quote:Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy: I actually think that it would only be in response to a full-scale nuclear strike that the U.S. would ever use nukes.
Not everyone shares your sunny optimism about the benevolent nature of the United States government.
quote: To my knowledge, the last time it was even considered, except in an accidental launch against a perceived first-strike, was the Cuban Missile Crisis in November 1962.
The example which comes to mind immediately is MacArthur's advocacy of the use of nukes in the Korean War, but Eisenhower didn't like the idea.
Ah, one more: Nixon wanted to use nukes in Vietnam, but Kissiger refused to let him "become a butcher" (this was revealed last year when White House records were released).
I'm certain some casual research could come up with others: when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, did the US have a nuclear contigency plan for Pakistan?
quote: In the 1991 Iraq war, it was threatened by the U.S. that if Iraq used biological or chemical weapons or nukes, that the U.S. would retaliate with nukes. But later was revealed that the U.S. would not have used nukes during that war, in any circumstances.
Later revealed where? I've never heard of this.
quote:
The greatest danger is an accidental launch, in reaction to a falsely perceived attack, where one side would launch all their silos, and force the other side to do the same.
I wonder if computer hacks could access nuclear missiles, the way they can programs monitoring power plants and water treatment facilities.
All of these are good arguments in favour of total disarmament.
