The Myth That Nuclear Weapons Can Kill Everyone On Earth-many times over

Sure we are. There’s a reason the majority of strikes against ISIS resulted in aircraft coming home without dropping a single bomb.

 

If that were the case, we'd not spend so much time and effort on guided munitions.

 

Which is why we spend so much on submarines. They aren't first strike weapons, they are revenge weapons. They ensure that after the silos are empty and the bombers are done, we can make the rubble bounce, even if we no longer exist as a country.

 

I did not claim this at all. The US intentionally targets areas where civilians are known to exist. It is kind of hard to fire a 1000lb bomb on a large apartment complex in an area populated by civilians- because bad guys are thought to be in one of the units - and not realize that there is a significant potential (like throwing a handful of rocks at a bad guy standing among a crowd of people) that civilian casualties are likely.

Its called "Collateral Damage"

 

BS. We aim for precision, sure, but we don't shed tears for civilians caught in the blast radius. Ask the Iraqis. They'll be happy to provide examples.

 

Why do we do this?

 

They most definitely are first strike weapons. A low deflection shot with submarines near an enemy’s coast gives a very good chance of a partially disarming first strike. Especially given how accurate the Trident D-4 is.

But we also have so many SLBM’s that we could always hold a percentage back even if we did use them for a first strike. That held back percentage would give us the flexibility to retaliate if an enemy decided to go genocidal.

 

Where is your source for the US destroying whole apartment complexes becauses insurgents are thought to possibly be in one unit?

 

I did not say the whole complex was destroyed. Quit building strawmen - putting words in my mouth so you have something to attack because you are in myopic denial of reality.

Did you not see the pictures - have you never heard the term collateral damage - did you not read the link posted about how many civilians were killed by airstrikes prior to the Iraq war even starting ... did you not understand the other link which the US itself states that over 900 civilians were killed by the bombs they dropped in Mosul (the realistic figure being more like 6000) - that's a whole lot of collateral damage.

In the video released by WIKI showing the dudes in the helicopter gunship laying waste to civilians - did you get the feeling that these dudes were showing some concern for the lives of civilians ? If you did you blind as a bat and someone who will deny that water is wet to apologize.

 

Any American administration that responded to 500 nuclear explosions on our soil with anything less than a genocidal response would find themselves hung from the lamposts on Pennsylvania Avenue.

You can dream of 'limited' nuclear war all you want, but there is no such thing. That's why no one has been stupid enough to use the things in combat in 73 years and counting.

Name another weapons system that you can say the same for.

 

Can you name a single war that contained zero collateral damage?

Were the pilots of that helicopter executing official government policy and operating within the ROE?

 

Responding to a strike on our military targets with a genocidal response would result in a genocidal response from the enemy’s second strike forces.

 

Were the pilots charged ? I rest my case. "Official Gov't Policy" give me a break. Was sending innocent people for torture - extra ordinary rendition - "Official Gov't Policy" ? What a nonsensical comment.

I agree that all wars that I have ever known have plenty of collateral damage = intentional killing of civilians.

You were initially trying to deny that this even existed on the US side ... which is a crock of nonsense and disingenuous denial.

Glad that you are finally coming around. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-faux/collateral-damage-in-afgh_b_8320434.html

 

Collateral damage by definition is UNINTENTIONAL killing of civilians.

 

Our nuclear strategy has always been built around one idea - any nation that launches a nuke against us will cease to exist, and we will do our best to annihilate as much of their population as possible.

There is no such thing as a limited nuclear war.

 

Without violating the Espionage Act, I can only say you are wildly wrong.

 

Not true. At one point it was based ion the idea that we would keep dropping nukes, as often as possible, until the other side unconditionally surrendered.

 

He didn't say it was intentional. We just don't care. Ask Iraq. They've had more precision munitions dropped on them than any nation in history. How much collateral damage did they experience?

 

And now?

That stategy was when the other guy couldn't reach us...

 

Yes he did say it was intentional. Read his post again.

 

Irrelevant.
"Our nuclear strategy has always been built around one idea..."
This statement is incorrect.

 

By definition - collateral damage is intentional killing of civilians. It is regarded as a necessary evil. It is dropping a bomb or some other military action where you know there is a high probability - or literal certainty of civilian casualties.

Nice try but - no cigar. More "water is not wet" denial.

 

In war, civilians die.

 

Trident D-5s are counterforce weapons. Not city killers. They are specifically designed for "hardened target kill capability". That is they were specifically built to destroy command and control bunkers and hardened missile silos themselves.

IIRC the numbers given by arms control experts, with their very low CEP and warhead yields, a D-5s warhead (W87 IIRC) has a 97% chance of destroying or disabling a Russian nuclear missile silo.

 

Indeed they do. There should be no such thing as war crimes because - In war - civilians die. Got it.