restraint. The time may come when this will not be > enough and more convincing arguments must be used. If > it is done under tactical conditions, nobody will blame > the US for it. I don't think the US consider strategic > nukes at all. > I just hope the diplomats get together before anyone > wins this war. >Alain, how old are you? I was born a year after Hiroshima. Is this relevant? > When you ask men slightly older than >me, what he thought when the A-bomb was dropped, he is likely >to say something like, "My division had just been shipped from >Europe to California, and we were getting ready to be shipped >out to take part in the invasion of Japan. The bomb saved my >life." Another said "My ship was being refitted after taking >two kamikaze hits". >The invasion of Japan would have been extremely bloody. Given how >narrow was the margin of the Japanese decision to surrender after the >A-bomb, it seems quite unlikely that they would have surrendered >before an invasion without the bomb. >If the bomb had been witheld, these men would have found out before >very long. Truman might even have been impeached. There were >15 million men in the service at that time. The bomb may have saved these guys. The official doctrine is that it did. And why not. But there were many reasons for and against it flying around. The quick end to the war was only one of them. No issue is ever that simple. In fact there were very strong evidences that Japan was about to capitulate anyway and a show of force a hundred miles off the coast of Japan might have been enough. Imagine the impression it would have had on a forewarned audience. Given the "dirty" nature of the then current bombs, a display of power on a remote island, with invited Japanese dignitaries, was considered. Both ideas had actually been considered. That they were rejected is an indication that other factors entered the equation. My sources say nothing about Japanese hesitations after the bombings. There were many face saving tactics, but no real illusion as to the outcome. -- Alain UUCP: alain@elevia.UUCP
jmc@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) (02/16/91)
The main relevant book is entitled "The Japanese Decision to Surrender". I haven't read it, but I did read a biography of Emperor Hirohito, which described his decisive role in the decision. There had been some peace feelers that the Soviets had not passed on. A demonstration might have had the usual effect of a gradual escalation. A decision to fight on would have been easier after a demonstration. Then, when the bombing actually occurred it would have been a smaller step to decide to fight on anyway. But this is a diversion from my main point that the troops would have bitterly resented not using the bomb in the most effective way. Also remember that Truman had been an artillery captain in WWI.
plogan@mentorg.com (Patrick Logan) (02/20/91)
In article <1991Feb12.174432.904@ccu.umanitoba.ca> thorntn@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Duncan Peter G. Thornton) writes:
I would like to give Truman the benefit of the doubt here,
and assume that he did not drop both bombs because he was
worried about re-election, but because he sincerely believed
it would save lives (and not just American soldiers' lives).
It is widely accepted now that the bombs were dropped in August in an
effort to reduce Soviet influence in post-war Asia. Evidence in the
form of diaries and other documents made available via the freedom of
information act is widely available but doesn't receive much
publicity.
I don't have references at hand, but given some time can produce them.
Duncan Thornton | When an idea is too weak to stand the test of simple
thorntn@ccu.umanitoba.ca | expression, it should be dropped. - Vauvenargues
--
Patrick Logan, uunet!mntgfx!patrick_logan -or- patrick_logan@mentorg.com
Mentor Graphics Corp. 8500 SW Creekside, Beaverton, Oregon 97005-7191
=> Note that I have a new email address listed above!aleck@krypton.ecn.purdue.edu (Aleck Alexopoulos) (02/20/91)
plogan@mentorg.com (Patrick Logan) writes: >In article <1991Feb12.174432.904@ccu.umanitoba.ca> thorntn@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Duncan Peter G. Thornton) writes: > I would like to give Truman the benefit of the doubt here, > and assume that he did not drop both bombs because he was > worried about re-election, but because he sincerely believed > it would save lives (and not just American soldiers' lives). >It is widely accepted now that the bombs were dropped in August in an >effort to reduce Soviet influence in post-war Asia. Evidence in the >form of diaries and other documents made available via the freedom of >information act is widely available but doesn't receive much >publicity. OK, you have two bombs and lets say that you want to use them to put an end to the war and thus minimize the casualities. Why not use the first one as a WARNING? For example, drop on a lightly populated area and THEN demand an unconditional surrender "or else". Even if your enemy doesnt surrender and you're forced to drop the next one on a big city, you can still claim that .... "well at least we tried". Lets face it, the last thing on the US generals minds at the time was minimizing Japanese civilian casualitites...... But then, thats war....... Lets hope it "never happens again". Aleck H Alexopoulos