Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Pentagon and Trump Administration have unveiled a new Nuclear Posture Review........
.......and the implications are terrifying!!!
From the Washington Post: Pentagon unveils new nuclear weapons strategy, ending Obama-era push to reduce U.S. arsenal:
The Pentagon released a new nuclear arms policy Friday that calls for the introduction of two new types of weapons, effectively ending Obama-era efforts to reduce the size and scope of the U.S. arsenal and minimize the role of nuclear weapons in defense planning.
......................//snip
The previous administrations policy hinged on what President Barack Obama called a moral obligation for the United States to lead by example in ridding the world of nuclear weapons. But officials in the Trump administration and the U.S. military argue that Obamas approach proved overly idealistic, particularly as Russia reemerged as a foe, and that it failed to persuade U.S. nuclear adversaries to follow suit.
......................//snip
Here's where it starts to get really scary.............
The policy unveiled Friday envisions the introduction of low-yield nukes on submarine-launched ballistic missiles.
Russia possesses a large arsenal of small nuclear weapons, something the United States mostly lacks. The Pentagon worries that Moscow could seize part or all of a U.S. ally state and then detonate a small nuclear weapon to prevent American troops from coming to the rescue. Washington would be forced to choose between launching a much larger-scale nuclear attack on Russia or responding with less serious conventional arms that would make Washington look weak. The Pentagon says it wants a proportionate weapon to match.
Russia possesses a large arsenal of small nuclear weapons, something the United States mostly lacks. The Pentagon worries that Moscow could seize part or all of a U.S. ally state and then detonate a small nuclear weapon to prevent American troops from coming to the rescue. Washington would be forced to choose between launching a much larger-scale nuclear attack on Russia or responding with less serious conventional arms that would make Washington look weak. The Pentagon says it wants a proportionate weapon to match.
From the Union of Concerned Scientists: Nuclear Posture Review Policies Increase Risk of Nuclear War Lisbeth Gronlund, senior scientist and co-director of the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, warns:
One of the most disturbing and significant changes to U.S. policy outlined in the NPR is the tighter integration of U.S. nuclear and conventional forces, including training and exercising with these integrated forces, so U.S. forces can operateas the NPR statesin the face of nuclear threats and employment. This is the text-book definition of nuclear war-fighting. This new policy deliberately blurs the line between nuclear and conventional forces and eliminates a clear firewall.
The decision to deploy another type of low-yield weaponthis one on submarinesis consistent with the new emphasis on nuclear war-fighting. Existing U.S. B61 bombs and air-launched cruise missiles already have low-yield options.
The administrations new policy also shoots a big hole in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is key to U.S. security. It simply rejects the U.S. obligation to take steps toward nuclear disarmament. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has made progressalbeit slow progressin reducing the number, types and role of its nuclear weapons. The new policy reverses that progress. The NPR is a giant slap in the face of the non-nuclear weapon states, who are already fed up with the slow progress of the United States and Russia.
On her blog, Dr. Gronlund further states:
The new policy described in the NPR broadens the scenarios under which the United States would use nuclear weapons first, thus lowering the threshold for first use. The document explicitly lists a wide array of non-nuclear attacks that could constitute grounds for a US nuclear response. These include, but are not limited to, attacks on the U.S. allied or partner civilian population or infrastructure, and attacks on U.S. or allied nuclear forces, their command and control, or warning and attack assessment capabilities.
Edited to Add: The doctrine of a "survivable, limited nuclear war" has been a part of Republican dogma for years; it served as the basis for Ronnie Raygun's SDI / 'Star Wars' idea of the '80s.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 1505 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Pentagon and Trump Administration have unveiled a new Nuclear Posture Review........ (Original Post)
LongTomH
Feb 2018
OP
The sooner that trump goes away the better. This is a crazy policy brewed up by those
The_Casual_Observer
Feb 2018
#1
The_Casual_Observer
(27,742 posts)1. The sooner that trump goes away the better. This is a crazy policy brewed up by those
insane generals and right wingers trump surrounds himself with. There is no "missile gap", they are reaching far into the past for their defective wrong -proven insanity.
Yonnie3
(17,441 posts)2. "What good are nukes unless we can use them?"
said little Donnie.
First use policy of tactical nukes in counterattack to non-nuke weapons scares the hell out of me.
Yes, "the implications are terrifying."
Can anyone see 45 in command of a limited nuclear engagement that stays limited?