4 ms·

"Air Force’s top officer and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is asking his force to think about new ways that nuclear weapons could be used for deterrenc

"Air Force’s top officer and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is asking his force to think about new ways that nuclear weapons could be used for deterrence, or even combat" That last line about using nukes for combat is scary. Every country should take a stance they wont be first to fire. It reduces the likelyhood of actually having to use them. Once US is talking pre-emptive tactical strikes now Russia and China are much more likely to gear up for the same and sit there guessing if they should launch first next time tensions increase. We really need to cage these war hawks that get into power. My jaw hit the ground at the stupidity of that statement. They just made the world and their country a significantly more dangerous place. Thats far from defending their nation.

pmoriarty 9y ago
"Every country should take a stance they wont be first to fire. It reduces the likelyhood of actually having to use them." What makes you think they want to reduce the likelihood of actually having to use them? It's like another part of the article: "One painting -- a symbol of the Cold War -- depicts a silhouette of a B-52 with the words 'Peace The Old Fashioned Way,' written underneath." There's a gigantic military-industrial complex that is built around the virtually unquestioned assumption that military force is an excellent solution to many of the world's problems -- and that often such force is best used "preemptively". Many if not most politicians in power around the world share these assumption, as does much of the general population. There have been multiple very serious pushes towards preemptively initiating nuclear war throughout history, and certainly no shortage of preemptive conventional conflict. I am continually astonished that the world hasn't already ended in a nuclear conflagration by now.

pmoriarty 9y ago

"Every country should take a stance they wont be first to fire. It reduces the likelyhood of actually having to use them." What makes you think they want to reduce the likelihood of actually having to use them? It's like another part of the article: "One painting -- a symbol of the Cold War -- depicts a silhouette of a B-52 with the words 'Peace The Old Fashioned Way,' written underneath." There's a gigantic military-industrial complex that is built around the virtually unquestioned assumption that military force is an excellent solution to many of the world's problems -- and that often such force is best used "preemptively". Many if not most politicians in power around the world share these assumption, as does much of the general population. There have been multiple very serious pushes towards preemptively initiating nuclear war throughout history, and certainly no shortage of preemptive conventional conflict. I am continually astonished that the world hasn't already ended in a nuclear conflagration by now.