• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Here's Why U.S. Tactical Nukes Are a Bad Idea.

You must have a very different definition of both "Tantrum" and "answer" than either I or the dictionary have.

When someone starts flying off the handle and storms out of a discussion because he can't handle a little criticism then I'd call that a tantrum. How would you characterize it?
 
Tantrum: an uncontrolled outburst of anger and frustration, typically in a young child.

Answer: a thing said, written, or done to deal with or as a reaction to a question, statement or situation.
 
When someone starts flying off the handle and storms out of a discussion because he can't handle a little criticism then I'd call that a tantrum. How would you characterize it?

Looks like you are using hyperbolic terms...

I thought you and Oozlefinch were having a pretty good discussion. You were disagreeing at points. But everything was pretty much on even keel. Up until Post #41 I saw no 'tantrum". And I believe Oozlefinch may have misinterpreted your Post #41 which appears where the wheels came off the cart.

Then mutual combat ensues...
 
Looks like you are using hyperbolic terms...

I thought you and Oozlefinch were having a pretty good discussion. You were disagreeing at points. But everything was pretty much on even keel. Up until Post #41 I saw no 'tantrum". And I believe Oozlefinch may have misinterpreted your Post #41 which appears where the wheels came off the cart.

Then mutual combat ensues...

Hyperbolic terms? They seem to be an accurate description of what occurred - at least from my perspective. He did his *facepalm* in Post #40 and I responded in kind and I figured that should have been the end of it... I don't understand why he felt the need to escalate it further from there, but apparently he did.
 
I thought you and Oozlefinch were having a pretty good discussion. You were disagreeing at points. But everything was pretty much on even keel. Up until Post #41 I saw no 'tantrum". And I believe Oozlefinch may have misinterpreted your Post #41 which appears where the wheels came off the cart.

Well, there is no way to "misinterpret" the claim that I was "mansplaining" when he did not seem to understand anything I was trying to say. When I had been trying to explain why things would or would not work, then simply to be said I was "mansplaining". No, at that point any attempt at discussion was pretty much over.

You know I enjoy debate, and try to treat everybody with respect. But when the other side simply dismisses anything with a single sentence, not even trying to talk about the post itself but accusing me I can only assume of talking down to them, I am done.

And it was not the first time said individual has done that to me. I can only assume that they do not like facts, so dismiss facts they are not comfortable with by dismissing the person who posted them.

I am still willing to debate, and neither am I butt-hurt, or having a tantrum. I am simply not willing to try and have a rational debate with somebody who when faced with facts goes off screaming "mansplaining".

And yes, my facepalm was because of the fact that he does not even seem to understand what a Faraday Cage actually is. I guess he thinks of it as some physical cage, like a gigantic prison. In reality, a Faraday Cage can be even smaller than a pack of cigarettes. The biggest one I have ever seen was probably around 100 meters square. The majority are maybe 1 square meter or less. The very notion that one needs to be put around an entire city showed to me that he did not even comprehend what it is, or how it works.
 
Here's Why U.S. Tactical Nukes Are a Bad Idea.[/BUS/

Russia nuclear weapons aren't going to magically disappear and there are no plans to scale back further on inventories. On the contrary, both nations are in the midst of modernizing their nuclear arsenals. From my point of view, Russia's Novator missile system is in material breach of the INF and has been so since at least 2010. Besides range-violation issues, the Novator mobile launch vehicle is also in INF material breach because it can accommodate the nuclear capable Iskander-M missile. This situation makes verification impossible. Putin's military excursions into Europe since 2008 makes it clear that [forced] territorial expansion is a tenet of current Kremlin geopolitical doctrine. Thus I have few meaningful reservations concerning US tactical nukes. They could very well be that great 'unknown' that alters Putin's current calculus regarding future Russian expansionism on the European continent.


The broad-based Russian violation of INF treaty should have been taken far more seriously years ago, before the new systems were deployed. At this point it is highly unlikely that a mutual inspection regime (the anti-ballistic missile site in Poland included) would be agreed to, or effective. Putin made it clear at least a decade or more ago that he wished Russia had retained its IRBMs, and he is not going to give them up regardless.

Therefore, US policymakers must belatedly send a stronger signal that enough is enough. The deployment of some combination of land-based IRBM and tactual nuclear weapons in Nato front-line countries is the obvious counter-move in the game of nations - as well as consideration of IRBM interceptors targeting Russian based launches. The article's speculation over Russian intention are problematical and therefore irrelevant, their increased nuclear capability is a reality and it will serve whatever future intentions Putin may have - such as serving as a threat to preserve further invasions and more annexations of border states.

Hence, it is necessary to deploy counter-chips; intermediate and tactical nuclear systems of sufficient range to destroy invading Russian forces and retaliate against Russia west of the Urals.

The west is not in any position to launch a full scale conventional war against Russia, politically or militarily. The Russians are at no disadvantage given there vastly larger tank reserves and the wests feckless division, small militaries, and weak sisters. Putin knows that.

The largest mistake the West can make is to appease Putin and the disarmament lobby, as we should have learned in the lessons taught in pre-WWII politics.
 
The broad-based Russian violation of INF treaty should have been taken far more seriously years ago, before the new systems were deployed. At this point it is highly unlikely that a mutual inspection regime (the anti-ballistic missile site in Poland included) would be agreed to, or effective. Putin made it clear at least a decade or more ago that he wished Russia had retained its IRBMs, and he is not going to give them up regardless.

The INF treaty really does not go into ABM systems, so those really do not apply.

In relation to that treaty, the discussion was over ballistic missiles, such as the SS-4 SANDAL, the SS-5 SKEAN, and the SS-20 SABER. These were all ballistic ground attack missiles, with thermonuclear warheads intended to attack ground targets. However, these (at least the SS-4 and SS-5) were intended to be deployed like the US MGM-31 PERSHING and BGM-109 cruise missile, which were designed to be used in a "defensive" manner against a ground assault on ground targets.

Systems like AEGIS Ashore do not apply to this treaty, because none of them have any kind of nuclear warhead. The INF treaty only applies to nuclear armed systems.

You may be thinking of the ABM Treaty, which the US pulled out of in 2002. This limited each country to only 2 facilities with Anti-Ballistic Missiles in each country. However, that treaty did not discuss portable ABM systems (like modern PATRIOT or THAAD - which really did not exist at the time), nor is it very clear on the deployment of systems into another country. It allows for "2 ABM complexes" to each country, but it does not prohibit constructing such sites for another country.

Hence, it is necessary to deploy counter-chips; intermediate and tactical nuclear systems of sufficient range to destroy invading Russian forces and retaliate against Russia west of the Urals.


In this I can not repeat saying "No, no, no, no, NO!" often enough. We fought for decades to try and remove such nuclear weapons from our inventories, and the last thing I ever want is for them to ever return.

I would be happy if all nuclear weapons are forever destroyed, and never made again. But trying to have us bring back short and medium range weapons like this would only bring back the Cold War, worse than it ever was after WWII.

Want to stop the Russians from expanding, the answer is simple. Get the countries they are pressuring to join NATO. Notice, all of the countries they have been bullying around are non-NATO members. Russia does it because they know nobody will aid them. So long as those countries remain non-aligned with either Russia or NATO, they will remain fair game.

Bringing back nukes for battlefield use is not the solution.
 
Last edited:
The broad-based Russian violation of INF treaty should have been taken far more seriously years ago, before the new systems were deployed. At this point it is highly unlikely that a mutual inspection regime (the anti-ballistic missile site in Poland included) would be agreed to, or effective. Putin made it clear at least a decade or more ago that he wished Russia had retained its IRBMs, and he is not going to give them up regardless.

Therefore, US policymakers must belatedly send a stronger signal that enough is enough. The deployment of some combination of land-based IRBM and tactual nuclear weapons in Nato front-line countries is the obvious counter-move in the game of nations - as well as consideration of IRBM interceptors targeting Russian based launches. The article's speculation over Russian intention are problematical and therefore irrelevant, their increased nuclear capability is a reality and it will serve whatever future intentions Putin may have - such as serving as a threat to preserve further invasions and more annexations of border states.

Hence, it is necessary to deploy counter-chips; intermediate and tactical nuclear systems of sufficient range to destroy invading Russian forces and retaliate against Russia west of the Urals.

The west is not in any position to launch a full scale conventional war against Russia, politically or militarily. The Russians are at no disadvantage given there vastly larger tank reserves and the wests feckless division, small militaries, and weak sisters. Putin knows that.

The largest mistake the West can make is to appease Putin and the disarmament lobby, as we should have learned in the lessons taught in pre-WWII politics.

Let's agree that appeasement is not an option.... given that fact, can you envision a plausible scenario where use of IRBM's by either side doesn't almost immediately lead to a full-scale Nuclear War?
 
Hyperbolic terms? They seem to be an accurate description of what occurred - at least from my perspective. He did his *facepalm* in Post #40 and I responded in kind and I figured that should have been the end of it... I don't understand why he felt the need to escalate it further from there, but apparently he did.

I am just a third party here... If you believe a facepalm is a tantrum I don't know what to say.
 
I am just a third party here... If you believe a facepalm is a tantrum I don't know what to say.

*LOL* Say what you want.... it's pretty obvious from you getting into my face while saying nothing at all to the other party where you stand on this issue.
 
Let's agree that appeasement is not an option.... given that fact, can you envision a plausible scenario where use of IRBM's by either side doesn't almost immediately lead to a full-scale Nuclear War?

While I am not a master of scenario building, I am well aware that such builders have produced a multitude of nuclear full-scale and limited scale wars. One the early public illustrations of the complexity and of scenarios is in Herman Kahn's book , On Thermonuclear War. As I recall, he provided some of those alternative scenarios to MAD.

So yes, I can envision it. It depends on who first uses it, for what purpose, and who is targeted. If, for example, NATO had to resort to a limited tactical nuke strike (or more) against invading Soviet Forces in cold war Europe (as they most assuredly would have) then one could envision the Soviet leader threatening a counter use (or using a retaliation) AND offering NATO the concession of an immediate ceasefire to consolidate Soviet gains.
 
While I am not a master of scenario building, I am well aware that such builders have produced a multitude of nuclear full-scale and limited scale wars. One the early public illustrations of the complexity and of scenarios is in Herman Kahn's book , On Thermonuclear War. As I recall, he provided some of those alternative scenarios to MAD.

So yes, I can envision it. It depends on who first uses it, for what purpose, and who is targeted. If, for example, NATO had to resort to a limited tactical nuke strike (or more) against invading Soviet Forces in cold war Europe (as they most assuredly would have) then one could envision the Soviet leader threatening a counter use (or using a retaliation) AND offering NATO the concession of an immediate ceasefire to consolidate Soviet gains.

Cold War Europe was different kettle of fish, though... the Soviet Union had a lot of "buffer states" - if we were to use tactical nuclear weapons against a fixed installation today, odds are pretty good that installation would be on Russian soil. That makes a big difference, does it not?
 
Cold War Europe was different kettle of fish, though... the Soviet Union had a lot of "buffer states" - if we were to use tactical nuclear weapons against a fixed installation today, odds are pretty good that installation would be on Russian soil. That makes a big difference, does it not?

It might...but as I said, it depends on who, what, when, and why. The use of nukes could occur anywhere: Ukraine, Crimea, Russia, Poland Aegis site... Intentions are difficult to know, capabilities are more certain. Hence, matching capabilities is not only wise from a defense stand-point, but also from a political messaging standpoint. As we should have learned from Hitler - when you acquiesce, you tell the aggressor that you are less likely to confront his future aggression.

Had the West been more assertive prior to or during Russia's invasion of the Crimea, the current war over eastern Ukraine may not have been necessary.
 
Anyone who thinks the U.S. used nukes in Iraq 2003 is a ****ing idiot.
 
It might...but as I said, it depends on who, what, when, and why. The use of nukes could occur anywhere: Ukraine, Crimea, Russia, Poland Aegis site... Intentions are difficult to know, capabilities are more certain. Hence, matching capabilities is not only wise from a defense stand-point, but also from a political messaging standpoint. As we should have learned from Hitler - when you acquiesce, you tell the aggressor that you are less likely to confront his future aggression.

Had the West been more assertive prior to or during Russia's invasion of the Crimea, the current war over eastern Ukraine may not have been necessary.

Most Texians wanted to separate from Mexico in 1835....the US - having a cultural affinity for the Texian rebels, and viewing the region within it's sphere of influence - had a vested interest in Texan independence. Now let's say that Spain came to Mexico's assistance in the conflict and helped to crush the Texian revolt. How well do you figure that would have played in the US?

Replace Mexico with the Ukraine and Texas with the Donbass and you essentially have the situation there today, do you not?
 
*LOL* Say what you want.... it's pretty obvious from you getting into my face while saying nothing at all to the other party where you stand on this issue.

There you go again... You haven't been on the fighting side of me (yet) so you have no clue what me "getting into your face" is like...

And if you believe what I typed is "getting in your face" perhaps you are a bit of a snowflake....
 
There you go again... You haven't been on the fighting side of me (yet) so you have no clue what me "getting into your face" is like...

And if you believe what I typed is "getting in your face" perhaps you are a bit of a snowflake....

*LOL* Ohhhh... "the fighting side of you"? Hang on a sec while I shudder.

Let me ask you this.... What kind of childish mentality comes on here looking to fight with a bunch of strangers on the internet?

Isn't it about time you and your pal grow up and get yourselves lives and actually start debating like adults? All of this petty playground crap is ridiculous.
 
Most Texians wanted to separate from Mexico in 1835....the US - having a cultural affinity for the Texian rebels, and viewing the region within it's sphere of influence - had a vested interest in Texan independence.

The US was not involved in the Texas Revolution in any way. They sent no troops there, they sent no weapons there. They also did not send them any money or anything else.

And the reason Texans wanted to separate is basically because of the Mexican Revolution of 1832. By 1835 the new government of Antonio Lopez se Santa Anna had started to make so many changes that most in Texas were opposed to the new government. Disarming the local militias, exiling political opponents, dissolving the Mexican Congress, removing the power of the Supreme Court, and starting a process to disenfranchise Protestants were just the start.

It was the battle with the Zacatecan Militia and the aftermath that finally set the citizens in Texas towards revolt. After his army was victorious, Santa Anna allowed his military to loot and sack the city for 48 hours before establishing control again. That kind of punitive order was ultimately what led to the Revolution. Most of the citizens in Texas were immigrants, and Protestants. And allowing themselves to be disarmed without a fight would have largely been suicide.

I think you are confusing or combining the Texas Revolution with the Mexican-American War. A much later conflict, in 1846 after the US annexed Texas. Which is interesting in and of itself, since it was largely the Mexican refusal to recognize Texas Independence (even with a treaty guaranteeing it) that led to that conflict.
 
*LOL* Ohhhh... "the fighting side of you"? Hang on a sec while I shudder.

Let me ask you this.... What kind of childish mentality comes on here looking to fight with a bunch of strangers on the internet?

Isn't it about time you and your pal grow up and get yourselves lives and actually start debating like adults? All of this petty playground crap is ridiculous
.

I bolded the insults, hyperbole and general BS of yours....

As to growing up.... Physician, heal thyself....
 
The US was not involved in the Texas Revolution in any way. They sent no troops there, they sent no weapons there. They also did not send them any money or anything else.

And the reason Texans wanted to separate is basically because of the Mexican Revolution of 1832. By 1835 the new government of Antonio Lopez se Santa Anna had started to make so many changes that most in Texas were opposed to the new government. Disarming the local militias, exiling political opponents, dissolving the Mexican Congress, removing the power of the Supreme Court, and starting a process to disenfranchise Protestants were just the start.

It was the battle with the Zacatecan Militia and the aftermath that finally set the citizens in Texas towards revolt. After his army was victorious, Santa Anna allowed his military to loot and sack the city for 48 hours before establishing control again. That kind of punitive order was ultimately what led to the Revolution. Most of the citizens in Texas were immigrants, and Protestants. And allowing themselves to be disarmed without a fight would have largely been suicide.

I think you are confusing or combining the Texas Revolution with the Mexican-American War. A much later conflict, in 1846 after the US annexed Texas. Which is interesting in and of itself, since it was largely the Mexican refusal to recognize Texas Independence (even with a treaty guaranteeing it) that led to that conflict.

Nit to pick.... There was a requirement for any person homesteading on Mexican land to convert to Catholicism. That and pay taxes.
 
The US was not involved in the Texas Revolution in any way. They sent no troops there, they sent no weapons there. They also did not send them any money or anything else.

And the reason Texans wanted to separate is basically because of the Mexican Revolution of 1832. By 1835 the new government of Antonio Lopez se Santa Anna had started to make so many changes that most in Texas were opposed to the new government. Disarming the local militias, exiling political opponents, dissolving the Mexican Congress, removing the power of the Supreme Court, and starting a process to disenfranchise Protestants were just the start.

It was the battle with the Zacatecan Militia and the aftermath that finally set the citizens in Texas towards revolt. After his army was victorious, Santa Anna allowed his military to loot and sack the city for 48 hours before establishing control again. That kind of punitive order was ultimately what led to the Revolution. Most of the citizens in Texas were immigrants, and Protestants. And allowing themselves to be disarmed without a fight would have largely been suicide.

I think you are confusing or combining the Texas Revolution with the Mexican-American War. A much later conflict, in 1846 after the US annexed Texas. Which is interesting in and of itself, since it was largely the Mexican refusal to recognize Texas Independence (even with a treaty guaranteeing it) that led to that conflict.

Something like 40% of the Texian Army immigrated there from the US after the fighting started.... Sam Houston was a protege of Andrew Jackson. If you don't think the US was playing a "hidden hand" in Texas and was an entirely disinterested party, then you're kidding yourself.
 
Back
Top Bottom