Kasz216 said:
Sqrl said:
And if I'm an enemy of the US I'm thinking - Boy those chemical and biological attacks seem like a good area to look into now that I won't get nuked for it.
I don't have any problem with him deciding to not use nukes in response to such attacks...well I disagree with it, but I see where he is coming from. What I cannot understand is the absolute stupidity in publicly saying you won't.
Like it or not nuclear weapons make for a fantastic deterrent, and while their detonation may be distasteful it has long been the case that their primary use lies in the threat of detonation and not actual detonation. Even if you would never use them in a given scenario the threat of using them in that scenario provides an immensely valuable deterrent, and you don't have to be overtly threatening for it to work either.
This policy is overwhelmingly naive...which in all honesty pretty much characterizes the man and the ideology driving the decision. So not that surprising really. |
Who is actually in a place to hit the US with chemical or biological weapons though? Doing so would likely end your life whether it was with a nuclear weapon or not.
|
Ok so our foriegn policy, especially in regards to military policy, now must only consider factors we can foresee at the moment?
Come on Kasz, you and I both know that is naive.
Even so, what if Russia gets its dander up again making another run like it did at Georgia? Only this time it gets bad enough that UN and/or US troops are sent in. You think Russia wouldn't even consider using bio or chem weapons now that they've brokered this deal with us? Certainly some deterrents exist still, but nothing like the threat of a nuke.
