- Joined
- May 8, 2017
- Messages
- 2,578
- Reaction score
- 697
- Location
- New York City area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
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.
It is frightening how many people seem ready, willing and eager to launch a nuclear war.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.
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.
It is frightening how many people seem ready, willing and eager to launch a nuclear war.
God help civilization.
Read the article, then tell me if that is what you think.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. He was no fan of Reagan.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, then tell me if that is what you think.
Read the article. He was no fan of Reagan.
My suggestion is that anyone so desperate sign up and volunteer to go help Ukrainians.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.
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.
From the Red Cross.
- 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]
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.
NYC is probably not at the top of the list. Wyoming, Nebraska and North Dakota are.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.
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.
Trifecta. Worst idea of the day, year and century.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.
I give up. Where in Europe do we stop them?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.
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.
When and if they set a pinky toe in a NATO nation.I give up. Where in Europe do we stop them?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?