Alan Watts on modern warfare

Post Reply New Topic

And I say, seriously, nations like Iran, Lebanon, Gaza, etc, which have governments and militias out after blood ought to be prevented from obtaining or developing them.

The concept of Gaza, which is merely a huge concentration camp, developing atomic weapons is a fascinating thought. Pakistan, which already possesses atomic weapons and which has a powerful Taliban element, is far more worrisome than Iran or Lebanon. As atomic weapons proliferate it is not nations but individual radical groups which might blow up the better part of a city with something in the trunk of a car.

Pakistan's ownership of them has lasted for a fair while now, so they have proven some degree of responsibility. Iran is a more economically powerful nation though and had already shipped conventional weapons to the militias of Gaza, and prior to the naval blockade one of these shipments was received and used by those militias in a rocket barrage of civilian residential areas in Israel.

And therefore you conclude Gaza is a nuclear threat? I mean interstellar colonization and terraforming is one thing, but Gaza as a nuclear power somehow goes beyond even a 6000 year old universe.

No, I'm not claiming Gaza is a nuclear threat. However, just as you mentioned that a nuclear device could be shipped in the trunk of a car, it's just as feasible for the Iranians to package their new toys in more convenient luggage than ICBMs. Do you not realize that all you do is contradict? Not saying that I do any different, but you sure have a knack for it which has been sharpened over time.

And what would be the point of a Gaza nuclear attack on Israel? Radioactive material would certainly affect Gaza as well. The country probably most likely to use nuclear bombs is Israel which has a ready supply and its aggressive disregard for collateral damage has clearly been demonstrated by the proliferate use of cluster bombs in the latest attack on Lebanon. Israel is as much or more a loose canon than Iran ad your most peculiar logic that a nation can be considered safe if it has no previous record of nuclear use makes no sense at all

I didn't say that ownership without usage allows any nation to be considered "safe", and anyone with weapons ought to be considered dangerous or there is no manner of discouragement from being attacked, however it does display some amount of responsibility to have a weapon which could near instantly destroy one's enemies and not do so.

The fact that Pakistan has had nuclear capability for a long time does not prevent them from becoming less "responsible" over time, especially as they appear to be becoming more radicalised and the Taliban increases in power. Both they and India have engaged in irresponsible nuclear brinkmanship and sabre-rattling before now. Is it so very hard to think that they might do the same with the west? They do seem to be getting more and more annoyed with Western attitudes about Pakistan.

Fine what the heck do you suggest then? Shall we disarm them both? Perhaps as a joint effort with China conquering India and the US conquering Pakistan? Or what do you really think would be a good solution? Shall we disarm ourselves as a good-will measure and hope that Taliban-esque nations do the same? It is a lot easier to break down than to build up.

Fear of getting turned into a glassy plain is what stops Pakistan starting a nuclear war, same as everybody else. All I'm saying is that its a bit daft to simply disregard them as "showing responsibility" because they have had nuclear weapons for quite a while and not used them. Political situations change, often drastically.

Iran would most likely NOT ship nukes to Gaza because they already get enough grief for shipping all the other weapons there. Were a major nuclear power to determine that the nuke that destroyed a sizeable chunk of Israel came from Iran, Iran KNOWS that it has no real defence against absolute annihilation.

Besides, the THREAT of the weapon is the true power of the weapon. There is no point actually USING them.

Regarding Pakistan, if memory serves, whenever a political crisis occurs in the country, the army (who has a mind of its own <.<) quickly tries to take command to "restore" order. Now, as we've seen how the USA during the Bush administration was lavishing praise upon Musharraf's regime even though he was being slightly oppressive, i dread that such a situation would repeat. But at this time, greater concern should be expressed in regards to the recent floods the country has known. Distress is an emotion that the talibans would all too gladly use for their own purpose.

Not completely true, since in the hands of fanatics who are willing enough to sacrifice their own lives as suicide bombers a nuclear weapon would be ideal for usage. The threat of a weapon is only effective against an enemy which is afraid of harm from that weapon.

There is no "Threat" from any weapon TO a suicide bomber. The individual setting off a device would hardly care HOW that device ended his life. But the people providing that device are far more cunning than that. Individual suicide bombers are not masters of their own fate, merely puppets and idiots led by those clever enough to hide themselves or make themselves untouchable or unfindable. Consider that THESE terrorists know that their best defence is hiding behind a civilian population. American forces aren't very particular about avoiding civilian casualties in a conventional war, but they try to steer away from wholesale slaughter, if only because it causes a lot of bad press. Suffice to say there are always civilians left behind which to hide. "The terrorists" know that a nuclear counter-strike would indiscriminately massacre whole populations, even if it were only tactical. No civilians to use as a meat-shield if they are all reduced to blast-shadows. Thus they avoid pushing the US to that point. Or at least they resist that urge whilst they feel the US has a distinct military superiority. Push the balance the other way, and they might start to feel differently.

Really now, I suppose the British are little different for all the wars with the French and the Scottish though, or do you beg to differ? The soldiers that I've personally known are opposed to causing civilian casualties - unless said civilian© is wielding a machine gun or rocket launcher, in which case they change themselves from a civilian into a combatant. My stepdad's father fought in the Korean war and had to kill a civilian who was walking towards him holding a grenade, although he did attempt to convince them to stop vocally as much as he could beforehand. Sometimes civilian casualties are inevitable, and sometimes aerial destruction of targets is required too. During Regan's era the DOD tried to increase the accuracy of all its targeting and guidance systems on missiles as much as they possibly could, so as to reduce hitting the wrong target and increase accuracy for hitting the designated targets - of which civilians are not a sought after target.

Congratulations on sliding right in to the ridiculous there. If memory serves (and it does) the ENGLISH haven't been to war with either the French or the Scots for an extremely long time. The Jacobite risings perhaps, or since Waterloo for the French. Unless you want to count WW2 against Vichy France. It would of course be impossible for THE BRITISH to war against the Scots, as Scotland is a constituent part of Great Britain. Nevertheless, the history of the United Kingdom (which you are apparently not completely up to speed with) aside, none of those conflicts are even vaguely relevant to the current American campaigns. Precision bombing is a modern phenomena, hardly common in 18th century Scotland, one can safely assume, or even in the 19th century. Even if they were, you would be making the mistake of judging those centuries by modern standards when comparing them to modern American military methods. Generally in those conflicts, "collateral damage" was as minimal as is ever likely in the periods relevant.

Of course if you wish to include Vichy France, a degree of precision bombing is possible, but only in a very basic sense compared to modern techniques. Certainly not to the degree possible with such wonderful toys as the USAAF gets to play with. Thus again comparison is difficult to draw. The nature of the conflict differs a great deal as well...a modern superpower and all its allies battering a small, internationally insignificant nation into the stone age in the name of democracy, or a global war against a singularly unpleasant Fascist power busy conquering the world.

Here's a reason why Reagan-era military was so desperate to perfect precision: TV cameras. Its hard to convince people of the justice of a war when they get to see children on fire, and post-Korea American wars have been very heavily televised indeed. Voters don't like children to be on fire. It makes them vote for the other guy. Voters like their bad guys very clearly defined, Black Hats and jackboots and funny accents.

So, having established that Americans are quite haphazard about where they aim their not insubstantial firepower (actually that was already established) I think you might have missed the thrust of the REST of the post. You know, the most relevant parts? About meat-shields and the uselessness of starting a nuclear war with a nation that already USED the most powerful weapon known to man against another nation?

Well, one of the most important points you made was that it wasn't the suicide bombers who need worry about the use of nuclear weapons, but instead the chain of people who provide the materials to make a Do-it-yourself nuclear device or even a finished product. However, all a nation like Pakistan, Iran, etc would need to do this is have a fair amount of plausible deniability. The ability to claim ignorance of the loss of materials would also serve as a pretext for increasing their national security and standing armies.