Why Trump would NOT use a tactical nuke - against US's commitments under Non Proliferation Treaty - and commitment to only use nukes against non members if needed to protect from a nuclear attack
I should cover this briefly since it ran as a story yesterday and there was little by way of debunking.
Under the Non Proliferation Treaty, US agrees not to use nukes against any non nuclear states compliant with the treaty. The US also said it would only consider tactical nukes for non NPT compliant states only in a narrow range of circumstances. It would consider them only to prevent a strategic attack on the USA or its allies or partners.
QUOTE there remains a narrow range of contingencies in which U.S. nuclear weapons may still play a role in deterring attacks that have strategic effect against the United States or its Allies and partners. There is no way that there is any risk of a strategic attack by Iran on Israel.
In context:
QUOTE The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations. For all other states, there remains a narrow range of contingencies in which U.S. nuclear weapons may still play a role in deterring attacks that have strategic effect against the United States or its Allies and partners. https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/2022-Nuclear-Posture-Review.pdf
Tactical nukes are legal under the Law of War because of minimal effects on civilians if used for a remote desert facility - but would never be used by the US against Iran which poses no strategic risk to the US - and for many other reasons
The Fordo facility is 17 kilometers away from the nearest hamlet in a desert.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
Trump can't use a tactical nuke for Fordo
"The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations.
"For all other states, there remains a narrow range of contingencies in which U.S. nuclear weapons may still play a role in deterring attacks that have strategic effect"
If needed US can break through with bunker buster bombs from a B-2 at 15 km altitude
So, unlike strategic nukes, the big ones, a very small B-61 tactical nuke dialed down to 0.3 kilotons could be used against Fordo with no risk of civilian casualties.
The wrinkle there is that Israel claims that Iran is not complying with the NPT. The IAEA and the US intelligence say it is and that it is not trying to develop a nuke at present. But the IAEA say that they can't continue to provide this guarantee into the future.
So - the US could as a technicality claim that it is okay to use a tactical nuke because they assess that Iran is not in compliance with the NPT.
But it is very implausible that they would use that reasoning to justify a tactical nuke in a situation where it is clear they have a conventional way to do it and there isn't any clear evidence of Iran's non compliance with the NPT.
And then add that the US would only do it if Iran posed a strategic risk to the US and as we’ve seen it doesn’t.
So that was already implausible.
And then there's that extra wrinkle that even if they did, it would still not make it acceptable under the US strategic posture review.
Then there are all the other reasons not to do it
Tactical nukes are gray area under the Partial Test Ban Treaty
Not against the letter of the treaty
because it is about peaceful use of nukes
Against the spirt of it to use nukes instead of conventional weapons
with no miliary necessity and the US not attacked
Then it is against the US’s own commitment.
And - Trump is the civilian leader. He is not a military commander and he is only responsible for broader strategy. He tells a general he wants such and such a thing acocmplished. The general has a lot of latitude when it comes to how to accomplish it.
The general would tell Trump that he can do the job with conventional weapons.
He would also tell Trump that it is against the US’s commitment in its nuclear posture review to use a tactical nuke against Iran.
He’d also say there is no evidence that Iran has failed to comply with the NPT.
All this would happen privately. It wouldn’t be publicised. But the upshot woudl be that Trump’s order would be converted into conventional not nuclear bombs even if originally he asked for tactical nukes.
There is no point in it, no upside and massive downsides.
He can't order a tactical nuke anyway - the generals would refuse because they would tell him they can do it with conventional methods and that it would go against the US's commitments to the Non Proliferation Treaty and even its commitment to non NPT compliant states as there is no strategic risk to the USA or Israel.
And if somehow he could do it which is impossible, then it would lead to worldwide condemnation not to other countries copying him.
Gorbachov’s and Reagen’s joint statement in 1985 that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought - not an agreement - just countries stating the obvious as they have on many times since then
The same thing applies to every military leader with nukes
Nukes protect your country so long as you never use them
Whatever your situatoin, you make it far worse for yourself if you use nukes.
This is what they mean when they say a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.
It is not an agreement or treaty. It is far stronger than any treaty. It is recognizing a truth.
It's like nations don't need a treaty to affirm "Water is wet and you can drown in it". We know water is wet without a treaty.
If all five security council members signed an affirmation that water is wet we wouldn't worry about whether one of them would break this agreement becuase it's not an agreement it's the truth. Only someone who has lost their ability for coherent thought could forget or not believe that water is wet.
In the same way, this is just recognizing that any country that uses nukes only makes things worse for itself. It loses even if the other country loses too:
Gorbachov and Reagen in their joint statement from 1985 were first to say that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.
The sides, having discussed key security issues, and conscious of the special responsibility of the USSR and the U.S. for maintaining peace, have agreed that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. Recognizing that any conflict between the USSR and the U.S. could have catastrophic consequences, they emphasized the importance of preventing any war between them, whether nuclear or conventional. They will not seek to achieve military superiority.
. Joint Soviet-United States Statement on the Summit Meeting in Geneva
This goes back to US president Ronald Reagen, first to state it really clearly in 1984.
Text on graphic: “nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought”
Not a treaty or agreement or promise.
A statement of a self evident truth.
China, Russia, UK, France, USA, they all agree this is a self evident truth.
Graphic shows screenshot from video at 39:25
More on this, see
SHORT DEBUNK: Why it never makes sense for Putin to use nukes, or for any other country to use nukes - everyone agrees that a nuclear war can’t be won and should never be fought
Reaffirmed by US, China, Russia, UK, and France
That has been reaffirmed many times since then. This is not a treaty or mutual agreement or promise. It is simply countries stating the obvious that nobody can win a nuclear war. So they must never fight it.
It is just leaders showing that they are sane and not insane that’s all.
Here is the complete statement:
full text here
That is
not a concession.
not a promise or a treaty.
It is just
a statement of a self evident truth that all agree is true.
Putin could break a treaty or a concession. But he can’t change the truth of his situation that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.
Russia and China have repeated it since the Ukraine war. This is from Tass, Russian propaganda but it is a good source on what Russia itself has signed from a month after the start of the Ukraine war on 21st March 2022:
QUOTE STARTS
Russia and China are convinced that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be unleashed, according to the Joint Statement on Deepening the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership of Coordination for the New Era signed by Russian and Chinese Presidents, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, on Tuesday after their talks in Moscow.
"Stressing the importance of the joint statement by the leaders of the five countries, which possess nuclear weapons, on the prevention of a nuclear war and an arms race, the sides once again state that there can be no winners in a nuclear war and it must never be unleashed,"
That is a joint statement in 2022 by US, UK and France.
QUOTE The leaders of France, the United Kingdom, and the United States remain firmly committed to the objectives contained in the statement of 3 January 2022 on Preventing Nuclear War and Avoiding Arms Races. We recognize and act with a deep understanding that nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/continued-importance-of-the-nuclear-non-proliferation-treaty-npt-uk-us-and-france-joint-statement/joint-ministerial-statement-by-the-uk-us-and-france-on-the-importance-of-the-nuclear-non-proliferation-treaty Joint ministerial statement by the UK, US and France on the importance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
Statement by the UK from 2024 at the UN Security Council.
Nuclear war cannot be won and must not be fought
Statement in 2025 by Russia and China
The two Sides reaffirm their commitment to The Joint Statement of the Leaders of the Five Nuclear-Weapons States on Preventing Nuclear War and Avoiding Arms Races of January 3, 2022 and to the principle enshrined therein that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The two Sides call on all participating States of the above-mentioned Statement to fully adhere to its provisions in practice. This implies an unwavering focus on avoiding any military confrontation between nuclear-weapon States and seeking politico-diplomatic solutions to existing disagreements on the basis of mutual respect and acknowledgement of each other’s security interests and concerns.
Why we don’t risk a world war or nuclear war from anything going on in the world
CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL
You can Direct Message me on Substack - but I check this rarely. Or better, email me at support@robertinventor.com
Or best of all Direct Message me on Facebook if you are okay joining Facebook. My Facebook profile is here:. Robert Walker I usually get Facebook messages much faster than on the other platforms as I spend most of my day there.
FOR MORE HELP
To find a debunk see: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date See also my Short debunks
Scared and want a story debunked? Post to our Facebook group. Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly
Facebook group Doomsday Debunked
Also do join our facebook group if you can help with fact checking or to help scared people who are panicking.
SEARCH LIST OF DEBUNKS
You can search by title and there’s also an option to search the content of the blog using a google search.
CLICK HERE TO SEARCH: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date
NEW SHORT DEBUNKS
I do many more fact checks and debunks on our facebook group than I could ever write up as blog posts. They are shorter and less polished but there is a good chance you may find a short debunk for some recent concern.
I often write them up as “short debunks”
See Latest short debunks for new short debunks
I also tweet the debunks and short debunks to my Blue Sky page here:
I do the short debunks more often but they are less polished - they are copies of my longer replies to scared people in the Facebook group.
I go through phases when I do lots of short debunks. Recently I’ve taken to converting comments in the group into posts in the group that resemble short debunks and most of those haven’t yet been copied over to the wiki.
TIPS FOR DEALING WITH DOOMSDAY FEARS
If suicidal or helping someone suicidal see my:
BLOG: Supporting someone who is suicidal
If you have got scared by any of this, health professionals can help. Many of those affected do get help and find it makes a big difference.
They can’t do fact checking, don’t expect that of them. But they can do a huge amount to help with the panic, anxiety, maladaptive responses to fear and so on.
Also do remember that therapy is not like physical medicine. The only way a therapist can diagnose or indeed treat you is by talking to you and listening to you. If this dialogue isn’t working for whatever reason do remember you can always ask to change to another therapist and it doesn’t reflect badly on your current therapist to do this.
Also check out my Seven tips for dealing with doomsday fears based on things that help those scared, including a section about ways that health professionals can help you.
I know that sadly many of the people we help can’t access therapy for one reason or another - usually long waiting lists or the costs.
There is much you can do to help yourself. As well as those seven tips, see my:
BLOG: Breathe in and out slowly and deeply and other ways to calm a panic attack
BLOG: Tips from CBT
— might help some of you to deal with doomsday anxieties
PLEASE DON’T COMMENT HERE WITH POTENTIALLY SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT OTHER TOPICS - INSTEAD COMMENT ON POST SET UP FOR IT
PLEASE DON'T COMMENT ON THIS POST WITH POTENTIALLY SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OTHER TOPIC:
INSTEAD PLEASE COMMENT HERE:
The reason is I often can’t respond to comments for some time. The unanswered comment can scare people who come to this post for help on something else
Also even an answered comment may scare them because they see the comment before my reply.
It works much better to put comments on other topics on a special post for them.
It is absolutely fine to digress and go off topic in conversations here.
This is specifically about anything that might scare people on a different topic.
PLEASE DON’T TELL A SCARED PERSON THAT THE THING THEY ARE SCARED OF IS TRUE WITHOUT A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE OR IF YOU ARE A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE YOURSELF - AND RESPOND WITH CARE
This is not like a typical post on substack. It is specifically to help people who are very scared with voluntary fact checking. Please no politically motivated exaggerations here. And please be careful, be aware of the context.
We have a rule in the Facebook group and it is the same here.
If you are scared and need help it is absolutely fine to comment about anything to do with the topic of the post that scares you.
But if you are not scared or don’t want help with my voluntary fact checking please don’t comment with any scary material.
If you respond to scared people here please be careful with your sources. Don’t tell them that something they are scared of is true without excellent reliable sources, or if you are a reliable source yourself.
It also matters a lot exactly HOW you respond. E.g. if someone is in an area with a potential for earthquakes there’s a big difference between a reply that talks about the largest earthquake that’s possible there even when based on reliable sources, and says nothing about how to protect themselves and the same reply with a summary and link to measures to take to protect yourself in an earthquake.
PLEASE DON'T COMMENT ON THIS POST WITH POTENTIALLY SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OTHER TOPIC:
INSTEAD PLEASE COMMENT ON THE SPECIAL SEPARATE POST I SET UP HERE: https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/post-to-comment-on-with-off-topic-940
The reason is I often aren't able to respond to comments for some time and the unanswered comment can scare people who come to this post for help on something else
Also even when answered the comment may scare them because they see it first.
It works much better to put comments on other topics on a special post for them.
It is absolutely fine to digress and go off topic in conversations here - this is specifically about things you want help with that might scare people.
PLEASE DON’T TELL A SCARED PERSON THAT THE THING THEY ARE SCARED OF IS TRUE WITHOUT A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE OR IF YOU ARE A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE YOURSELF - AND RESPOND WITH CARE
This is not like a typical post on substack. It is specifically to help people who are very scared with voluntary fact checking. Please no politically motivated exaggerations here. And please be careful, be aware of the context.
We have a rule in the Facebook group and it is the same here.
If you are scared and need help it is absolutely fine to comment about anything to do with the topic of the post that scares you.
But if you are not scared or don’t want help with my voluntary fact checking please don’t comment with any scary material.
If you respond to scared people here please be careful with your sources. Don’t tell them that something they are scared of is true without excellent reliable sources, or if you are a reliable source yourself.
It also matters a lot exactly HOW you respond. E.g. if someone is in an area with a potential for earthquakes there’s a big difference between a reply that talks about the largest earthquake that’s possible there even when based on reliable sources, and says nothing about how to protect themselves and the same reply with a summary and link to measures to take to protect yourself in an earthquake.
Thanks!
https://substack.com/@reeceashdown/note/c-128532646?r=5qrbeg&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action