1. The United States has a first-strike policy, and has invested billions of dollars in making sure that it can actually carry it out.
2. It adheres to it on the basis that its command staff believe that there is some moral calculus under which a first-strike is not genocidal or unlawful.
3. A first strike is not even abhorrent to average Americans. Around half of American citizens support a nuclear first strike if it results in saving American lives.
4. There are morons that believe that a nuclear war is winnable. Some of those morons become politicians, while others become generals. As far as I'm aware, there is no anti-moron filter on either occupation, that keeps those people away from positions of power.
You may observe that your moral hangups, and the international-court legality of a first strike has zero bearing on any of those four points. And those four points are what will drive people to act the way they will act.
Let's recap:
* A first strike is not illegal under American law. It is a heavily studied topic, on which hundreds of thinkers, paid by the Pentagon, have produced thousands of documents that argue about when it can be used, and how it can be best used.
* A first strike is not ever going to be an out-of-the-blue-POTUS-woke-up-on-the-wrong-side-of-the-bed event.
* It is going to be a decision that is made in the middle of a geopolitical crisis, after weeks, or months of threats, escalations, and counter-escalations, and the occasional shot, or shell, or conventional missile being fired. It is going to be a dramatic, but possible decision to make in that context.
* Because it is permitted by law, and because it has been argued for so exhaustively, and because the military has deliberately implemented procedures for carrying it out, the people who will be arguing for it will not have the same moral revulsion that you and I hold against it.
* Those people also happen to be convinced that there is such a thing as a winnable nuclear war.
In this context - when a silo operator receives the order to fire, when they know that there's a military and political crisis going on, and people are dying, many of them are going to follow their orders. After, they will have plenty of time to ponder whether or not the International Crimes Court at the Hague is going to hold their decision against them.
What we need is a modern "Day After" moment. It's been a generation and a half since that film. The new crop of armchair generals, politicians, and office holders, who grew up with no memory of war, need to be reminded of its horrors.
If a media mogul who owns a national television station is reading, I emplore you to consider broadcasting that film on the next Fourth of July. Or, alternatively, after the next State of the Union address.
> The United States has a first-strike policy, and has invested billions of dollars in making sure that it can actually carry it out.
This is simply an outright fabrication. The US has a qualified No First Use policy, stating:
> The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations
And
> It is in the U.S. interest and that of all other nations that the nearly 65-year record of nuclear non-use be extended forever
The policy specifying when nukes can be used lists:
> significant non-nuclear strategic attacks
> attacks on U.S. or allied nuclear forces, their command and control, or warning and attack assessment capabilities
> in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States, its allies and partners
And regarding low yield nukes, that their purpose is to:
> help ensure that potential adversaries perceive no possible advantage in limited nuclear escalation, making nuclear employment less likely
The facts are:
1. The United States has a first-strike policy, and has invested billions of dollars in making sure that it can actually carry it out.
2. It adheres to it on the basis that its command staff believe that there is some moral calculus under which a first-strike is not genocidal or unlawful.
3. A first strike is not even abhorrent to average Americans. Around half of American citizens support a nuclear first strike if it results in saving American lives.
4. There are morons that believe that a nuclear war is winnable. Some of those morons become politicians, while others become generals. As far as I'm aware, there is no anti-moron filter on either occupation, that keeps those people away from positions of power.
You may observe that your moral hangups, and the international-court legality of a first strike has zero bearing on any of those four points. And those four points are what will drive people to act the way they will act.
Let's recap:
* A first strike is not illegal under American law. It is a heavily studied topic, on which hundreds of thinkers, paid by the Pentagon, have produced thousands of documents that argue about when it can be used, and how it can be best used.
* A first strike is not ever going to be an out-of-the-blue-POTUS-woke-up-on-the-wrong-side-of-the-bed event.
* It is going to be a decision that is made in the middle of a geopolitical crisis, after weeks, or months of threats, escalations, and counter-escalations, and the occasional shot, or shell, or conventional missile being fired. It is going to be a dramatic, but possible decision to make in that context.
* Because it is permitted by law, and because it has been argued for so exhaustively, and because the military has deliberately implemented procedures for carrying it out, the people who will be arguing for it will not have the same moral revulsion that you and I hold against it.
* Those people also happen to be convinced that there is such a thing as a winnable nuclear war.
In this context - when a silo operator receives the order to fire, when they know that there's a military and political crisis going on, and people are dying, many of them are going to follow their orders. After, they will have plenty of time to ponder whether or not the International Crimes Court at the Hague is going to hold their decision against them.
What we need is a modern "Day After" moment. It's been a generation and a half since that film. The new crop of armchair generals, politicians, and office holders, who grew up with no memory of war, need to be reminded of its horrors.
If a media mogul who owns a national television station is reading, I emplore you to consider broadcasting that film on the next Fourth of July. Or, alternatively, after the next State of the Union address.