Nuclear weapons: experts alarmed by new Pentagon 'war-fighting' doctrine

This_person

Well-Known Member
A weapon unused is a useless weapon.
Paul Harvey made the same comment, more or less, with regards to Saddam and George HW Bush's lack of nuking Saddam.
Paul Harvey said:
We sent men with rifles into Afghanistan and Iraq, and we kept our best weapons in their silos. Even now, we're standing there dying, daring to do nothing decisive because we've declared ourselves to be better than our terrorist enemies, more moral, more civilized. Our image is at stake, we insist.
But we didn't come this far because we are made of sugar candy. Once upon a time, we elbowed our way onto and into this continent by giving smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans. Yes, that was biological warfare. And we used every other weapon we could get our hands on, to grab this land from whomever, and we grew prosperous.
 

Yooper

Childhood idol: George Washington, Fighter Pilot
PREMO Member
“Using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability,” the joint chiefs’ document says. “Specifically, the use of a nuclear weapon will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and create conditions that affect how commanders will prevail in conflict.”
Three comments.

First, if true, long overdue. But its not new; it's a return to a sane national warfighting/deterrence strategy. If this seems like a strange/silly statement I recommend reading up on U.S. nuclear weapons use policy up to the end of the Cold War prior to criticizing my take.

Second, I also suspect that this is part of an "info warfare" op (given that the doctrinal document was on-line but then removed after a week). Give our adversaries something to think about; something they haven't had to think about seriously since the end of the Cold War.

Third, getting quotes from folks who are 100% anti-nuke by temperament/ideology (i.e., Aftergood and Bell) didn't do anything to strengthen the arguments against. As was the ad hominem comments directed against Kahn. But I guess when you bring back a operational document you also bring back the same tired, worn-out "criticisms."

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Top