The lunatics are at it again. 'Root and branch reform of NATO' to include pre-emptive nuclear strike as legitimate option. Oblivion, here we come:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,3321 ... 02,00.html

Dr Strangelove, anyone?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
-
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

We've been there before. The entire nuclear strategy of the Cold War was based on the M.A.D. theory i.e Mutually Assured Destruction. The same applies now. It is only by showing that you have nuclear weapons and are prepared to use them in a pre-emptive strike that you can keep a lid on them. Anyone remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? That is exactly what Kennedy threatened Kruschev with and the Soviets blinked first.

__________________
Fianna FAIL are on their way to oblivion.

How is this news?

Here's a story from 1976

Soviet Bloc Seeks First-Strike Curb On Nuclear Arms; SOVIET BLOC URGING A FIRST-STRIKE CURB

__________________
"I put down the welter of corruption in Irish politics to Burke's escape from retribution after that exposure in 1974. It gave everybody in the game a licence to steal."

- Joe MacAnthony

True. Right through the 70's and 80's (maybe earlier, only I don't remember any further back) the Russians had a vast superiority in conventional weapons in Europe. First use of nuclear weapons and MAD was the only threat that NATO had to wave at Russia.

Exactly! NATO knew that they had 3 days of conventional battlefield warfare to play with. After that, if the Soviets supply lines had not been disrupted, NATO would have had to resort to tactical, limited theatre nukes - in otherwords, battlefield nukes, so goodnight Germany.

__________________
Fianna FAIL are on their way to oblivion.

Jesus H!

Dr Strangelove is alive and well - and has several clones on this site.

No, I think things have got a lot worse! - "First Strike" used to be eschewed, now its policy!

And the world was moments from a nuclear winter. What if the russian were as stubborn as the yanks? Is it any kind of security to be MADder than the enemy?

What kind of logic is that?
You can't have nukes because you might use them, and in order to prevent you from getting them, we're going to nuke you.

__________________
If you are a genuine sceptic and want the other side of the 'climategate scandal' please watch this short video

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Difference between weather and climate
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

How exactly does NATO policy change according to that story? They've always had a first strike policy.

The military men in the article seem more concerned about the future of NATO as a cohesive military alliance rather than inflicting armageddon.

According to this site

Nuclear Files

Should Jihadis take control of Pakistan they don't have the capability of launching a nuclear weapon at Europe or the US. They'd have to transport the weapon by other means. So the whole First Strike option would be unnecessary anyway.

__________________
"I put down the welter of corruption in Irish politics to Burke's escape from retribution after that exposure in 1974. It gave everybody in the game a licence to steal."

- Joe MacAnthony