Pentagon Plans Strike-first Nuclear Policy | I'm moving back to China

A doctrine allowing the US pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons in the event of a WMD threat to the country is under development and is awaiting confirmation by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

The option for the use of nuclear weapons would be open if an enemy was using or about to use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against its forces or civilian population, or as a way to destroy the WMD threat.

The philosophy would be designed to work with tactical nuclear weapons whose primary use is underground WMD bunkers. Congress has yet to endorse the warheads because they say it would make it more likely that such weapons would be used or proliferated.

Good luck, America...I wish you well.

New Zealand Herald

/versus/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /versus/images/graemlins/tear.gif /versus/images/graemlins/mad.gif

 

dude. you moving back to china just means that eventually you'll be able to see the target they are painting in the clouds above your cities.

instead, admit you see the fnords and join the resistance.

GE

 

Yay! Imagine if we'd had this policy in place when we had to deal with Iraq's WMD "threat." We could have told the world that we blew up all the WMD in the nuclear assault. Then all that would be left In Iraq would be some ashes and sand melted into glass.

(And underneath the sand and glass...all that delicious oil.)

 

Of course you know, if this policy comes to pass, a new WMD threat will appear. We can go test our tactical nukes. Yay!

Funny or scary what would happen if that policy was followed world-wide.

 

Just when I think the Bush administration can't get any dumber and idiotic, they come up with this. Now I understand that there will always be terrorists in the world. You can't kill every terrorist because they still manage to appear someway. The way to deal with them is to have adequate defense. This policy will only encourage U.S. paranioa and ignorance among the world and will only result in ridicule. It's kind of like saying to the world, "look we don't trust you so we will just have our guns aimed at you, so you just go on and have a nice day and trust us ok."

Instead of promoting security this will promote more resentment towards U.S. Please will someone end this guy's term so we can get someone who isn't a cowboy in his mind that thinks this is the wild, wild west.

I am not saying that the new guy will be an angel, since all U.S. presidents have had at least some controversey towards them, but at least we will have a real chance for real peace.

 

Re: Pentagon Plans Strike-first Nuclear Policy | I'm moving back to Ch

I don't see the big deal. I know that we're ready to nuke someone who is about to nuke us, that doesn't require thought. I don't think you need a special policy just for that. I guess in the US Government you need a written policy for everything, in which case I am apalled that such policy a hasn't been written yet.

The problem with Bush's military policy is not that we will strike first. The problem is that the standard for a pre-emptive strike is too low. Bush's policy does not require an imminent threat, rather Bush's policy reserves the right to attack potential threats before they materialize.

P.S.

The Bush administration's pre-emptive attack policy is actually pure pimp-game designed to get us into Iraq. There are dozen of possible threat about to materialize that we are not going to attack pre-emptively.

 

obviously this piece of info is used to shock people into yet more disbelief of what the US can do.

however, im still quite sceptical. as of yet, the has only been one nuke related attack, and thtat was at the end of world war 2.

everyone knows that america gets nervous at these 'new and upcoming threats,' and im pretty sure that america already had such a program in use since the cuban missle crisis, its just now that they decide to go joe public about it.

i dont think that america would ever use a nuke tactic. once it would have done one, all other countries would start to get nervous that they could be next and any favour the americanos have now would be lost forever.

WW2 was unique in a way because the nuke was really just a chance to test out a new toy.

anyway, im pretty sure the US govt have many other ways to undermine a country, or if it wants to do a show of power, just find some piss poor excuse to go after n'korea and build a power base there in order to go after china.

me, i personally hope that china never gets in americas way, mainly because im gonna live there for a year in 2006.

all in all, this is really a bit of old news shown in a new light.

what ever happaned to this star wars system they were developing to kick enemy missles out of the air anyway?

 

[ QUOTE ]
KS_Vanessa said:


what ever happaned to this star wars system they were developing to kick enemy missles out of the air anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

Budget cuts for the Afghan and Iraq war. And the people thought it was a really cheesy thing since it was called star wars.

Personally I think it would have been a really great defense strategy, but obviously the bush administration thought that getting sadam was more important then national security.

 

Da Bomb

I believe that "Star Wars" programs still get millions every year. I think the actual abbreviation is "SDI" (for Strategic Defense Initiative if memory serves). It began under Reagan. This thing was and is basically a way to transfer money to the defense industry.

There has never been a successful test of one of these systems. The whole thing is predicated upon an outdated fear in the first place- that another nation state would launch a missle at the U.S. This was an always over-hyped fear even in the the Cold War thanks to the overwhelming nuclear and conventional military superiority of the U.S. Even back then the Defense industry worked to overhype Soviet capabilities to justify more billions put into weapons production. In this context, is it a wonder why, in 1960, a Republican like Dwight Eisenhower would warn of the influence of the "military-industrial complex" in his presidential farewell address?

No one heeded his warnings and now, they run the country. (Think of HW Bush's $87 million a year salary from the Carlyle Group...)

The bigger nuclear threat today would come from Muslim extremists procuring a nuclear warhead from, say, one of the former Soviet Republics. The warhead could then be smuggled into the U.S., put in the the back of a Jihadmobile, parked in Times Square, and detonated. Millions could die in an instant, depending on the strength of the bomb.

Stronger international non-proliferation efforts are needed to prevent this kind of scenario. These sorts of efforts provide less opportunity for racketeering and therefore are not as popular a solution among Bush and his ilk. And, unfortunately, there is less goodwill toward the U.S. now than at any time in the last century.

To make matters worse, North Korea and the Iraq War seemed to teach a perverse lesson to would-be nuclear powers: If you want nuclear weapons, aqcuire them clandestinely. Once you have them, you are fine.

Why isn't there a mushroom cloud emoticon?

 

Re: Da Bomb

[ QUOTE ]
DissMaster said:



Why isn't there a mushroom cloud emoticon?

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't need one. My wonder is why isn't there a peace emoticon.

 

Re: Da Bomb

because peace doesnt in fact exist. its a theortical concept based on our emotions, and not facts.
there will always be some type of conflict.

there has always been a war somewhere.