What's new

Use of nuclear weapons can't be ruled out: Joe Biden

Arham_PakFan

ODI Debutant
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Runs
12,858
WASHINGTON: South Asia is among a few regions in the world where nuclear weapons could be used in a regional conflict, the outgoing US Vice President Joe Biden warned on Saturday.

In a recent speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, Mr Biden hoped that the incoming Trump administration would continue America’s leading role in reducing nuclear weapons around the globe.

“Not just North Korea, but Russia, Pakistan, and others have made counterproductive moves that only increase the risk that nuclear weapons could be used in a regional conflict in Europe, South Asia, or East Asia,” he said.

“Working with Congress, the next administration will have to navigate these dangers and — I hope — continue leading the global consensus to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our world.”

Mr Biden urged Republican and Democratic lawmakers in the US Congress to rise above party politics and deal with the nuclear issue with the seriousness it deserves.

“Nuclear security is too important to be a party policy, for our nation and for the world. Although we no longer live in the daily dread of nuclear confrontation, the dangers we face today require a bipartisan spirit,” he said.

“The challenge is looming on the horizon. While the vast majority of international community understands that the world is more dangerous when more nations and people wield nuclear weapons, there are still those who seek to grow their arsenals and develop new types of nuclear weapons,” he warned before naming Pakistan among the nations that were doing so.

Pakistan also has warned against the dangers of a nuclear conflict in South Asia and wants the international community, particularly the United States, to help resolves its tensions with India.

Pakistani diplomats in Washington also referred to a recent statement by the Indian army chief, General Bipin Rawat, who publicly confirmed last week that India did have a Cold Start doctrine.

Gen Rawat is the first senior Indian official to do so. Previous Indian chiefs avoided using the term Cold Start and preferred calling it a “proactive strategy”.

Cold Start is the Indian operational plan for launching ground and air strikes inside Pakistan before its defensive formations launch a counter-offensive. The Indian media described Gen Rawat’s acknowledgment of a Cold Start doctrine, in an interview to India Today, as a radical departure from New Delhi’s previous policy and intended to send a message to Pakistan.

Pakistan says it would counter the Indian move by relocating defensive formations close to the Indian border, and warned that it would be forced to use “tactical nuclear weapons” if India ever launched cross-border attacks. Tactical weapons are usually delivered by short-range ballistic missiles and could effectively counter a Cold Start strike.

The Pakistanis also welcome international mediation for resolving this and other disputes —particularly Kashmir — with India and warn that ignoring these issues could lead to yet another war between South Asia’s two nuclear-armed nations.

The Indians, however, oppose any outside intervention in their disputes with Pakistan, insisting that such disputes should only be discussed in bilateral meetings. But bilateral talks too have failed to produce any results and are rare.

India also says that terrorism is a greater threat to peace in South Asia than any other disputes and accuses Pakistan of continuing to encourage cross-border terrorist attacks.

Terrorism is one issue in which India welcomes outside intervention and wants the international community to use its influence to stop the alleged cross-border terrorist activities

Pakistan dismisses these charges as part of an Indian propaganda campaign to malign Islamabad.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1308760/use-of-nuclear-weapons-in-south-asia-cant-be-ruled-out-biden
 
Nuclear weapons can only be used where there is no nuclear deterrent. Eg. In The middle east.
 
At least Pakistan has invited mediation from the international bodies to resolve any dispute which could lead to nuclear escalation. That is at least addressing the source of the problem rather than the symptoms.

Other than that, this speech is probably just for PR purposes and relatively meaningless.
 
So every other country can use them to defend themselves but not Islamic Pakistan. In this case it will become an Islamic bomb! Listen Biden, if Pak is under threat then it will use all that is available to defend itself. I am sure we will never initiate such form of an attack. Biden is a silly Zionist puppet like Modi and that lot.
 
North Korea is the volatile one.

Others will never use it unless provoked.
 
More would have died in a land invasion of Japan.

See Okinawa.

That is speculation and American propaganda.

There is no way of knowing that more people would have died, or that Japan would not have surrendered a year later.

If the ends justify the means, we might as well nuke Iraq/Syria to destroy ISIS, the civilian casualties could be justified with the same logic.
 
North Korea is the volatile one.

Others will never use it unless provoked.

Even North Korea will never use it. It would mean the end of North Korea and more importantly to Kim Jong Un, his family dynasty would come to an end.

Threatening to use nukes keeps their enemies at bay. Using them destroys their own country and takes away their power.

Real dangers are non state actors that could somehow get nuclear technology. Nukes in the hands of terrorists is the real danger.
 
Last edited:
That is speculation and American propaganda.

There is no way of knowing that more people would have died, or that Japan would not have surrendered a year later.

If the ends justify the means, we might as well nuke Iraq/Syria to destroy ISIS, the civilian casualties could be justified with the same logic.

Evidence backed speculation given Okinawa.

Even in real history there was almost a coup after the surrender.
 
Like I said, if that was justified, might as well nuke Syria and Iraq.

Big false equivalency there.

An invasion in Syria or Iraq would not cost more lives than a nuke.

I'll also note for instance that more than twice as many people died in Nanking than in both the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined.

And Japan of course had an organised government structure which could surrender.
 
Big false equivalency there.

An invasion in Syria or Iraq would not cost more lives than a nuke.

I'll also note for instance that more than twice as many people died in Nanking than in both the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined.

And Japan of course had an organised government structure which could surrender.



Seriously?

Since 2003, some estimate as many as 500,000 Iraqi casualties, majority of civilians.

Syria: Between 300,000 to 400,000 estimated, majority civilians.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki = less than 300,000 people.

Could have just nuked Saddam, Assad, and ISIS with a low yield nuke. Had just as many casualties and force surrenders.

50 years from now, an Australian kid named Convict Jr. the Second, would be learning in school how nuking Iraq and Syria was a good thing.
 
Seriously?

Since 2003, some estimate as many as 500,000 Iraqi casualties, majority of civilians.

Syria: Between 300,000 to 400,000 estimated, majority civilians.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki = less than 300,000 people.

Could have just nuked Saddam, Assad, and ISIS with a low yield nuke. Had just as many casualties and force surrenders.

50 years from now, an Australian kid named Convict Jr. the Second, would be learning in school how nuking Iraq and Syria was a good thing.

The Iraq War itself was completely unnecessary.


I'll also point out that the Pacific Theatre in WWII is estimated to have had over 25 million casualties.

How you can possibly in good faith draw a comparison between modern day Iraq and Syria and WWII is highly dubious.
 
More would have died in a land invasion of Japan.

See Okinawa.

I concur. Japan would have turned into a nation of suicide bombers. The Americans would have lost a million soldiers, the Japanese far more. The nukes gave Hirohito a way to surrender while saving face.
 
I concur. Japan would have turned into a nation of suicide bombers. The Americans would have lost a million soldiers, the Japanese far more. The nukes gave Hirohito a way to surrender while saving face.

speculation. They were already negotiating a surrender and were very close to signing. The bomb was a mesage to the russians and a sing to the rest of the world. The americans were mounting long range bombings against the japanese mainland for months and the bombings in tokyo had killed more people than the bomb on hiroshima. The americans had won the war by then and were not going to invade the mainland. Japan was a spent force and would have surrendered. They were surrounded and blockaded. The bomb was a criminal act and a war crime. Like the bombing of Dresden. Unnecessary.

by the way the WOT and has already killed 4 million people. and counting.
 
More would have died in a land invasion of Japan.

See Okinawa.

More civilians?

The greatest dread of nuclear weapons is surely that they spare no one. Why would a land invasion lead to the same wholesale murder of civilians, not to mention any form of life including kittens, babies, trees etc?
 
More civilians?

The greatest dread of nuclear weapons is surely that they spare no one. Why would a land invasion lead to the same wholesale murder of civilians, not to mention any form of life including kittens, babies, trees etc?

Yeah. See Okinawa where out of an estimated population of 300,000 people more than 100,000 are estimated to have died.

And that was the battle just before a hypothetical land invasion of the 60 million odd people in Japan.
 
speculation. They were already negotiating a surrender and were very close to signing. The bomb was a mesage to the russians and a sing to the rest of the world. The americans were mounting long range bombings against the japanese mainland for months and the bombings in tokyo had killed more people than the bomb on hiroshima. The americans had won the war by then and were not going to invade the mainland. Japan was a spent force and would have surrendered. They were surrounded and blockaded. The bomb was a criminal act and a war crime. Like the bombing of Dresden. Unnecessary.

by the way the WOT and has already killed 4 million people. and counting.

The Japanese surrender involved being allowed to continue to occupy Korea and China.
 
Yeah. See Okinawa where out of an estimated population of 300,000 people more than 100,000 are estimated to have died.

And that was the battle just before a hypothetical land invasion of the 60 million odd people in Japan.

That didn't really answer the question as to why 100,000 civilians would die in a land invasion. Either they combatants or they were killed regardless by the Allied forces.
 
That didn't really answer the question as to why 100,000 civilians would die in a land invasion. Either they combatants or they were killed regardless by the Allied forces.

Because during pretty fierce fighting over populated areas with WWII technology its not always possible to avoid hitting civilians.
Plus in a land invasion most of the fighting age civilian population is going to take up arms as militia.
 
Because during pretty fierce fighting over populated areas with WWII technology its not always possible to avoid hitting civilians.
Plus in a land invasion most of the fighting age civilian population is going to take up arms as militia.

Fair enough. Let me ask you a question though. If you found yourself in a situation where Australia was in the position of Japan, would you prefer a land invasion by enemy forces with similar WWII technology or would you prefer your city to be nuked, ostensibly to save larger casualties through the war being dragged out?
 
Fair enough. Let me ask you a question though. If you found yourself in a situation where Australia was in the position of Japan, would you prefer a land invasion by enemy forces with similar WWII technology or would you prefer your city to be nuked, ostensibly to save larger casualties through the war being dragged out?

Its a good question and there isn't any real answers to that.

I'd prefer my country to unconditionally surrender if it reached that point though.
 
speculation. They were already negotiating a surrender and were very close to signing. The bomb was a mesage to the russians and a sing to the rest of the world. The americans were mounting long range bombings against the japanese mainland for months and the bombings in tokyo had killed more people than the bomb on hiroshima. The americans had won the war by then and were not going to invade the mainland. Japan was a spent force and would have surrendered. They were surrounded and blockaded. The bomb was a criminal act and a war crime. Like the bombing of Dresden. Unnecessary.

That's news to me.

I don't see why the nukes are a special case to some people when some conventional raids killed more. Any act of bombing civilians is a war crime under the Geneva Convention. Everyone did it anyway. Might made right in that regard.
 
Ukraine war a 'warmup,' the 'big one is coming' and US behind in nuclear, admiral warns

The war in Ukraine is a prelude to greater military challenges to the US in the near future, and America is losing its competitive edge in nuclear weapons capabilities, US Strategic Command head Admiral Charles Richard warned in a speech at the Naval Submarine League's 2022 Annual Symposium & Industry Update on Wednesday, the US Defense Department reported.

"This Ukraine crisis that we're in right now, this is just the warmup," said Richard. "The big one is coming. And it isn't going to be very long before we're going to get tested in ways that we haven't been tested in a long time."

https://www.jpost.com/international/article-721579

It almost seems the US wants a nuclear war.
 
https://www.jpost.com/international/article-721579

It almost seems the US wants a nuclear war.

I’m starting to think humanity is doomed. Either quickly by fevered egoes launching nuclear weapons, or slowly through global warming / climate change. If we make it to 2100 the world will look very different.

We are lucky in that we were born after the World Wars and will die before climate change kills billions.
 
Back
Top