US hints it could use nuclear weapons once again to create ‘decisive results’ in wars

[azbaroj]

US hints it could use nuclear weapons once again to create ‘decisive results’ in wars .

NUCLEAR weapons could still create “decisive results” and break stalemates during a war, Pentagon top brass have claimed.

The ominous new document – since deleted – is called ‘Nuclear Operations’ and suggests military chiefs could once again use the weapons of mass destruction to “restore strategic stability.”

Arms control experts say the doctrine marks a dangerous shift towards the idea of actually fighting and winning a full-scale nuclear conflict.

“Using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability,” the joint chiefs’ document states.


“Specifically, the use of a nuclear weapon will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and create conditions that affect how commanders will prevail in conflict.”

The US is the only country to have used the weapons in combat, with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II.

The controversial paper comes after the Trump administration withdrew from two nuclear agreements – a 2015 deal with Iranand the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty with Russia.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9335064/pentagon-nuclear-weapons-chilling-new-doctrine/amp/

 

[sahureka2]

US hints it could use nuclear weapons once again to create ‘decisive results’ in wars .

NUCLEAR weapons could still create “decisive results” and break stalemates during a war, Pentagon top brass have claimed.

The ominous new document – since deleted – is called ‘Nuclear Operations’ and suggests military chiefs could once again use the weapons of mass destruction to “restore strategic stability.”

Arms control experts say the doctrine marks a dangerous shift towards the idea of actually fighting and winning a full-scale nuclear conflict.

“Using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability,” the joint chiefs’ document states.


“Specifically, the use of a nuclear weapon will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and create conditions that affect how commanders will prevail in conflict.”

The US is the only country to have used the weapons in combat, with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II.

The controversial paper comes after the Trump administration withdrew from two nuclear agreements – a 2015 deal with Iranand the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty with Russia.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9335064/pentagon-nuclear-weapons-chilling-new-doctrine/amp/

It would be the end of humanity, if you use them in countries without a nuclear weapon the damage will be limited to that country and to the neighbors, but certainly the honor throws it into the thorny brambles.
if, on the other hand, you use them against countries with nuclear weapons, you are sure that others will respond with nuclear weapons, with a response and a countermove, there is the risk of a nuclear holocaust also for the United States

 

[BATMAN]

Where is the war?

 

[JohnWick]

Well war is not a good thing....

 

[Lincoln]

I think they are bluffing just to project power, and put it out for the reason.

 

[atan651]

US is an immoral nation and so it's very possible it'll resort to nuclear weapons. And IT HAD USED NUCLEAR WEAPONS BEFORE!

 

[waqasmwi]

I think they are bluffing just to project power, and put it out for the reason.

Don't think so. They are the only one to use it in Past. I think they will use it in future too.

 

[truthseeker2010]

It wont be decisive, it would be sucidal for US.

 

[LeGenD]

It wont be decisive, it would be sucidal for US.

Depend upon situations and scenarios. They might be alluding to "tactical nukes."

With high quality defenses against various types of airbreathing targets emerging, US is finding it easier to defeat a regional nuclear power in a war (if necessary). And US will find it easier to use its nukes in response to similar moves of an adversary even if the latter's nukes are successfully blunted/nuetralized.

 

[Wa Muhammada]

Maybe smaller tactical nukes akin to what Pakistan has developed

 

[OldTwilight]

We should have nukes

 

[truthseeker2010]

Depend upon situations and scenarios. They might be alluding to "tactical nukes."

With high quality defenses against various types of airbreathing targets emerging, US is finding it easier to defeat a regional nuclear power in a war (if necessary). And US will find it easier to use its nukes in response to similar moves of an adversary even if the latter's nukes are successfully blunted/nuetralized.

Blunted? With what, Abm of usn ships or Thaad? They might be successful against TBM but who will use that against US, China? Russia? No. If US uses nukes against non nuclear power US will loose its credibilty, if it uses against RU,CN that would mean MAD for US.

 

[nahtanbob]

US is an immoral nation and so it's very possible it'll resort to nuclear weapons. And IT HAD USED NUCLEAR WEAPONS BEFORE!

If Americans had not fought in WW 2 you would be licking the boots of some japanese officer

 

[UKBengali]

Blunted? With what, Abm of usn ships or Thaad? They might be successful against TBM but who will use that against US, China? Russia? No. If US uses nukes against non nuclear power US will loose its credibilty, if it uses against RU,CN that would mean MAD for US.

Yes once nuclear weapons are used, it will be the end of humanity.

 

[Yaseen1]

i think they will use nukes in afghanistan or iran as they have not enough money to fight conventional wars and these wars become very long for decades,u.s this attitude will promote many nonnuclear nations to start developing nukes and I think we should also focus on icbms .They will not use nukes against russia and china as they can respond with same force and u.s will end from world . this is threat to third world and nonnuclear countries working against u.s interests