A twisted posture [Nuclear Posture Review]

The Boston Globe ^ | March 12, 2002 | House Editorial

[xsysmgr]

THE BUSH administration's classified new Nuclear Posture Review, presented to Congress in early January and leaked this month to The Los Angeles Times [I wonder why it took from January to March for Congress to leak a classified report to the LA Times. Is Leahy losing his touch?], proposes new departures in the nation's military planning that are questionable at best and, at worst, truly dangerous and destabilizing.

[xsysmgr]

This editorial comes to the exact opposite conclusion to that reached by the editors of the Washington Times (Our evolving nuclear posture), which is exactly what one would expect from the lefties at the Globe.

Globe: "...nothing in the Nuclear Posture Review would be likely to deter or counter the threat from terrorists sharing Osama bin Laden's demented notion of a holy war against America."

The NPR is aimed at other nations which either threaten us directly or give support and shelter to terrorists.

The Times picks up on this:

Any nation that exports nuclear terrorism, or allows it to operate from within its borders, must know that America will do whatever it takes to prevent such an attack against us. The Soviets understood the "mutual" part of "Mutually Assured Destruction." Our new adversaries must come to understand that whatever horrible damage they may inflict on us, the retaliation will be such that the "destruction" will not be "mutual" at all.

In other words, they will bringing a knife to a gunfight.

[Kermit]

Ooooh, yeah! When I want a dose of military strategy, I always go to the leftwingers at the Boston Globe. Has one of those guys ever even fired a gun?

"If America, with its enormous technological and military advantages, says it is willing to resort to nuclear weapons under such vague conditions, what might nuclear states such as India and Pakistan be willing to do?"

If Osama Bin Laden wouldn't have been detered by the threat of nuclear retaliation, why would the huge nation states of India or Pakistan consider what American policy is before setting off their nukes. It amazes me, how the lefties always know what is in other people's minds. They'd be better off setting up in competition to Miss Cleo.

[RightWhale]

For a long time since WW II, nuclear weapons have been of little military use, and were mainly political tools.

However, the newer penetrating designs with smaller yield would have military applications. There is a barrier to the use of nuclear weapons of whatever design and yield. Once one has been used, whether to destroy an underground bunker, anthrax factory, or tunnel system, the inhibition to use more will be gone.

Be prepared [as much as it is possible to be prepared] for general use of nuclear weapons following the first use.