Can the U.S. legally use nuclear weapon

[SassyLady]

Against another country if attacked? I didn't even know that I didn't know this.

https://www.justsecurity.org/76049/the-illegality-of-targeting-civilians-by-way-of-belligerent-reprisal-implications-for-u-s-nuclear-doctrine/

[Kathianne]

Against another country if attacked? I didn't even know that I didn't know this.

https://www.justsecurity.org/76049/the-illegality-of-targeting-civilians-by-way-of-belligerent-reprisal-implications-for-u-s-nuclear-doctrine/

Pretty much if nukes start flying, even tactical, civilians are likely to be impacted negatively. If it's in response to an attack on US or allies, I would think justified.

[SassyLady]

Pretty much if nukes start flying, even tactical, civilians are likely to be impacted negatively. If it's in response to an attack on US or allies, I would think justified.
From article


It is time for the United States to acknowledge that whatever the law may have allowed decades ago, it is no longer permissible under customary IHL to intentionally target civilians by way of reprisal. State practice and the associated expressions of legal obligation (opinio juris) support our position that it is no longer legally permissible to make civilians the object of attack with nuclear (or other) weapons by way of reprisal. Even a state that sustains an illegal attack against its civilian population must respond in a way that comports with IHL. The United States should end its “calculated ambiguity” about the doctrine of belligerent reprisal and make categorical its recognition that it may not intentionally target civilian populations or civilian objects.
How can we do belligerent reprisal without harm to civilians. Once again it seems those that can use nuclear on us are not constrained to same agreement.

[Kathianne]

From article


How can we do belligerent reprisal without harm to civilians. Once again it seems those that can use nuclear on us are not constrained to same agreement.
Yep, read that. Seems the author/organization is arguing for something that has not happened. The "other side" should be arguing also.

[revelarts]

How can we legally spy on civilians now?
How can we legally imprison civilians without trial now?
How can we legally torture hundreds of civilians now?
How can we legally drone strike thousands of civilians now?
How can we legally starve thousands of civilians now?

the excuses so far have been,
"legally" to change the laws or have slimy gov't lawyers reinterpret the laws.
Also "legally" create new categories and designate civilians (men, women and children) as "enemy combatants" or "suspected terrorist"

Another option has been to step outside of the strictly legal and simply call them "mistakes" or "collateral damage".
Where the govt is never seen legally compensating victims.

Another option has been to do it secretly or quietly and get the media to help by not mentioning the damage.
And never highlighting whistle blowers and victims families that complain.

Another excuse used, when starving and withholding meds etc via sanctions, has been to BLAME the foreign gov't for it all.
"Look, if Foreign Power X would just do XYZ THEN we'll allow food & medicine into their country so civilians don't die.
So if you starving, sick and energy deprived civilians would just RISE UP against your evil rulers and overthrow them,
THEN things will be great again."

Outside of the gov't there are Americans who have no problem "legally" with anything, as long as they feel it's for their safety.
And some that literally would not have a problem making other nations a "parking lot". So they won't be inconvenienced or threatened.
So there won't be ANY chance that some 3rd world nation would invade or "attack" the U.S. in ANY WAY.
The lives of every civilian in those foreigns nations are forfeit. They should have removed their evil rulers and/or not dared say anything bad about America.
"Because they hate us all", and sorry, we Americans can't have that.

Then of course the "Pragmatist" & some Military minded will remind everyone that
"there ARE NO RULES in War. You're a FOOL if you think so. Get over it, take up a weapon and/or STHU."
And then go on to justify the killing of anything that lives, and the destruction of any land, water and air.
As long as it seemed necessary AT THE TIME.
And BTW the past "mistakes" CANNOT be used to inform the our next actions, ONLY the current FEAR and Propaganda.


just my 2 cents.
others milage may vary.

[Gunny]

Yep, read that. Seems the author/organization is arguing for something that has not happened. The "other side" should be arguing also.The "other side" keeps praying we bind ourselves to more Euro-rules they can exploit.

To include threatening the use of nukes, Putin seems to no be giving much of a damn about anybody's rules but his own. He's holding us to ours while completely disregarding them. Radical Islam has done the same.

Only China, as evil as it is, is working on beating us at our own game by trying to purchase and control everyone-and-thing and control it economically. Until Ping Pong came along and showed the chink in his armor -- his ego. I don't doubt for a second China would use nukes if it thought it was in the best interest of its end game.

If enough strategic nukes start flying from those who place no restraint on themselves in large enough numbers to incapacitate Europe/US, the argument of retaliation is moot. That's enough to destroy all life on the planet.

Given his rooty-poot military, if Putin uses tactical nukes and draws the World into war, the US (with an actual leader in charge) has the firepower to bury Russia without the use of nukes.

Wars kill noncombatants. That's how it works. It's utter nonsense to think otherwise. Almost all of any military's ability to wage war is supported by civilian infrastructure. That infrastructure is a target based on the goal of ending the war by taking away the enemy's means to resist.

Purposefully targeting noncombatants themselves is considered a war crime in the US military already regardless the word games politicians play. Certain elements are just determined to destroy the West and especially the US's means of even defending itself. Especially those of our own that are quick to call us the bad guys without having a damned clue what they are talking about.

[SassyLady]

The "other side" keeps praying we bind ourselves to more Euro-rules they can exploit.

To include threatening the use of nukes, Putin seems to no be giving much of a damn about anybody's rules but his own. He's holding us to ours while completely disregarding them. Radical Islam has done the same.

Only China, as evil as it is, is working on beating us at our own game by trying to purchase and control everyone-and-thing and control it economically. Until Ping Pong came along and showed the chink in his armor -- his ego. I don't doubt for a second China would use nukes if it thought it was in the best interest of its end game.

If enough strategic nukes start flying from those who place no restraint on themselves in large enough numbers to incapacitate Europe/US, the argument of retaliation is moot. That's enough to destroy all life on the planet.

Given his rooty-poot military, if Putin uses tactical nukes and draws the World into war, the US (with an actual leader in charge) has the firepower to bury Russia without the use of nukes.

Wars kill noncombatants. That's how it works. It's utter nonsense to think otherwise. Almost all of any military's ability to wage war is supported by civilian infrastructure. That infrastructure is a target based on the goal of ending the war by taking away the enemy's means to resist.

Purposefully targeting noncombatants themselves is considered a war crime in the US military already regardless the word games politicians play. Certain elements are just determined to destroy the West and especially the US's means of even defending itself. Especially those of our own that are quick to call us the bad guys without having a damned clue what they are talking about.
If Putin uses nuclear on Ukraine who will retaliate and where will they drop the nuke? How do you use one without killing civilians? From reading that article it seems we've bound ourselves to the point we can't use one.

[Gunny]

If Putin uses nuclear on Ukraine who will retaliate and where will they drop the nuke? How do you use one without killing civilians? From reading that article it seems we've bound ourselves to the point we can't use one.Again, if Russia uses nukes there won't be a de-escalation. I'm sure whoever's left, if anyone, can make their own argument for using it. I'm a firm believer in I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

As I stated, targeting military (to include its civilian leadership) and supporting infrastructure is not targeting civilians. Civilians killed while targeting military/military infrastructure are "collateral damage". That's how it has always been explained away.

Nothing to worry about for a good 2 1/2 years anyway. Joe doesn't have the balls to even retaliate.