« "I don't want to be Iraq's air force..." | Main | Russia Prepares for a Big War: The Significance of a Tank Army »

01 April 2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

505th PIR

Most, and I mean a huge percentage of high school students the past 15 years or so do not and have not known what the Cold War was. It is therefore no leap of faith to believe that facts and assertions can be created and foisted on an ever expanding generation of voters. This misuse of information is by no means neutral or benign. Hence the exchange with Trump.

doug

Colonel,

Wasn't this well known US policy generally? Heck, I even remember first use was policy in the event it was necessary to prevent the ME from being overrun by the Soviets during the, Gasp!, Carter administration.

turcopolier

doug

I thought it was well known, but... pl

Old Microbiologist

I recall that part of the reason for the reunification of Germany was the open secret that was not actually known by the Germans. I recall that the annual war games simulation run normally without Germans present (Warrior Prep Center) was conducted with the Germans in attendance for the first time in 1989. Of course, in the simulation, the Soviet forces invaded en masse and the US response was a nuclear wall of fire straight down the German border. This horrified the Germans so much it provoked a serious effort towards reunification. I don't know the veracity of this but it was related to me by a reliable source. And I tend to believe it. I don't think the Germans ever really understood how little the US cared for them at the time. Maybe that has changed but I doubt it.

I had earlier in the year completed my qualification as a PSYOPS officer in 1989 for my ASI. For my final project I developed a PSYOP operation against the German population with reunification as the end goal. I got a high grade on this project but was told by the reviewers that it was completely improbable. Yet, this is more or less what happened in real life.

I also recall reading recently there are/were something like 200 nuclear bombs at Incirlik. Who do people think these are based in Turkey to target? Iran, Russia, or both? With the recent evacuation of all dependents from Southern Turkey including Incirlik, I wonder if the weapons have been moved back to Western Europe?

oofda

True, but I think Trump did more damage to his campaign with a previous comment saying that he would be "open to Japan or the ROK getting nuclear weapons." That was against U.S. policy since the beginning of the nuclear age and was a stunning admission. I don't think he has 'clarified' that, either.

And 'introduce nuclear weapons to Europe?'- We still have them there and according to some reports, the ones stored in Belgium are in danger due to poor security at Kleine Brogel. Most Americans don't realize that we have them stored also in Germany, the Netherlands, Turkey and Italy as well under NATO nuclear weapons sharing.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/29/belgiums-failed-state-is-guarding-americas-nuclear-weapons/

rakesh wahi

trump should have known about the role of nuclear weapons in Europe by this stage.

Laura

Of course you are right, Colonel, but wasn't the Matthews question--obnoxious as he is--referring to Trump's ISIS stance? I understand using tactical nukes against an invading land/air force of Soviet Russia but how do nukes even work in a European city against a cell of terrorists? Even in Syria or Iraq? In your professional opinion, are they useful against that sort of an enemy?

Edward

I think the press has always manipulated the elections. They are having a hard time this time getting traction with the public. They can't figure out an approach that works against Trump and instead are desperately trying to use these phony "gotcha" attacks. For Sanders they have a news blackout.

In any case the "gotcha" attack above is a bit ironic because Trump has raised the question of whether NATO is still needed. This is a position more sympathetic to people that want to reduce nuclear weapons in Europe.

turcopolier

Laura

I am not aware that trump has a stance regarding use of nuclear weapons against IS. IMO the question was an obvious case of "gothcha" and referred to ANY use of nuclear weapons in Europe. The part about cities is silly. I am surprised that you asked that. pl

Babak Makkinejad

Eisenhower administration.

Iranian army had been supplied with cannons that could use nuclear munitions. 150mm. - if I am not mistaken.

turcopolier

Edward

I disagree. The press has never been so powerful and purposeful as now. pl

turcopolier

Babak

Probably 155mm but I do not think the warheads were positioned in Iran. In all instances the warheads remained in US custody. pl

YT

Most high school students (frankly) don't know sh*t from Shinola/ or their own a$$ from a hole in the ground.

They don't read nuthin' of worth 'cept their school curricula.

I've been speaking to some uni kids the past couple of years & they've been a disappointment when it comes to intelligent conversation.

A tunnel-vision Weltanschauung due to the cr*p they "study" assiduously for hours without end during & after class in addition to iPhone game addiction.

Walter R. Moore

The public has interpreted the exchange to mean Trump would not rule out the use of nukes AGAINST the UK.

I thought the Mirror article (and others) made for hilarious reading.

steve

" He tricked Trump into saying that if abortion were a crime, then women who voluntarily aborted should be punished."

Let me respectfully disagree with this. The wife and I have worked with our local high school debate team for many years. We have chaperoned, coached, cooked and judged. Have gone with the team to the Catholic Forensic League National Finals multiple times. This was not a trick question. I would have been embarrassed if any of our kids could not field that question, and give a much, much better answer. What you saw here was an ill-prepared candidate botching an easily anticipated, simple, softball question. Now, I think you can make the case that maybe Matthews sensed Trump really didn't know much on this topic, so he made sure to ask him an easy question that Trump would get wrong because Trump couldn't admit he had never thought about this topic or prepared for it. However, I think that is a problem mostly because Trump just isn't prepared. On the NATO issue, I agree.

Steve

turcopolier

Steve

I am quite good at debate and I recognize the art of provocation intended to elicit a stupid response. pl

turcopolier

oofda

Yes, but that is not the simple meme that the MSM has seized on. pl

different clue

Matthews will remain effective as long as any office-seekers and/or fame-seekers feel they need to reach his audience of millions. And that will continue until an office-seeker or office-holder or fame-seeker can achieve all his/her goals without ever once appearing on Matthews's show. If such a person can succeed while staying off Matthews's show, that might be the first crack in the dam. Others might be emboldened to boycott Matthews's show.

And if enough such people discovered they did not need the Great Matthews anymore, they could then play a stealth-sabotage game with his show. They could all agree to come on his show, and then just sit there smiling vacuously and saying nothing. They would be creating "dead air" which the Great Matthews might be forced to explain to his employers.

Kooshy

I agree with colonel, IMO every election has got more intense on forming the public opinion (vote0 on the direction that Borg prefers, and it is getting worst. IMO it is becoming choking and they are well on their way to choke the nation.

Matthew

Col: It's pretty clear to me that the "switch" has been turned and all the media coverage of Trump going forward will be negative.

The country and the RNC will be damaged by a fractious, brokered convention. No matter. The media, an assorted collection of very self-interested people, would be "damaged" by a quick end to the both the delegate contests in both parties. Who would watch their shows for the next four months?

Dubhaltach

In reply to Babak Makkinejad 01 April 2016 at 02:13 PM

I had heard that but always assumed it was somewhat fantastical because (so far as I know) the American government consistently has tried to keep nuclear weaponry out of the hands of those who did not already have it.

I am open to correction on this but it seems to me that the Eisenhower administration would be particularly assiduous in this and that this would include delivery methods.

How stable was the Pahlevi dynasty's grip on power at that time?

Also - technical question to those who know far more than I on this topic had nuclear munitions been sufficiently miniturised by that time that they could be delivered using a 150mm shell designed for the purpose?

turcopolier

Dubhaltach

Any US nuke warheads intended for NATO (or non-NATO ally) use in wartime remained in US hands until presidential release for them was given. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W48

These weapons were built to be easily rendered safe by the US custodial detachment. As for delivery means, an artillery piece or an airplane is only that until this kind of thing is made the ammunition. pl

Allen Thomson


See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W48

Also and as I heard it, Livermore had designed a 1-kt bomb that would fit in a 5-inch (125-ish mm) naval artillery shell by the early 1970s. They were somewhat miffed that the Navy wasn't interested.

KHarbaugh

You should also recall the "neutron bomb",
whose purpose was to maximize radiation, which would kill people,
while minimizing blast, thus preserving the structures of Western Europe.
This was recognized in popular culture in the 1980s,
when GE CEO Jack Welch was dubbed "neutron Jack" for his practice of buying companies, firing their employees, while keeping the buildings.
As to US Army planning during the Cold War,
I was privileged to be on the GS (General Staff) of HQUSASA (in its DCSR&D) during the 1970s,
and I can tell you that its commanders were mightily worried about the nuclear threat posed by the FROGs and SCUDs which would have supported an invasion of Western Germany by the tank armies of the GSFG.
Planning for how to manage a nuclear battlefield in Western Europe was only prudent.
It is not true that, at the HQUSASA level,
that the USSR initiating a nuclear war in Europe was discounted.
They were making every effort to counter such a threat.

turcopolier

kharbaugh

"It is not true that, at the HQUSASA level, that the USSR initiating a nuclear war in Europe was discounted. They were making every effort to counter such a threat" Yes, prudent planning would require you to consider that possibility but it was anticipated that the soviets would begin with a massive conventional attack, i.e., hundreds of thousands of men and thousands of armored vehicles. Why? Because they were thought to want to capture Western Europe as little damaged as possible and to that end would have wanted to see if the Germans would surrender rather than let NATO devastate their country with nukes. pl

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

September 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
Blog powered by Typepad