On nuclear deterrence

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

On nuclear deterrence

Postby Nonc Hilaire » Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:49 pm

. . . There is a young man, probably a Navy officer, who accompanies the President. This young man has a black attaché case which contains the codes that are needed to fire nuclear weapons. I could see the President at a staff meeting considering nuclear war as an abstract question. He might conclude: “On SIOP Plan One, the decision is affirmative, Communicate the Alpha line XYZ.” Such jargon holds what is involved at a distance.

My suggestion was quite simple: Put that needed code number in a little capsule, and then implant that capsule right next to the heart of a volunteer. The volunteer would carry with him a big, heavy butcher knife as he accompanied the President. If ever the President wanted to fire nuclear weapons, the only way he could do so would be for him first, with his own hands, to kill one human being. The President says, “George, I’m sorry but tens of millions must die.” He has to look at someone and realize what death is—what an innocent death is. Blood on the White House carpet. It’s reality brought home.

When I suggested this to friends in the Pentagon they said, “My God, that’s terrible. Having to kill someone would distort the President’s judgment. He might never push the button.“


http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/09/ ... eterrence/
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
 
Posts: 4030
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: On nuclear deterrence

Postby Mr. Perfect » Sat Dec 12, 2015 12:14 pm

Why limit it to nuclear war. You could do that for drone strikes.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13715
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: On nuclear deterrence

Postby noddy » Sat Dec 12, 2015 12:37 pm

ive watched enough american movies to know that the random guy (redshirt?) dying isnt going to stop anything.

it needs to be a puppy dog or the nice girl who didnt take her top off.

--

its nice as abstract thought experiment but when i actually do the visualisation process and see hillary leaping at some poor intern with a steak knife, it loses its appeal.
noddy
 
Posts: 5499
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: On nuclear deterrence

Postby Nonc Hilaire » Sat Dec 12, 2015 3:35 pm

Mr. Perfect wrote:Why limit it to nuclear war. You could do that for drone strikes.

Having the President pilot a drone strike or two is an excellent idea.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
 
Posts: 4030
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: On nuclear deterrence

Postby Mr. Perfect » Sun Dec 13, 2015 8:21 am

He watches them from time to time, witnessing the over 90% innocent killed as it happens. Not sure what difference it would make.

Having to kill someone first with a knife, that would be different.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Mr. Perfect
 
Posts: 13715
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am


Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest