tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8235303708202109019.post1316459652722397540..comments2023-12-13T12:36:55.729-08:00Comments on Phronesis / {fro-nay-sis}: RESPONSE TO JIM DUBBS ON MY HIROSHIMA LEGACY POSTINGPHRONESIShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07591076303642667442noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8235303708202109019.post-85875347958201711952015-11-14T13:31:18.046-08:002015-11-14T13:31:18.046-08:00Let's try again.Let's try again.Jim Skintauynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8235303708202109019.post-87330632587106928662015-10-20T15:15:12.878-07:002015-10-20T15:15:12.878-07:00Ron,
Spot on. You are right of, course, regarding...Ron,<br />Spot on. You are right of, course, regarding the timing of the Dulles pronouncement of the "massive retaliation" doctrine. It was in early 1954 and the Soviets had already tested their first A-bomb in 1949. However, delivery of same took a bit longer. I don't believe that they had similar planes to the B-52 that could reach US targets. It was not until the late fifties ('57-'59) that they developed their ICBMs, which was before we did, I believe. As far as the escalation doctrine goes, it was meant to begin at a non-nuclear level, with escalation involving tactical nuclear weapons futher up the ladder. Some believe it was precisely the strategy that was successfully employed during the Cuban missile crisis. As for the debates regarding counter-city (or counter-value) vs. counter-force strategies or about the "tactical" use of nuclear weapons, I agree with you: they seemed nutty (and morbid), relevant only to the "military-industrial complex," if you will. The only reasonable threshold is not using the weapon at all. Unfortunately, while reason would dictate this, nations still take policy risks (brinkmanship) that have the potential for unleashing them. Add in non-state actors, zealots of all stripes, or other madmen eventually getting their hands on the weapons, the risks only get bigger. Non-proliferation is a step in the right direction, but the science is out there, so we have to figure out a way to put this genie back in the bottle. That is what we need to be thinking about, not about the "unthinkable," as Herman Kahn wrote. Eliminating its possibility, not surviving nuclear war should be the focus. I wish I had some suggestions...Jim Dubbsnoreply@blogger.com