I overlooked this post earlier, and re-reading the topic, thought I'd answer your questions, Dave.
Albeit three years after the fact.


Quote:

First Amongst Daves said:
Quote:

Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
To my knowledge, the last time it was even considered, except in an accidental launch against a perceived first-strike, was the Cuban Missile Crisis in November 1962.


The example which comes to mind immediately is MacArthur's advocacy of the use of nukes in the Korean War, but Eisenhower didn't like the idea.



That was very early on in the nuclear age, in the late 1940s/early 1950s. They also considered using nukes to open up rivers and dig out places for hydroelectric dams. They didn't fully understand the lingering effects of radiation, on the environment, or on humans.
I think in the modern era, nations that have possessed nukes for 50 years or so have a greater appreciation for their destructiveness, and less willingness to use them.

Quote:

First Amongst Daves said:
Ah, one more: Nixon wanted to use nukes in Vietnam, but Kissiger refused to let him "become a butcher" (this was revealed last year when White House records were released).



That would surprise me, if accurate. I wonder if Nixon was just brainstorming and suggested the possibility, what if ?
Or whether he had seriously intended to deploy and use nuclear weapons in Vietnam.
Even if Nixon wanted to, I find it hard to believe he actually would. It would invite nuclear retaliation from North Vietnam's allies and suppliers, Russia and China.




Quote:

First Amongst Daves said:
Quote:

W B said
In the 1991 Iraq war, it was threatened by the U.S. that if Iraq used biological or chemical weapons or nukes, that the U.S. would retaliate with nukes. But later was revealed that the U.S. would not have used nukes during that war, in any circumstances.



Later revealed where? I've never heard of this.



I saw this on several sources in the U.S., on ABC's Nightline program, PBS News Hour, and elsewhere.

Here's a source I dug up online:
    HERE

    The threat of Israeli [nuclear] retaliation was not the only deterrent to Saddam's use of chemical-armed rockets.

    On 14 August 1991, Defense Secretary Cheney stated that "It should be clear to Saddam Hussein that we have a wide range of military capabilities that will let us respond with overwhelming force and extract a very high price should he be foolish enough to use chemical weapons on United States forces."(12) The American government reportedly used third-party channels to privately warn Iraq that "in the event of a first use of a weapon of mass destruction by Iraq, the United States reserved the right to use any form of retaliation (presumably up to and including nuclear weapons)."(13)

    After the initiation of hostilities in January, American officials continued to stress the risk of retaliation.
    Defense Secretary Cheney warned that "were Saddam Hussein foolish enough to use weapons of mass destruction, the US response would be absolutely overwhelming and devastating."
    Cheney also noted that "I assume (Saddam) knows that if he were to resort to chemical weapons, that would be an escalation to weapons of mass destruction and that the possibility would then exist, certainly with respect to the Israelis, for example, that they might retaliate with unconventional weapons as well."
    General Schwarzkopf added that "if Saddam Hussein chooses to use weapons of mass destruction, then the rules of this campaign will probably change."(14)

    While one might question whether the United States would actually have used nuclear weapons in response to a chemical attack,(15) Saddam Hussein obviously could not have been confident that we would not. As Bruce Blair noted, "There's enough ambiguity in our deployments of nuclear weapons at sea and our ability to deliver nuclear weapons by air and quickly move them into the region to plant the seeds of doubt in Hussein's mind."(16)
    The effectiveness of the threat of chemical or nuclear retaliation was confirmed by Lt. Gen. Calvin Waller, deputy commander of Desert Storm, who stated that "we tried to give him (Saddam) every signal that if he used chemicals against us that we would retaliate in kind and may even do more, so I think he was hesitant to use it there."(17)

    The British also made several threats to respond harshly to an Iraqi chemical attack.
    On 30 September 1990 it was reported that a senior officer with the British 7th Armored Division, being deployed to Saudi Arabia, claimed that British forces would retaliate with battlefield nuclear weapons if attacked by Iraqi chemical weapons.(18)
    On 1 October 1990, British Prime Margaret Thatcher noted that "[y]ou'd have to consider at the time, if chemical weapons were used against us, precisely what our reply should be."(19)
    Several days later, British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd stated that an Iraqi chemical attack would "provoke a response that would completely destroy that country."(20)


So not just U.S. words to that effect, but Israeli and British-voiced threats as well, of an overwhelming WMD response to initiation of WMD's by Iraq.

Both Powell and Schwarzkopf said later that because of the inevitability of a nuclear cloud moving over Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other allies in the region, nuclear retaliation was a threat, but the U.S. would never have retaliated with nukes for that reason, despite threats otherwise.





Quote:

First Amongst Daves said:
Quote:

W B said:
The greatest danger is an accidental launch, in reaction to a falsely perceived attack, where one side would launch all their silos, and force the other side to do the same.

I wonder if computer hacks could access nuclear missiles, the way they can programs monitoring power plants and water treatment facilities.



All of these are good arguments in favour of total disarmament.



The problem is, if we disarm, the other side does not. And then "mutually assured destruction" simply becomes our assured destruction.

In an ideal world where everyone plays by the rules, then we could perhaps disarm.
As the articles I posted said (my Feb 4 2006 post), we and Russia could reduce to 1000 or so weapons each.
Reduce perhaps, but not completely disarm.