I would suspect that would only swell their ranks to the point where they’d only be stronger, were we to even consider such a threat.
Of course, you forget, like so many others seem to, that we have a sizable portion of muslim citizens in this country. I don’t think they’d take kindly to threats to their holy city any more than jewish citizens of this country would to threats to nuke Israel.
The context of the discussion was the potential use of very low-yield ground penetration nuclear devices to destroy isolated facilities hardened against conventional bombing.
It’s not like a single target will guarantee the obliteration of a country’s entire nuclear stockpile, you’d more than likely have to hit multiple targets.
This might be the best unclassified assessment of the number of devices and their deployment in the scenario you question. Remember that outside of the US and Russia, the other stockpiles are really quite small.
Doing so would immediately turn our country into public threat number one, even amongst our current allies, and would pretty much insure a large tide of people turning against us with deadly consequences.
We are not talking about the same scenario.
Now, to play further with your theoretical sandbox in which a nuclear power suddenly loses it’s government, what’s to stop an organization that we’d be willing to nuke in such a situation from moving said nukes into another country without permission? Would we nuke that country to ensure our safety as well?
Did you read the part where I talked about decision/action cycles being measured in hours? You don’t nuke the barn after the horses are gone.
At this point you’ve got a better chance convincing us the nukes are in case of giant robot invasion than painting a situation in which nuking another country, no matter how small or limited the exchange, would result in a better situation than using conventional forces.
This presumes that conventional forces can be applied quickly enough or with enough force in all situations. I do not believe this is always the case. What conventional forces are you referring to? The US, among other things, does not possess orbital kinetic strike vehicles.
ICBMs aren’t things you reprogram in a few minutes to strike where ever you want. They’re not setup so that you can go and punch in a few coordinates on a computer and send them where ever you’d like, because such a situation makes them inherently unsafe from outside intervention.
The situations in countries like Pakistan is entirely too fluid to be able to hardcode in anything less than a blanket attack on the whole country.
So let’s go back to the situation you mention that of “a nuclear power that has lost its government.” Let’s imagine one day a revolution occurs in Pakistan. The thing about revolutions is that they don’t occur in an instant, they unfold over time, be it hours, days or weeks. Are you going to drop a nuke the instant someone even suggests that there might be trouble in the government? Or would you most likely wait a bit to see what happens, see if the government regains control? Maybe it’s only an easily contained revolution, so you don’t want to act too quickly.
The thing is, within the time frame we’re talking about, you are just as likely to have conventional forces on the scene as you are non-ICBM nukes.
As for nukes being held safely in a hardened bunker deep within the earth, so what? If anything, they’re safer there, because at most the bad guys could blow a hole in the ground of their own country. Better to send in conventional forces to take the facilities than deal with the political fallout that would surround the nuclear fallout of a pre-emptive strike.
What on earth gave you the impression I was talking about ICBMs as a delivery mechanism? That’s completely infeasible.
As an aside, issues with retargeting flexibility on older vehicle avonics blocks are more a matter of technology than security considerations.
So let’s go back to the situation you mention that of “a nuclear power that has lost its government.” Let’s imagine one day a revolution occurs in Pakistan. The thing about revolutions is that they don’t occur in an instant, they unfold over time, be it hours, days or weeks.
That’s one hell of a potential timespan there. In the hours case at best you’re going to be able to put up UAV recon of target sites to try and see what’s going on. The only tight-window options are air strike from a carrier group or Central Asian air base or cruise missile strike. As it is, parts of Northern Pakistan are out of Tomahawk range from a sea launch.
The thing is, within the time frame we’re talking about, you are just as likely to have conventional forces on the scene as you are non-ICBM nukes.
I’m not sure you understand the realities and limitations of rapidly deploying force. What are these conventional forces you speak of and how are they to be used?
The implied statements you’ve made that we wouldn’t be able to get non-nuclear forces on the scene in the same time we would nuclear forces.
If you can get a sub or aircraft carrier into the region, you can get a special forces team there quick enough to make the time difference meaningless compared to the consequences of a sea based launch.
Additionally, in more cases than the mini-nuke people would like to admit, conventional aircraft launched bunker buster weaponry would be equally effective in countering any threat. The thing is, these mini-nukes aren’t being designed around a missle launch system, but instead as a dropped system similar to conventional bunker buster technology.
I’m not sure you understand the realities and limitations of rapidly deploying force. What are these conventional forces you speak of and how are they to be used?
I’ve been “rapidly deployed” just enough to know that if USASOC and USACAPOC managed to work out how to get my 37F butt from a dorm room in Columbus, Ohio to a humvee on the Bosnia border in slightly less than a day, they can get conventional ground forces from the full on Special Forces there in less.
Also, bunker busters and fuel air bombs are far more readily available and deployable in a shorter time than mini-nukes will ever be, because any Administration who thows mini-nukes at a problem in such a short amount of time without enough intel that such a situation would warrant is one that I wouldn’t trust to be making the right decisions in the first place.
If you have that kind of military experience I’m a bit flabbergasted that you consider the following a slam dunk: A rapid Special Forces deployment involving deep inland penetration into what would not be a friendly airspace or ground environment to attempt to secure multiple extremely sensitive sites? I don’t believe real life is anything like a Hollywood movie, or a Tom Clancy novel for that matter. What happens if a team can’t reach an objective or maintain control of a site?
Also, bunker busters and fuel air bombs are far more readily available and deployable in a shorter time than mini-nukes will ever be, because any Administration who thows mini-nukes at a problem in such a short amount of time without enough intel that such a situation would warrant is one that I wouldn’t trust to be making the right decisions in the first place.
Since mini-nukes don’t exist and won’t exist, I would tend to agree with you. :lol: Ultimately the crux of my argument is that you can’t have too many options. I do believe there are potential scenarios where otherwise the options may be risky underkill or mortifying overkill. I have a bit of a grim resignation to seeing the both in my lifetime.
Well, yeah, I agree. In fact, I think any democratic country should be able to launch preemptive nuclear strikes against perceived threats, like, say, countries that are ready to launch preemptive nuclear strikes against perceived threats.
I’m only going observations based on acting as a rear support element for teams that did exactly that in Bosnia and Kosovo, as well as having a brother who supported such teams in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Throw in the fixed wing air support the precedes such operations aloing with the helicopter teams that can follow, along with the relief troops in terms of Rangers and I think a good case could be made for the ability to suppress the ability for a hostile organization to make use of the intended facilities, if not completely secure it.
No, I don’t consider it a “slam dunk” or a guarenteed operation, but it’s one that has no less of a chance of success as using mini-nukes with far fewer negative consequences.