Of course, viewing these lesser-developed nations and associated mentalities remains useful to some on the Left, in trying to mischaracterize the West and especially the Evil USA (as well as Israel), especially whenever the USA has a Republican president at the time the mischaracterization is contemplated.

I guess I/we need to read your follow-up post to get some feedback on/acknowledgment to my/our comments to this one?

I think THAT is, as you say, “horse shit” If any of the other coutries I mentioned would use their entire nuclear arsenal and you believe this planet will still be inhabitable, then I have a bridge to sell you

I am pretty sure that the planet would survive a couple of hundred nukes going off, it has so far…

Nuclear testing by country

The nuclear powers have conducted at least 2,000 nuclear test explosions (numbers are approximated, as some test results have been disputed):
Over 2,000 nuclear explosions have been conducted, in over a dozen different sites around the world.
“Baker Shot”, part of Operation Crossroads, a nuclear test by the United States at Bikini Atoll in 1946

* United States United States: 1,054 tests by official count (involving at least 1,151 devices,331 atmospheric tests), most at Nevada Test Site and the Pacific Proving Grounds in the Marshall Islands, with ten other tests taking place at various locations in the United States, including Amchitka Alaska, Colorado, Mississippi, and New Mexico (see Nuclear weapons and the United States for details).[2]
* Soviet Union Soviet Union: 715 tests (involving 969 devices) by official count,[3] most at Semipalatinsk Test Site and Novaya Zemlya, and a few more at various sites in Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Ukraine.
* France France: 210 tests by official count (50 atmospheric, 160 underground[4]), 4 atomic atmospheric tests at C.E.S.M. near Reggane, 13 atomic underground tests at C.E.M.O. near In Ekker in the then-French Algerian Sahara, and nuclear atmospheric tests at Fangataufa and nuclear undersea tests Moruroa in French Polynesia. Additional atomic and chemical warfare tests took place in the secret base B2-Namous, near Ben Wenif, other tests involving rockets and missiles at C.I.E.E.S, near Hammaguir, both in the Sahara.
* United Kingdom United Kingdom: 45 tests (21 in Australian territory, including 9 in mainland South Australia at Maralinga and Emu Field, some at Christmas Island in the Pacific Ocean, plus many others in the U.S. as part of joint test series)[5]
* People's Republic of China China: 45 tests (23 atmospheric and 22 underground, at Lop Nur Nuclear Weapons Test Base, in Malan, Xinjiang)[6][7]
* India India: 6 underground tests (including the first one in 1974), at Pokhran[citation needed].
* Pakistan Pakistan: 2 underground tests, at Ras Koh Hills, Chagai District and Kharan Desert, Kharan District in Balochistan Province[citation needed].
* North Korea North Korea: 2 tests at Hwadae-ri[citation needed].

Additionally, there may have been at least three alleged but unacknowledged nuclear explosions (see list of alleged nuclear tests). Of these, the only one taken seriously as a possible nuclear test is the Vela Incident, a possible detection of a nuclear explosion in the Indian Ocean in 1979.

Now a couple of hundred nukes ( The biggest arsenal outside that of the US and Russia being 350 Nukes, Don't know how many megatons that would be ) going off simultaneously is not something I look forward to, but I think that humanity would probably survive the catastrophe, I don't know if humanity could survive if every non-American & non-Russian Nuke (approximately a 1000 nukes) went off simultaneously, on the other hand the approximately 10,000 American (or Russian Nukes) going off simultaneously would likely kill off humanity.

In a rational world everybody would destroy their nukes, but as long as the Russians and Americans have them no one in their right mind is going to give them up.

“The only countries that have enough nukes to destroy the planet are the US & Russia.”

I think THAT is, as you say, “horse shit”

He said “The only purpose for a country to have a nuclear arsenal today is the threat that the possessor will environmental destroy as much of the world as possible if anyone tries to remove them from power.”

But even that's not true… Imagine an Iraq that had nukes when we invaded, if they had been smart they would have waited for our invasion, once we had crossed the border they could have found a choke point (easier said than done) attempted to bottle us in there and either dropped a nuke on top of us or better yet have the nuke planted in advance so that they can destroy most of the invading army, if neither of those is possible drop or plant a few nukes behind the invading army so that you can nuke their supply lines, hell they could have dropped a small nuke in the port of Kuwait, no supplies would mean the end of the invasion…

All of the uses I just described would be perfectly legitimate use of nukes, all aimed at military targets in self defense.

China's 100-200 warheads, France's approximately 350 strategic warheads, the UK's 160 warheads, India's 100 nuclear warheads, Israel's between 75 to 200 nuclear warheads, etc., would do the trick nicely

I am sure that if the Chinese and the Euros got into a real Nuclear pissing contest, that neither Europe, nor China would be habitable for the next 10,000 years, not to mention the climatic change that all that dust in the atmosphere would cause. On the other hand if we were to use our entire arsenal, the entire planet would be inhabitable, we have more than enough nukes to destroy the entire planet.

And if you think that anyone who has nukes today is going to get rid of them after we have just demonstrated the consequences of not having them, I have a bridge to sell you…

He said “The only purpose for a country to have a nuclear arsenal today is the threat that the possessor will environmental destroy as much of the world as possible if anyone tries to remove them from power.”

In that context, I believe that other countries, in addition to the US and Russia can do plenty to environmentally destroy a lot of the world, if not destroy the planet. In any case, I would not want to be around after any of the following countries used their entire nuclear arsenals.

I believe that
China's 100-200 warheads, France's approximately 350 strategic warheads, the UK's 160 warheads,.
India's 100 nuclear warheads, Israel's between 75 to 200 nuclear warheads, etc., would do the trick nicely

I do have a couple of comments and questions.

“You don’t really talk to or negotiate with these madmen [stateless terrorist groups]. You eradicate them by any means necessary before they can do further harm to others.” Totally agree.

“Unfortunately one cannot use nuclear weapons against them because that poses the high potential of extensive collateral damage to innocent people and the world’s environment.” There are other weapons available.

“Continuous excellent police work and international cooperation are the only ways to eradicate these [jihadists in the US and elsewhere]madmen.” Totally agree

“What should we do about the reclusive, closed, repressive, psychotic, vulgar and dangerous regimes such as Iran and North Korea? Sanctions, embargos and further political and economic isolation are not the answers. Instead, let’s shower them with gifts from the west; including food, fuel, construction materials, consumer goods, and all our latest communications media to permit their citizens full access to the world outside.” Are you serious about this? Is there a historical precedent that such works?

“Let’s only confront them on a continuous basis for their internal human rights abuses and their utter incompetence and corruption as regimes. Let them storm out of meetings because we continue to hold up the facts to the entire world that they are corrupt, inhuman and degenerate regimes. Constantly putting international pressure on them for these abuses have yet to be tried.”

I don't know how this latter, the continuously confronting them and constant international pressure approach, would go hand-in-hand with “showering them with gifts.” Unless it is the big carrot and the little stick approach?.

“However, we should not fear to over-engage them as the decades of sanctions, embargos, and other isolation methods have proven to be wholly ineffectual. Even our failed treatment of Cuba since 1959 supports this alternative policy because we all know that Fidel is still in charge despite the decades of embargos and isolation. For decades the only major exports from Cuba have been Cubans.” Here, are you proposing the big carrot and the little stick approach?

“If today, we ostensibly do not go to war over natural resources, to acquire more land for national expansion, or to transform another country’s economic policies, what justifications remain for intervening in the affairs of other nations beyond direct physical threats to, or actual attacks on, our own people or territories? What internal matters are still open for world inspection and castigation? We have had too many examples of internal genocides in human history that were callously ignored by the rest of the world under the lame excuse that it was “an internal matter” for the particular despots who ran the place to voluntary cease.”

But I think that in fact “we” (We and other nations) have gone and do go to war (althought we may not advertise it as such) for strategic reasons, including strategic geography/location, perceived strategic/geo-political threats (domino theory?), land grab, national resources (oil?), etc.,etc. Regrettably, with very few exceptions (perhaps Kosovo), we do not go to war to prevent or quell “internal genocides.”

“If the U.S. quickly deposed the brutal regimes in Burma, Mozambique, and a few other utterly corrupt and dangerous military dictatorships around the world, and then withdrew without any “nation-building,” would the world really protest that loudly, impose economic sanctions, or use military force against us? The U.S. military in the 21st Century should be much smaller, but more technologically lethal and operationally agile to permit multiple brutal, effective, targeted, and quick military strikes around the globe that further our national and international goals.”I mostly agree with you, but what happened to the carrot-and-the stick approach

“We should not continue a national military policy that moves tens of thousands of troops and billions of dollars in military hardware and support equipment to various trouble spots for prolonged occupations and involvements with no clear timetables, goals and exit strategies. We have proven in the latter half of the 20th Century that our military forces are best employed when quickly overwhelming a surprised enemy with high technology and superior forces, and then promptly leaving.” Amen!

“We should only level the playing field so the local populations can work out a new political order after we topple an old one.” Perhaps, but then you get perilously close to the dreaded nation building, etc. and start coming mightily close to “Imposing a new ruling regime or occupying a country indefinitely” which, as you say, ” does not engender us to the local populations, nor does it further our long-term national goals.”

Marc, I am not trying to be critical, just trying to understand your thesis a little better.

And, by the way, don't worry about using “cojones,” when used as a figure of speech, IMO, it is perfectly OK to denote courage (or no courage). Madeleine Albright, (who has cojones) has used it and so has George W. Bush (referring to Tony Blair). and so have many others.

Thanks for your post

Dorian

The only purpose for a country to have a nuclear arsenal today is the threat that the possessor will environmental destroy as much of the world as possible if anyone tries to remove them from power.

Horse shit…

A) The only countries that have enough nukes to destroy the planet are the US & Russia.

Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance

China: 100-200 warheads.
France: Approximately 350 strategic warheads.
Russia: 2,787 strategic warheads[1], approximately 2,000 operational tactical warheads, and approximately 8,000 stockpiled strategic and tactical warheads.
United Kingdom: Less than 160 deployed strategic warheads.
United States: 2,126 strategic warheads[1], approximately 500 operational tactical weapons, and approximately 6,700 reserve strategic and tactical warheads
…

India: Up to 100 nuclear warheads.
Israel: Between 75 to 200 nuclear warheads.
Pakistan: Between 70 to 90 nuclear warheads.

B) After seeing what has happened to Iraq, any country (Iran, Venezuela, Libya, Nigeria, Angola) that has anything that the US wants or may want any time in the near future should start a Nuclear program, any country (Brazil, South Africa, etc ) that wants to be a regional power should start a Nuclear program. It's the only guarantee that the US will not invade.

Actions have consequences, and the Iraqi invasion has done more to convince the world that the US is a rogue state that will not follow any of the international norms…

Please name a country that qualifies under this that isn't A) part of the Commonwealth B) part of NATO and/or C) doesn't a mutual defense treaty with a major super power. Even Japan is suspected of having “out of the box” capability to develop a weapon if our protection treaty with them ends.

I don't agree with your basic premise at all.