1. Nukes leave a lot of "collateral damage". Dropping one kills a lot of innocent people. 2. Nukes cause radioactive fallout that drifts with the winds and falls on other countries. Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or India would not be happy to be the beneficiaries of your gift of elevated cancer rates. 3. Nuke ownership operates on the principle of deterrence. If US pre-emptively nukes a country, there is a non-infinitesimal chance that a different nuclear power (e.g. Russia, China, UK, France, Pakistan, etc.) will choose to punish the US. 4. The only thing worse than a retaliatory nuclear strike on US would be no retaliatory nuclear strike on US.
Anyways, why nuke Afghanistan? 9/11 wasn't a state action. Afghanistan's only relevant crime was not trying hard enough to locate some Saudi national. He might not have even been in the country. You might as well have nuked Somalia or Myanmar.
"Nuke ownership operates on the principle of deterrence. If US pre-emptively nukes a country, there is a non-infinitesimal chance that a different nuclear power (e.g. Russia, China, UK, France, Pakistan, etc.) will choose to punish the US.
I very much don't think we should be using nukes, but I'm not sure about this reason. After the USA proves that it's willing to use nukes if 'provoked', then would that make other nations more or less likely to adopt an oppositional stance to the USA? I would expect the move to be widely condemned, but I doubt any individual nation would be willing to step up and address it, certainly not in forceful terms.
I can imagine that might be some attempt to resolve the problem through the UN, in the hopes of denying the crazy Americans a specific target to throw a nuke at. I think that's the most I would be willing to put bets on happening.
I suspect that, if the USA fired a nuclear weapon into the Middle East in anger, other nuclear powers might not respond in kind, because the probability of mutually-assured destruction would be very high. In military terms, the USA may actually be able to get away with nuking a non-nuclear country, because any sane country is not going to pursue overt aggression against the USA unless it has no other choice.
However, I suspect that the economic reprisals from China would be staggering. I'm not an economist, so I do not know what sort of effect China could bring about through its buying and possession of US debt. However, if the Chinese government perceive the US government as insanely destructive, they likely won't want to do much business with the USA, and will be looking to exploit any fiscal weaknesses that America has. At the moment, America seems to have plenty of those.
Disproportionate vengeance may sound good to armchair warmongers, but I think that other countries would cut their ties to crazy-violent states and find subtle ways to undermine them, just like people might do to a violent bully on a personal level. One reason that the USA does not go power-mad with its nuclear arsenal - I would speculate - is that it would go from having groups of fundamentalists for enemies to having major countries rooting for America's economic collapse.
Use of the debt becomes tricky, because if we went to the point that nukes are acceptable, we can just ignore the debt. The real question becomes greater economic sanctions from other countries. If our international trade stops completely, it will Probably be bad for the country significantly. (Not the least because electronics would become extremely expensive!)
The few articles that I have read so far suggest that China would be hard-pressed to use the debt to cause the USA any real harm. However, as you say, cease in international trade and greater economic sanctions could still cause a lot of damage.
As for the idea that America can ignore that debt if nukes become acceptable - I suppose that depends the definition of "acceptable". The USA would then be going from using a nuke to attack terrorists in one enemy state to pointing its nukes at the rest of the world as a means to default on its fiscal obligations. Hardly a good thing, but an example of how the nuclear option escalates and gets out of hand fast.
If the North Koreans break the nuclear weapons taboo, all bets are off. It would mean the USA has no choice but to use the weapons in response or nuclear strategy gets revealed as the giant Kansas City Shuffle it's been all along.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
1. Nukes leave a lot of "collateral damage". Dropping one kills a lot of innocent people.
2. Nukes cause radioactive fallout that drifts with the winds and falls on other countries. Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or India would not be happy to be the beneficiaries of your gift of elevated cancer rates.
3. Nuke ownership operates on the principle of deterrence. If US pre-emptively nukes a country, there is a non-infinitesimal chance that a different nuclear power (e.g. Russia, China, UK, France, Pakistan, etc.) will choose to punish the US.
4. The only thing worse than a retaliatory nuclear strike on US would be no retaliatory nuclear strike on US.
no subject
2. Then they should keep their neighboring countries in line.
3. It goes both ways.
4. wut?
no subject
no subject
That's worked out so well for the US and the drug war.
no subject
I very much don't think we should be using nukes, but I'm not sure about this reason. After the USA proves that it's willing to use nukes if 'provoked', then would that make other nations more or less likely to adopt an oppositional stance to the USA? I would expect the move to be widely condemned, but I doubt any individual nation would be willing to step up and address it, certainly not in forceful terms.
I can imagine that might be some attempt to resolve the problem through the UN, in the hopes of denying the crazy Americans a specific target to throw a nuke at. I think that's the most I would be willing to put bets on happening.
no subject
However, I suspect that the economic reprisals from China would be staggering. I'm not an economist, so I do not know what sort of effect China could bring about through its buying and possession of US debt. However, if the Chinese government perceive the US government as insanely destructive, they likely won't want to do much business with the USA, and will be looking to exploit any fiscal weaknesses that America has. At the moment, America seems to have plenty of those.
Disproportionate vengeance may sound good to armchair warmongers, but I think that other countries would cut their ties to crazy-violent states and find subtle ways to undermine them, just like people might do to a violent bully on a personal level. One reason that the USA does not go power-mad with its nuclear arsenal - I would speculate - is that it would go from having groups of fundamentalists for enemies to having major countries rooting for America's economic collapse.
no subject
no subject
As for the idea that America can ignore that debt if nukes become acceptable - I suppose that depends the definition of "acceptable". The USA would then be going from using a nuke to attack terrorists in one enemy state to pointing its nukes at the rest of the world as a means to default on its fiscal obligations. Hardly a good thing, but an example of how the nuclear option escalates and gets out of hand fast.
no subject