Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

unhappycamper

(60,364 posts)
Mon Mar 21, 2016, 09:31 AM Mar 2016

Nuclear Bomber Signaling Doesn’t Work

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/nuclear-bomber-signaling-doesnt-work/

Nuclear Bomber Signaling Doesn’t Work
By Jim Doyle on March 21, 2016 at 4:01 AM

In a recent article in Breaking Defense, Adam Lowther and Chris Winklepleck argue that the strategic aircraft leg of the triad provides unique “nuclear signaling” capabilities essential to demonstrating the seriousness of U.S. nuclear threats. But the benefit of using nuclear weapons in this manner is a dubious one, both for America and its allies.

Lowther and Winklepleck claim nuclear flyovers of South Korea in 2013 and 2016 by U.S. B-2 and B-52 aircraft illustrate the value of this “nuclear signaling” with the bomber leg of the nuclear triad.

They are wrong. This aerial flexing of nuclear muscle has done nothing to ease tension on the Korean peninsula or improve North Korea’s behavior. It has raised tensions and provided domestic justification for Pyongyang’s dictatorship, brinkmanship and nuclear weapons program by confirming the existence of an external nuclear threat from the United States. This threat has been claimed by the Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea (DPRK) since the Korean War, when the United States threatened to use nuclear weapons against it.

~snip~

In the majority of situations, including the cases of North Korea, Russia and China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea, sending signals with U.S. nuclear forces are apt to increase tensions, reduce stability and risk unintended escalation. These outcomes can make the chances of conflict more likely; the exact opposite of what is intended. It is better to respond to nuclear saber rattling by potential adversaries by providing diplomatic reassurance to our allies, as well as conventional military assistance that provides them with the means to counter aggression. Nuclear weapons should be kept in the background. They are weapons of last resort and should only be brandished when the very existence of the United States and its allies is threatened.
1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Nuclear Bomber Signaling Doesn’t Work (Original Post) unhappycamper Mar 2016 OP
Right on. Ghost Dog Mar 2016 #1
 

Ghost Dog

(16,881 posts)
1. Right on.
Mon Mar 21, 2016, 10:05 AM
Mar 2016

If only 'The West' hadn't so aggresively threatened the early pre-Stalin Soviet revolution in the first place. And no, my understanding is it was not the other way round.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»National Security & Defense»Nuclear Bomber Signaling ...