Thursday, March 23, 2017

Pentagon Negotiates for Nuke War the Way Children Negotiate for Cookies

It seems people don't know all that much about nuclear weapons beyond, yeah, nuclear weapons are really bad but so long as we don't use them we're ok.

The state likes your thinking but the state does not share it.

Strategic nuclear weapons are the biggest ones which are delivered by ICBMs for intercontinental delivery anywhere in the world.  These ones get tremendous attention because sometimes politicians will act like they do something about it but START II was decades ago.

It's the tactical nuclear weapons which get much less attention because the Pentagon and the White House have been playing Three Card Monte with these for many years.  The tactical nukes are much less powerful than the strategic nukes but there's a simple answer to that:  make more of them and make them more intelligent.  (WIKI: Tactical nuclear weapon)

I tried to discover how many types of tactical nuclear weapons America fields but did not have any luck with it.  I can't offer more than 'there are many' and we know it's true since we have seen shoulder-fired tactical nukes and those range up to tactical nukes which can be used either way (e.g. B61-12 for strategic or tactical due to variable output).

The exact current applications for tactical nuclear weapons are almost certainly classified but they even want to use them in torpedoes for submarines.  The recklessness is so insane we almost admire it.

The National Interest gives us a literate and informed review of the weapon they consider most dangerous, the B61-12, and that's the one beloved Obama was pushing so hard.  (National Interest:  The Most Dangerous Nuclear Weapon in America's Arsenal)

They make a valid point that the weapon is so dangerous because its flexibility means it can probably even be delivered by Amazon.  That's all interesting, very interesting, but you will just love the punchline.

Lieber and Press have documented this nicely.  Indeed, using a Pentagon computer model, they estimated that a U.S. counterforce strike against China’s ICBM silos using high-yield weapons detonated at ground blast would still kill anywhere between 3-4 million people.  Using low-yield weapons and airbursts, this figure drops to as little as 700 fatalities!

This makes using nuclear weapons thinkable for the first time since the 1940s.  The B61-12 only encourages this trend further.

- NI

There you have the real worst danger in America: people who promulgate this state-sucking rubbish under the false premise any use of such nukes won't escalate to using the biggest ones.

There was no response to America's wartime use of nukes the last time since no-one else fucking had any.  There's nothing more to it than that.

The beauty part is the use now is justified by software from the same people who want to blow them up.  That's the same validation a medical insurance company uses when it cancels you leaving no recourse.

It's in this sniveling way the Pentagon negotiates when it whines, "Mamaaaaa, if I can't have the whole big cookie then I can have half a one, right?  It's smaller."

If there is any difference whatsoever, particularly given that Mama knows that greedy little bastard will come back to steal the rest of the cookie anyway, what exactly would it be and please do be precise.  Accuracy doesn't matter much with nukes but here it's important.

No comments: