(no subject)
Read the story. Based on that, he used judgement based on logistics not trust. Although, I do agree that someone in such a position would have a different reaction than to initiate a similar counterattack. Apropriate people would be notified, people eveacuated via rail, and every allied embasy would be contacted. While I wouldn't comepletely put it past our current Chief of State, this would be a wholly unlikely and stupid move on the part of the States, and I would guess that order to be the time the apropriate military personnel either resign or say "had enough" with BS, and refuse. Unless I know even less about history than I believe there still are in effect agreements against use of nuclear weapons following from WWII that are observed by all world powers. The reason every else is making them is because this is in fact the nuclear age, the technology that comes with warhead development can be used in other places, and I personally feel they may well feel a bit shafted by the whole... "Ha! We used them twice, and then decide they are ethically wrong to use against other peoples. Now we can jump on the back of anyone who even starts taking steps to create this technology. " Sure from a wholy "American" (really just the US) standpoint they may be stepping up the latter in threat, but can you really blame them? Nuclear power has been greatly cleaned up and improved since prior accidents, nuclear subs go out to sea for months to years without the need to refuel or restock, and yes, some more advanced bombs and weaponry are, to an extent, based on nuclear technology.
Which brings me to another point. We have weapons that are more powerful than nukes that don't actually contain nuclear materials. If the US seriously wanted to remove a country from the face of the earth, they wouldn't use nukes, thus avoiding the "Holy Crap! The US is totally overstepping the line" situation in which every country that doesn't have a lot to gain by the direct loss of country (previously allied to the US) in question would have cause to raise arms against the USA. That "Holy Crap!" situation would result in a war on three to four fronts, and a likely defeat for the US. If not in battle, one of those fronts I described is indeed on|with US citizens, and we (as a country) would perhaps lose too many from the psychological front.
As much as I have a great amount of faith in ability, and respect for the actual people in the military, (Is a Hooah at all appropriate? After all the bulk of these things have to be dealt with by them.) our current situation stretches our defenses too thin, and we are vulnerable a land attack, especially if Mexico, and|or Canada "Harrass the Borders" distracting any defensive airpower from other threats over the ponds.
No all of this is wrong. The US intelligence would see all this and know that we'd have to cripple all allies of the Nation in question, and based on previous decisions we all know about, this may pass as a good plan. Now maybe it'll in fact work. A coordinated bomb strike against many nations at once, paying careful attention to use intelligence to leave no nation in an "invisible" chain of alliances left standing, taking any that bear any resemblance to citizens of those countries into camps. Yes, it could be pulled off, but what of after? What of the world? A reason may be contrived beforehand, but what happens when we realize it was april first and someone in intelligence didn't think anyone could possibly be that stupid. What happens when our country, a Melting Pot in composition starts to fear not one group of people with different views, but a multitude of attributes about nearly every other person in the country. When the nation is governed (the people, not the "government") by a constant state of fear. I know those of you who are vigilant may see this as little different from living in this country today, but without those friends in other countries to gripe, game, and agree with, (you don't think alliances will be held without distrust after a performance like that, do you?) the dealing-with becomes that much worse. Sounds a bit like a step toward the world of 1984. With only three Nations, nominally allied and at war at intervals. In such a situation, it would become a necessity to extend propaganda to the level of history book rewriting to keep the people from rebelling against the government.
Can you tell that national security is actually one of my favourite fields of study? Can you believe this started as a comment on anothers comment on another's entry? Geez. I need to get a life and find a field of study that someone might actually employ me at. As much as I'd love to study history ,and foreign policies, and network security, (yeah, virtual borders have been challenged in the past, and I reckon it'll only become more common with time.) sociology, psychology, and various fields to work with other people to guess every possible threat to the stability of a nation, I reckon someone would see something about my past they didn't like, and cut me out of the job. Hmm... now that I think about it, my brutal adherance to a personal honor code becomes a bit of a set back when dealing with politics on a regular basis. Oh well, I wouldn't turn my back on that for my life. It's part of what gives me such an edge against torture. Well, that and being paranoid enough to obfuscate my own memories, orat least those I felt the need to protect at the time.
This has gotten so far from the original topic, that I must stop it, and eat some lunch. I might come back to this and re-think everything and such, but knowing me, I might not have time.
Which brings me to another point. We have weapons that are more powerful than nukes that don't actually contain nuclear materials. If the US seriously wanted to remove a country from the face of the earth, they wouldn't use nukes, thus avoiding the "Holy Crap! The US is totally overstepping the line" situation in which every country that doesn't have a lot to gain by the direct loss of country (previously allied to the US) in question would have cause to raise arms against the USA. That "Holy Crap!" situation would result in a war on three to four fronts, and a likely defeat for the US. If not in battle, one of those fronts I described is indeed on|with US citizens, and we (as a country) would perhaps lose too many from the psychological front.
As much as I have a great amount of faith in ability, and respect for the actual people in the military, (Is a Hooah at all appropriate? After all the bulk of these things have to be dealt with by them.) our current situation stretches our defenses too thin, and we are vulnerable a land attack, especially if Mexico, and|or Canada "Harrass the Borders" distracting any defensive airpower from other threats over the ponds.
No all of this is wrong. The US intelligence would see all this and know that we'd have to cripple all allies of the Nation in question, and based on previous decisions we all know about, this may pass as a good plan. Now maybe it'll in fact work. A coordinated bomb strike against many nations at once, paying careful attention to use intelligence to leave no nation in an "invisible" chain of alliances left standing, taking any that bear any resemblance to citizens of those countries into camps. Yes, it could be pulled off, but what of after? What of the world? A reason may be contrived beforehand, but what happens when we realize it was april first and someone in intelligence didn't think anyone could possibly be that stupid. What happens when our country, a Melting Pot in composition starts to fear not one group of people with different views, but a multitude of attributes about nearly every other person in the country. When the nation is governed (the people, not the "government") by a constant state of fear. I know those of you who are vigilant may see this as little different from living in this country today, but without those friends in other countries to gripe, game, and agree with, (you don't think alliances will be held without distrust after a performance like that, do you?) the dealing-with becomes that much worse. Sounds a bit like a step toward the world of 1984. With only three Nations, nominally allied and at war at intervals. In such a situation, it would become a necessity to extend propaganda to the level of history book rewriting to keep the people from rebelling against the government.
Can you tell that national security is actually one of my favourite fields of study? Can you believe this started as a comment on anothers comment on another's entry? Geez. I need to get a life and find a field of study that someone might actually employ me at. As much as I'd love to study history ,and foreign policies, and network security, (yeah, virtual borders have been challenged in the past, and I reckon it'll only become more common with time.) sociology, psychology, and various fields to work with other people to guess every possible threat to the stability of a nation, I reckon someone would see something about my past they didn't like, and cut me out of the job. Hmm... now that I think about it, my brutal adherance to a personal honor code becomes a bit of a set back when dealing with politics on a regular basis. Oh well, I wouldn't turn my back on that for my life. It's part of what gives me such an edge against torture. Well, that and being paranoid enough to obfuscate my own memories, orat least those I felt the need to protect at the time.
This has gotten so far from the original topic, that I must stop it, and eat some lunch. I might come back to this and re-think everything and such, but knowing me, I might not have time.