U.S. Considers Nuclear Strikes As An Option?

[John Connor]

http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/06/us-nuclear-strikes-against-russia-report/#comments

As tensions increase between Russia and the United States, a chilling report suggests that a nuclear strike is not beyond the realm of possibility. According to the report, numerous sources have reported on the meeting of US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter at the headquarters of the US European Command in Stuttgart, Germany, with two dozen other US military commanders and European diplomats in tow.

So I seen this article after logging out of yahoo E-mail and I wonder if this is just click bait? I mean Nuclear strikes as an option?

 

[Newbian]

What better way to show you are friendly then nukes?

 

[irishScott]

Any strategic policy analysis what-ifs everything to death, I'm sure there's a "what-if Russia mounted a full-scale invasion of NATO?" that is the minimum qualification for a nuclear strike.

It's also possible that the strikes in question are smaller tactical nuclear strikes ala bunker-busters, not ICBMs. Granted you could argue that those are just as bad in the response they'd provoke.

I'm not losing any sleep on this. We've had plans to nuke Russia for decades, and it was a lot more likely to happen back then.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I seen? WTF kind of grammar is that? :Colbert:

 

[Fayd]

 

[feralkid]

http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/06/us-nuclear-strikes-against-russia-report/#comments




So I seen this article after logging out of yahoo E-mail and I wonder if this is just click bait? I mean Nuclear strikes as an option?

If you're going to have nukes, you have to have at least theoretical plans on how you would use them.

Otherwise, why bother?

 

[Safeway]

Of course they are an option. If they nuke us, they are a given.

 

[NetWareHead]

If you're going to have nukes, you have to have at least theoretical plans on how you would use them.

Otherwise, why bother?

This. The development, maintenance and manufacture of nuclear stockpile is a multi-billion dollar investment. The existence of nuclear weapons (both ours and those of other nations) guides our foriegn police and shapes our alliances. The use of nuclear weapons must also be managed and that includes coming up with what-if scenarios.

This is a basic function of the department of defense; to create war plans and be prepare for all scenarios, even those most hypothetical and far-flung. There was even a war-plan for a war with Great Britain in the early 20th century that was not declassified until the 1970s. Despite UK and USA having somewhat of a special relationship and great deal of cooperation, there were still war preparations so the point is that no country gets ignored by Depat of Defense. See this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_color-coded_war_plans#List_of_Color_Plans

 

[WilliamM2]

After spending billions developing and manufacturing them, it would be a waste not to use them. Right?

 

[mmntech]

The MAD doctrine limits nuclear aggression to the realm of the unlikely, as I've said before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

Of course, the powers that be want the general public to think otherwise. The story I read is that the US is considering moving missiles to Europe after Russia allegedly violated a nuclear treaty. Similar to what was done in the 1950s.

Putin is trying damn hard to reboot the Cold War. The proxy invasion of Ukraine was a provocative move and it's making the US nervous. It's probably not a worst case situation though. Would give the US a much needed kick up the ass. The obvious risk is for the former Soviet republics that Russia is looking to re-annex.

 

[Leyawiin]

Build some vaults. Vault-Tec could be the new Chipotle.

 

[olds]

When most people think of nukes they probably think of Fat Man and Little Boy.
They probably don't know we have other types like limited yield nukes.

 

[Humpy]

When most people think of nukes they probably think of Fat Man and Little Boy.

Obviously named by Republican congressmen who can think of nothing else.

 

[waggy]

well duh!? only a idiot wouldn't have them as a option.

 

[MongGrel]

 

[AMCRambler]

I don't know why this has me cracking up so hard but it does. Lmao here.

 

[_Rick_]

When most people think of nukes they probably think of Fat Man and Little Boy.
They probably don't know we have other types like limited yield nukes.

Fat Man and Little Boy would today be classified as tactical nukes in all likelihood:
Fat Man: ~21 kt.
W33 artillery shell: ~1-40 kt.

Although there were sub-kiloton munitions, those are almost useless today, since you can get similar weapons effects using conventional explosives. Also, they're really incompatible with any kind of treaty that limits the global number of warheads in an arsenal.

Thermonuclear/boosted designs in the 100-500kt range are much more economical, and would be used in strategic use, in bundles of a dozen per target area. Your Fat Man/Little Boy comparison therefore really falls apart. If strategic nukes were to be used, the effects would be significantly more pronounced.

 

[cabri]

Given that Fat Man and little Boy have been the only nukes actually used outside testing; it is the comparison that is used.

 

[MovingTarget]

Of course it is. No military in their right mind would have nukes sitting around without some sort of defined contingency on when to use them. This is part of why many oppose keeping the weapons around in the first place. What this news shouldn't be is surprising to anyone.

 

[blackangst1]

Obviously named by Republican congressmen who can think of nothing else.

FYI they werent named by congressmen. They were named by a physicist named Robert Serber

 

[Mojoed]

Check out this John Oliver segment on the state of U.S. nukes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y1ya-yF35g

 

[BUTCH1]

"An option"? WTF would they think the Russian folks would do, sit there and take it? no, it's not a realistic "option" at all.

 

[BUTCH1]

Check out this John Oliver segment on the state of U.S. nukes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y1ya-yF35g

Yea, sobering indeed, the "8 floppy disk-dive based control system is a big "WTF?", we spend BILLIONS on a POS "joint strike fighter" while the ICBM's are using computer equipment from '72, yikes!...

 

[norseamd]

It's also possible that the strikes in question are smaller tactical nuclear strikes ala bunker-busters, not ICBMs. Granted you could argue that those are just as bad in the response they'd provoke.

More or less.

Especially with the Muscovites.

 

[norseamd]

Build some vaults. Vault-Tec could be the new Chipotle.

And ironically the mineshaft gap is very real and it is not just America but the whole world that has the mineshaft gap in comparison to what is required to deal with nuclear war or massive natural disasters like supervolcanos or asteroids.