From: Gene McAloon 

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:45:28 -0500, "John Beamish"
 wrote:

>
>"Gene McAloon"  wrote in message
>news:amvbuv04h9nqmbkenfi2vi5kcili5allcm{at}4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 13:36:42 -0500, "John Beamish"

>wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately for that argument, use of atomic weapons has never been
>deemed
>> unacceptable. There are major powers and who knows how many smaller powers
>that
>> have them and there is no law regarding their use, none.
>>
>As you point out subsequently, MAD was a doctrine designed to pre-empt their
>use.  Times and conditions have changed.  Just because there is not yet a
>law or treaty regarding their use, does not mean that one should not be
>developed.  And, yes, I accept that faced with an overwhelming defeat, a
>signatory would likely ignore the treaty.

Not to quibble, but MAD was not a device to pre-empt the use of nuclear weapons.
Rather is was a device, not a doctrine, that assured that any nuclear
attack by one side guaranteed that there would be retaliation in kind. 
Well, maybe I am quibbling, but to me these distinctions are important.

If public opinion has changed as much as you say, there would be some
pressure for the US to at least renounce the use of such weapons, but in
fact there is no
such  pressure. It is not even a political issue. In the UK perhaps and
perhaps in your country as well, but not in the US. Public opinion in the
US may think nuclear war horrible, even unthinkable, yet there is no
apparent desire to give up the weapons. It is a non-issue.

>
>
>
>> I am not interested in what the publc may think about their use. I am
>talking
>> about the reality of their use if it should ever be necessary to use them.
>That
>> they would be used under certan circumstances has was  always been a part
>of
>> national sucuriey planning by both the US and USSR during the Cold War
>years.
>>
>> The whole concept of MAD was to prevent pre-emptive use of them. The
>public knew
>> that. We all knew it. It mattered not in the slightest that many were
>horrified
>> that they might be used. Used they would be if necessary and that is as
>true
>> today as it was back in the Cold War years.
>>
>I'm not a military strategist or historian, but my recollection is that the
>Nato powers did not reject first use.  As I remember it, that enabled Nato
>to keep fewer men under arms -- and that was the West's objective.  Of
>course, that objective wasn't always explicit but was couched in the terms
>of using nuclear weapons to keep the hordes at bay.  Since the hordes were
>portrayed as this great ogre poised to destroy civilized society, it was a
>relatively easy "sale".  Subsequent analyses have, of course,
shown that to
>have been, generally, a crock.

No, they didn't reject it, but that applied specifically to the silly idea
that the USSR would invade Western Europe, which as you say was a crock, a
crock many
of us realized at the time.

The first use thing had more relevance to intercontinental ballistic
missiles and that was what MAD was all about.  Not that there were not
those in the US who didn't preach a pre-emptive nuclear attack on the USSR.
The neo-cons got their start preaching just that in the interests of, as
always with the neo-cons, protecting Israel.
>
>> It is not I who stands with an extremely small group of people. It is you
>who do
>> so because you and they are horrified at the possibility of their use and
>> suppose because you are horrified that therefore they cannot and must not
>be
>> used, that their use is unacceptable. That is great, but it is also
>contrary to
>> what everyone else in fact knows to be the truth.
>>
>Do  I stand with an extremely small group of people?  Well, my perception
>differs from yours.
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5