[mojo2]

Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan

Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 11, 2005; Page A01

The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091001053.html

There are those who may say the US is preparing an excuse or an alibi ahead of time for the first use of nukes as an offensive measure.

I think that is ludicrous.

If the US knows of a biological weapon that could be used on our troops, or our cities or those of an ally and it could kill thousands or even hundreds of thousands, I think using a nuke to destroy the bio-hazard would be a lesser of two evils.

OBL and the boys have to know that we aren't going to take their terrorism lying down.

HE got religious permission to use nukes on us. Now the Administration is 'throwin down.'

[von Wrangell]

We already have a thread on it.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091001053.html

There are those who may say the US is preparing an excuse or an alibi ahead of time for the first use of nukes as an offensive measure.

I think that is ludicrous.

If the US knows of a biological weapon that could be used on our troops, or our cities or those of an ally and it could kill thousands or even hundreds of thousands, I think using a nuke to destroy the bio-hazard would be a lesser of two evils.

OBL and the boys have to know that we aren't going to take their terrorism lying down.

HE got religious permission to use nukes on us. Now the Administration is 'throwin down.'

Good logic, so answer this, how many of these bombs do you think the US would have dropped on Iraq if it was policy before the war. You know on the weapons the US knew Iraq had that have yet to be found. Two? Six? 2 Dozen? See whats wrong with this thinking?

[Spliffdaddy]

No, I don't see anything wrong with that thinking. In fact, it was what we should have done. Nothing sends a clearer message than total and complete annihilation of the enemy.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Athens

Good logic, so answer this, how many of these bombs do you think the US would have dropped on Iraq if it was policy before the war. You know on the weapons the US knew Iraq had that have yet to be found. Two? Six? 2 Dozen? See whats wrong with this thinking?

If they HAD dropped nukes on Iraq I'd hope it was AWAY from the oil fields or the areas where the oil is stored or pumped aboard the tankers. That would have been stupid.

[ghporter]

The Pentagon also has established plans for what to do if a UFO lands in Washington, a la "The Day the Earth Stood Still." Honestly. They HAVE to have plans for all sorts of eventualities, and processes in place in case something happens that isn't in the basic play book. This has nothing to do with "preparing an alibi" or anything like that. It has to do with being more prepared for the unknown than just sitting on their thumbs.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

No, I don't see anything wrong with that thinking. In fact, it was what we should have done. Nothing sends a clearer message than total and complete annihilation of the enemy.

Absolutely Right.

Act first, the thinking thing after.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by mojo2

If they HAD dropped nukes on Iraq I'd hope it was AWAY from the oil fields or the areas where the oil is stored or pumped aboard the tankers. That would have been stupid.

Your main concern about dropping nukes on Iraq is the OIL FIELDS and OIL!

wtf man. What about human life?

And the point stands.. We would have nuked a nation with NO wmd's. How is that even remotely justifiable?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

Your main concern about dropping nukes on Iraq is the OIL FIELDS and OIL!

wtf man. What about human life?

And the point stands.. We would have nuked a nation with NO wmd's. How is that even remotely justifiable?

Because it is there, of course!

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

And the point stands.. We would have nuked a nation with NO wmd's. How is that even remotely justifiable?

What do you mean no WMD's? They know where they are. North, east, south and west of Baghdad. Oh, and lets not forget under palm trees in Western Iraq.

[James L]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

No, I don't see anything wrong with that thinking. In fact, it was what we should have done. Nothing sends a clearer message than total and complete annihilation of the enemy.

How was Iraq the enemy? The US intel was bunk. There weren't terrorist attacks in Iraq UNTIL the US invaded.

Your logic is flawed.

Athens post simply stated that if the US had used the logic of a nuclear first strike to eliminate biological or nuclear weapons the "enemy" MAY use against us, then they would have nuked a country that posed NO threat to the US, as the weapons of mass destruction intel was a joke.

Spliffdaddy, your posts really make me wonder who the real terrorists are.

[Spliffdaddy]

Islamic fundamentalists.

Now you can stop wondering.

[James L]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Islamic fundamentalists.

Now you can stop wondering.

Huh. I would think the terrorists would be the people making comments that contain things like "total and complete annihilation of the enemy" and who advocate preemptive use of nuclear weapons.

Thanks for the clarification.... I think.

[loki74]

JamesL, you are sounding very silliy right now I must say...

ter·ror·ism n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

See, heres the thing... even if we do totally annihilate the enemy and premtively strike with nukes, we don't do it unlawfully! Not once in the course of all this controversy has the US actually violated any UN sanction, rule of engagement, Geneva Convention, etc etc...

So nope, Spliff aint a terrorist, neither is Bush, neither is Condi or Rumsfeld. Thats just big extravagant talk used by crazies on the left to sound like they actually have something worth saying or worth fighting for. They love drama.

[James L]

Originally Posted by loki74

JamesL, you are sounding very silliy right now I must say...

ter·ror·ism n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

See, heres the thing... even if we do totally annihilate the enemy and premtively strike with nukes, we don't do it unlawfully! Not once in the course of all this controversy has the US actually violated any UN sanction, rule of engagement, Geneva Convention, etc etc...

So nope, Spliff aint a terrorist, neither is Bush, neither is Condi or Rumsfeld. Thats just big extravagant talk used by crazies on the left to sound like they actually have something worth saying or worth fighting for. They love drama.

Bummer that I am not on the left then, isn't it.

Your definition says unlawful OR threatened use of force or violence with the intention of intimidating societies or governments.

unlawful, OR threatened.

Seems to me that whether the US acted lawfully or not does not really remove them from the textbook definition you brought forward.

The viewpoint on how the US should first strike, with nuclear missiles, to preemptively "totally and completely annihilate the enemy" seems to exceed the definition of "threatened use of force or violence with the intention of intimidating societies or governments." especially when it was suggested it should have been used in a war based on bad intel.

Nice try though.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

No, I don't see anything wrong with that thinking. In fact, it was what we should have done. Nothing sends a clearer message than total and complete annihilation of the enemy.

Really, so even though there is no WMD you should bomb them with Tactical Nukes just to terrorize them as a message. Sounds like you want to be the very people you hate.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Islamic fundamentalists.

Now you can stop wondering.

What about armed stupid Americans, I think they are even more of a threat then Islamic fundamentalists.

[von Wrangell]

Still wondering what was wrong with the other thread.........

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Athens

What about armed stupid Americans, I think they are even more of a threat then Islamic fundamentalists.

*than*

geez.

I think people who confuse 'than' and 'then' are a bigger threat than stupid Americans.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

*than*

geez.

I think people who confuse 'than' and 'then' are a bigger threat than stupid Americans.

Or they are just dyslexic.