<<  >> (p.358)
    Author Topic: Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress]  (Read 88653 times)
    paxmao
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 2716
    Merit: 1710


    Do not die for Putin


    View Profile
    October 25, 2024, 10:44:45 AM
     #7141


    I have not seen the US threaten the use of nuclear weapons. Their doctrine has stayed the same for decades and speaks of using nukes only in nukes are used against them or a credible launch of such is detected.



    As usual, you're trailing the events, or maybe just outright lie...that's not true since at least Obama (although history shows us that USA have
    no problems nuking civilians)

    https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2022-04/news/biden-policy-allows-first-use-nuclear-weapons

    Branko, read your own sources and read the US nuclear doctrine. It has been there forever.

    Quote
    As long as nuclear weapons exist, the fundamental role of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack
    on the United States, our allies, and partners. The U.S. would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in
    extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.

    Quote
    this might include nuclear use to deter enemy conventional, biological, chemical, and possibly cyberattacks.

    US doctrine is:
    - Launch on enemies launch detection.
    - Use if other weapons of mass destruction are used (e.g. bioweapons) to a scales that impairs the US to defend itself.
    - Use in case the capability to use the nuclear arsenal is under threat (e.g. a Cyberattack on the nuclear response systems)
    - Use if a NATO country is under such circumstances.

    The latter is the "nuclear umbrella". If missing, Europe would arm to the teeth with nukes.

    Quote
    Any adversary use of nuclear weapons would fundamentally alter the nature of a conflict. We must therefore be
    able to deter both large-scale and limited nuclear attacks from a range of adversaries. The capability to deter
    limited nuclear attacks is critical given that some competitors have developed strategies for warfare that may rely
    on the threat or actual employment of nuclear weapons in order to terminate a conflict on advantageous terms.

    Some Allies and partners are particularly vulnerable to attacks with non-nuclear means that could produce
    devastating effects. Given that the U.S. global alliance network is a military center of gravity, the United States
    will continue to field flexible nuclear capabilities and maintain country-specific approaches that reflect our best
    understanding of adversary decision-making and perceptions.


    Please note that the case of using nukes to end a conflict in advantageous terms cannot get any more clear. Just try to be honest for once, Ruzzia is playing with the idea of nuking Ukraine and has said so publicly many times, not to mention the Ruzzian TV insisting over and over on how great idea that is.

    Despite, US has said many times that an answer to the use of nukes by Ruzzia would be "devastating" but would use conventional weapons. Quite contained if you ask me.

    And no, the US has no problem nuking civilians, but this calls for equivalent limited response. I do not know any country in the world that can use nukes selectively as not to touch civilians. They are what they are and should not be there at all.







Page 357
Viewing Page: 358