The Case for the Nuclear Option

[JBG]

The excellent analysis by Edward Luttwak in the August 1982 issue of Commentary Magazine (link), (which I will send a PDF copy of upon DM request) makes a case for a vital nuclear option in the Ukraine War (special military option) and indeed illustrates it. Ukraine is not a perfect country by any means but it is certainly better than Russia as controlled by Putin. Our response should be effective, and not limited to the "coordinated cries of anguish and nicely orchestrated hand-wringing" (original phrase by William Safire, a New York Times columnist (link to Safire article)

He wrote those words relating to similar Soviet aggression against Poland, now playing out in similar manner as the unprovoked attack by Putin against Ukraine. Conventional defense, as we have seen in Mariopol, is allowing atrocities. As Luttwak pointed out, “the European system of peaceful construction needs is a preclusive method of protection, not ultimate victory after much destruction and millions of deaths.” P. 14 of Luttwak article. As the article further points out “If NATO could not hold the front by non-nuclear combat, it would warn the Soviet Union that (small-yield) nuclear weapons would be used to strike at the invading Soviet forces. And then it would strike with such weapons if the warning went unheeded.”

With regard to actual casualties of such an approach “(t)he entire "software" of discipline, of morale, of unit cohesion and esprit de corps and all the practices and habits that sustain the authority of sergeants, officers, and political commissars, are simply not built to withstand such terror as nuclear weapons would cause-even if at the end of the day it were to be discovered that the dead on all sides were surprisingly few.

One of the reasons that opposition to nuclear methodology is almost entirely on the liberal side of the political spectrum is that the Soviet Union and now the Russians have stoked fear of full-scale nuclear winter. The Russians are, from a practical standpoint, the only logical aggressors. The West is the only logical user of defensive nuclear weapons. That is why I favor the “nuclear option” being alive and well. We do not need to fight this conflict to the last Ukrainian.

 

[Schism]

Well there you go: New York City "Very Liberals" are in the bag for launching nukes.

What about pikes with heads on them? Is that on the table?

 

[BirdinHand]

I'm not so sure that sitting in NYC, I would be all for nuclear war.

You may very well have a front-row seat to the consequences of that.

 

[Tigerace117]

The excellent analysis by Edward Luttwak in the August 1982 issue of Commentary Magazine (link), (which I will send a PDF copy of upon DM request) makes a case for a vital nuclear option in the Ukraine War (special military option) and indeed illustrates it. Ukraine is not a perfect country by any means but it is certainly better than Russia as controlled by Putin. Our response should be effective, and not limited to the "coordinated cries of anguish and nicely orchestrated hand-wringing" (original phrase by William Safire, a New York Times columnist (link to Safire article)

He wrote those words relating to similar Soviet aggression against Poland, now playing out in similar manner as the unprovoked attack by Putin against Ukraine. Conventional defense, as we have seen in Mariopol, is allowing atrocities. As Luttwak pointed out, “the European system of peaceful construction needs is a preclusive method of protection, not ultimate victory after much destruction and millions of deaths.” P. 14 of Luttwak article. As the article further points out “If NATO could not hold the front by non-nuclear combat, it would warn the Soviet Union that (small-yield) nuclear weapons would be used to strike at the invading Soviet forces. And then it would strike with such weapons if the warning went unheeded.”

With regard to actual casualties of such an approach “(t)he entire "software" of discipline, of morale, of unit cohesion and esprit de corps and all the practices and habits that sustain the authority of sergeants, officers, and political commissars, are simply not built to withstand such terror as nuclear weapons would cause-even if at the end of the day it were to be discovered that the dead on all sides were surprisingly few.

One of the reasons that opposition to nuclear methodology is almost entirely on the liberal side of the political spectrum is that the Soviet Union and now the Russians have stoked fear of full-scale nuclear winter. The Russians are, from a practical standpoint, the only logical aggressors. The West is the only logical user of defensive nuclear weapons. That is why I favor the “nuclear option” being alive and well. We do not need to fight this conflict to the last Ukrainian.

In other words....

NATO first strike.

Why am I not surprised this.......idiocy......

was a product of the Reagan years?

But yeah, I’ll pass on the global thermonuclear exchange.

 

[BirdinHand]

In other words....

NATO first strike.

Why am I not surprised this.......idiocy......

was a product of the Reagan years?

But yeah, I’ll pass on the global thermonuclear exchange.

It is frightening how many people seem ready, willing and eager to launch a nuclear war.

God help civilization.

 

[Luce]

The fact is, it is now absolutely obvious that we would shred any Russian forces that attacked any NATO nation. The Russian army is a paper tiger.

No threat of nukes is required.

 

[Luce]

One of the reasons that opposition to nuclear methodology is almost entirely on the liberal side of the political spectrum is that the Soviet Union and now the Russians have stoked fear of full-scale nuclear winter. The Russians are, from a practical standpoint, the only logical aggressors. The West is the only logical user of defensive nuclear weapons. That is why I favor the “nuclear option” being alive and well. We do not need to fight this conflict to the last Ukrainian.

How about no?

 

[HIP56948]

Start using nuclear warheads and when it escalates (Which it will), most life on earth will come to an end.
I've said this before. It's not the initial damage that will kill us all. The aftereffect is the nightmare. I suspect most people would commit suicide
when their bodies start painfully and horribly breaking down. I would. You think Covid 19 is bad?... Radiation poisoning is worse.
And even worse, nobody will be able to help you. They'll be falling apart also.

 

[Tigerace117]

It is frightening how many people seem ready, willing and eager to launch a nuclear war.

God help civilization.

America is desperate for a splendid little war, and since nukes might prevent that, well, then plan B is to pretend a nuclear exchange— or outright NATO first strike- wouldn’t be so bad.

 

[JBG]

The fact is, it is now absolutely obvious that we would shred any Russian forces that attacked any NATO nation. The Russian army is a paper tiger.

No threat of nukes is required.

Read the article, then tell me if that is what you think.

 

[JBG]

In other words....

NATO first strike.

Why am I not surprised this.......idiocy......

was a product of the Reagan years?

But yeah, I’ll pass on the global thermonuclear exchange.

Read the article. He was no fan of Reagan.

 

[Luce]

Read the article, then tell me if that is what you think.

An article from 1982? That's BRILLIANT, because NOTHING HAS CHANGED in the following 40 years, right?

 

[Tigerace117]

Read the article. He was no fan of Reagan.

He’s calling for a NATO first strike. The guy is a nut any way you slice it.

 

[BirdinHand]

America is desperate for a splendid little war, and since nukes might prevent that, well, then plan B is to pretend a nuclear exchange— or outright NATO first strike- wouldn’t be so bad.

My suggestion is that anyone so desperate sign up and volunteer to go help Ukrainians.

I'd prefer not to have to deal with nuclear war and the long-term consequences of that to fulfill some bored keyboard warrior.

 

[Luce]

What's really funny here is the snip:

are simply not built to withstand such terror as nuclear weapons would cause-even if at the end of the day it were to be discovered that the dead on all sides were surprisingly few.

Author of the article is smoking dogshit.

 

[BirdinHand]

• A nuclear weapon detonation in or near a populated area would – as a result of the blast wave, intense heat, and radiation and radioactive fallout – cause massive death and destruction, trigger large-scale displacement[6] and cause long-term harm to human health and well-being, as well as long-term damage to the environment, infrastructure, socioeconomic development and social order.[7]
• Modern environmental modelling techniques demonstrates that even a “small-scale” use of some 100 nuclear weapons against urban targets would, in addition to spreading radiation around the world, lead to a cooling of the atmosphere, shorter growing seasons, food shortages and a global famine.[8]
• The effects of a nuclear weapon detonation, notably the radioactive fallout carried downwind, cannot be contained within national borders.[9]
• The scale of destruction and contamination after a nuclear detonation in or near a populated area could cause profound social and political disruption as it would take several decades to reconstruct infrastructure and regenerate economic activities, trade, communications, health-care facilities and schools.[10]
• No state or international body could address, in an appropriate manner, the immediate humanitarian emergency nor the long-term consequences of a nuclear weapon detonation in a populated area, nor provide appropriate assistance to those affected. Owing to the massive suffering and destruction caused by a nuclear detonation, it would probably not be possible to establish such capacities, even if attempted, although coordinated preparedness may, nevertheless, be useful in mitigating the effects of an event involving the explosion of an improvised nuclear device.[11]
• Notably, owing to the long-lasting effects of exposure to ionizing radiation, the use or testing of nuclear weapons has, in several parts of the world, left a legacy of serious health and environmental consequences[12] that disproportionally affect women and children.[13]

From the Red Cross.

Humanitarian impacts and risks of use of nuclear weapons

Taking stock of the humanitarian and environmental consequences of the use and testing of nuclear weapons, as well as the drivers of nuclear risk.

www.icrc.org

Thanks but no.

 

[Helix]

Everyone loses a nuclear war.

 

[Tigerace117]

What's really funny here is the snip:



Author of the article is smoking dogshit.

Especially since A) the Russian reaction to us nuking their columns would not be “oh well, guess that’s just the way it goes” but rather an all out counter strike against the US proper and B) I’m pretty sure the Ukrainians would have a thing or two to say about us turning their country into a radioactive wasteland.

 

[Luce]

Especially since A) the Russian reaction to us nuking their columns would not be “oh well, guess that’s just the way it goes” but rather an all out counter strike against the US proper and B) I’m pretty sure the Ukrainians would have a thing or two to say about us turning their country into a radioactive wasteland.

Not sure what it is about dumbasses suddenly deciding all at once that nuclear weapons are the go-to option.

Maybe the water quality problem in this country is worse than it appears.

 

[Gaius46]

I'm not so sure that sitting in NYC, I would be all for nuclear war.

You may very well have a front-row seat to the consequences of that.

NYC is probably not at the top of the list. Wyoming, Nebraska and North Dakota are.

 

[Tigerace117]

Not sure what it is about dumbasses suddenly deciding all at once that nuclear weapons are the go-to option.

Maybe the water quality problem in this country is worse than it appears.

People want their splendid little war. Nukes get in the way of that, so the solution is to pretend a nuclear exchange wouldn’t be so bad after all.

 

[Gaius46]

The excellent analysis by Edward Luttwak in the August 1982 issue of Commentary Magazine (link), (which I will send a PDF copy of upon DM request) makes a case for a vital nuclear option in the Ukraine War (special military option) and indeed illustrates it. Ukraine is not a perfect country by any means but it is certainly better than Russia as controlled by Putin. Our response should be effective, and not limited to the "coordinated cries of anguish and nicely orchestrated hand-wringing" (original phrase by William Safire, a New York Times columnist (link to Safire article)

He wrote those words relating to similar Soviet aggression against Poland, now playing out in similar manner as the unprovoked attack by Putin against Ukraine. Conventional defense, as we have seen in Mariopol, is allowing atrocities. As Luttwak pointed out, “the European system of peaceful construction needs is a preclusive method of protection, not ultimate victory after much destruction and millions of deaths.” P. 14 of Luttwak article. As the article further points out “If NATO could not hold the front by non-nuclear combat, it would warn the Soviet Union that (small-yield) nuclear weapons would be used to strike at the invading Soviet forces. And then it would strike with such weapons if the warning went unheeded.”

With regard to actual casualties of such an approach “(t)he entire "software" of discipline, of morale, of unit cohesion and esprit de corps and all the practices and habits that sustain the authority of sergeants, officers, and political commissars, are simply not built to withstand such terror as nuclear weapons would cause-even if at the end of the day it were to be discovered that the dead on all sides were surprisingly few.

One of the reasons that opposition to nuclear methodology is almost entirely on the liberal side of the political spectrum is that the Soviet Union and now the Russians have stoked fear of full-scale nuclear winter. The Russians are, from a practical standpoint, the only logical aggressors. The West is the only logical user of defensive nuclear weapons. That is why I favor the “nuclear option” being alive and well. We do not need to fight this conflict to the last Ukrainian.

Trifecta. Worst idea of the day, year and century.

 

[JBG]

Especially since A) the Russian reaction to us nuking their columns would not be “oh well, guess that’s just the way it goes” but rather an all out counter strike against the US proper and B) I’m pretty sure the Ukrainians would have a thing or two to say about us turning their country into a radioactive wasteland.

I give up. Where in Europe do we stop them?

 

[Luce]

People want their splendid little war. Nukes get in the way of that, so the solution is to pretend a nuclear exchange wouldn’t be so bad after all.

CURTIS LEMAY, COME HOME! ALL IS FORGIVEN!

 

[BirdinHand]

I give up. Where in Europe do we stop them?

When and if they set a pinky toe in a NATO nation.

Which Russia won’t.