posted on September 11, 2005 06:01:51 AM new
U.S. Envisions Using Nukes on Terrorists
Updated 6:02 AM ET September 11, 2005
WASHINGTON (AP) - A Pentagon planning document being updated to reflect the doctrine of pre-emption declared by President Bush in 2002 envisions the use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies.
The "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," which was last updated 10 years ago, makes clear that "the decision to employ nuclear weapons at any level requires explicit orders from the president."
But it says that in a changing environment "terrorists or regional states armed with WMD will likely test U.S. security commitments to its allies and friends."
"In response, the U.S. needs a range of capabilities to assure friend and foe alike of its resolve," says the 69-page document dated March 15."""
This proves our "leaders" are as stupid as some posters in here!
Nuke WHERE! ???
Just nuke where they THINK there's terrorists? Or somebody they just don't like?
What about the terrorists in the US? Nuke HERE????
THey can't find the terrorists but have plans to nuke them????
posted on September 12, 2005 07:07:44 AM new
I think we should have a public policy about a nuclear response.
For example, say some extremist group in Jordan fires a nuke at Israel. We would erase Jordan. Think of the incentive the Jordanians would have to contribute to world peace!
posted on September 12, 2005 07:13:02 AM new
That's pretty much what those who support this latest change in our policy are saying. They want our policy to show the world we are ready, willing and able to do just that....if the occassion arises.
Some are referring to it as 'acting' pre-emptively...and they're planning on seeking approval for it, in the future, from our Congress.
---
posted on September 12, 2005 07:25:01 AM new
Full article:
Pentagon Studies Pre-Emptive Nuclear Strikes
By DAVID S. CLOUD - NYT
Published: September 11, 2005
WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 -
The Pentagon is preparing new guidelines governing the use of nuclear weapons that foresee possible pre-emptive strikes against terrorist groups or nations planning to use unconventional weapons against the United States.
The draft document, the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, updates procedures for using nuclear weapons that were last changed in 1995. The plan is undergoing final review by the Pentagon's joint staff and by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and it could be finished in the next several weeks, according to a Pentagon official.
The document was first reported by The Washington Post.
Much of the document restates longstanding procedures for launching a nuclear strike, including declarations that such a decision requires explicit presidential approval.
A Pentagon official confirmed that a copy of the document posted on the national security Web site GlobalSecurity.org was authentic.
The Bush administration said in 2002 that a pre-emption strategy was necessary to deal with emerging threats from terrorist groups seeking unconventional weapons and from the proliferation of nuclear capability to numerous countries.
Although the unclassified document reasserts the longstanding American position that it will not make definitive statements about when nuclear weapons will be used, it describes several scenarios for using them, including circumstances under which pre-emptive use might be necessary.
The scenarios for a possible attack described in the draft include one in which an enemy is using "or intending to use" unconventional weapons against the United States, its allies or civilian populations.
Another scenario for a possible pre-emptive strike is in the event of an "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy."
The draft document also envisions the use of atomic weapons for "attacks on adversary installations," including "deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons."
A copy of the draft document dated March 15 was posted on a Pentagon Web site for several months but was removed over the summer, according to the Pentagon official, who said he could not explain why it was taken down.
The draft says that to deter a potential adversary from using unconventional weapons, the United States must make it "believe the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective." The draft also says American policymakers have "repeatedly rejected calls for adoption of 'no first use' policy of nuclear weapons since this policy could undermine deterrence."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on September 12, 2005 09:46:15 AM new
The world already knows "thatwe are ready, willing and able to do just that" -- we are the only nation to have used such a weapon, after all.
So what we have here is more of the same by the Bush administration... He forced us into a war with a country that had not attacked us because of something they might do in the future. Now they want the power to launch a nuclear strike against those that might be planning to use nuclear force against us. Which, I assume, would be any countries that already have nuclear weapons (though I wonder if they'll be including Israel) and anybody they suspect of trying to gain nuclear capabilities.
The problem for the administration, though, is that they've already cried "wolf" in the case of Iraq. Any accusations they make are now suspect.
And a very real problem is that this preemptive strike idea will go far in united any enemies we have and also make some of our friends less friendly. We are a super-power, yes, but we might find, as Germany did, that if enough of the rest of the world banded against us we could go down in flames. In this case, lierally.
____________________
"Bad temper is its own scourge. Few things are more bitter than to feel bitter. A man's venom poisons himself more than his victim." --Charles Buxton
posted on September 12, 2005 01:51:55 PM new
I don't think pre-emptive nuclear strikes against terrorists are really necessary. If the intelligence on terrorists put a terrorist camp in a certain location, is it really necessary to nuke it? A couple of cruise missles will do just as well.
That said, I don't know how talking about pre-emptive nuclear strikes is proof of the U.S. "losing." Losing what? And where's the proof? The word "proof" gets bantered about often on these boards and almost everytime its used, its used incorrectly - as in this thread's title.
