Bush approves Nuclear Response in response to WMD

Washington Times via Drudge ^ | 1/31/03 | Nicholas Kralev

[plain talk]

A classified document signed by President Bush specifically allows for the use of nuclear weapons in response to biological or chemical attacks, apparently changing a decades-old U.S. policy of deliberate ambiguity, it was learned by The Washington Times. "The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force — including potentially nuclear weapons — to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies," the document, National Security Presidential Directive 17, set out on Sept. 14 last year.

A similar statement is included in the public version of the directive, which was released Dec. 11 as the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction and closely parallels the classified document. However, instead of the phrase "including potentially nuclear weapons," the public text says, "including through resort to all of our options." A White House spokesman declined to comment when asked about the document last night and neither confirmed nor denied its existence. A senior administration official said, however, that using the words "nuclear weapons" in the classified text gives the military and other officials, who are the document's intended audience, "a little more of an instruction to prepare all sorts of options for the president," if need be.

The official, nonetheless, insisted that ambiguity remains "the heart and soul of our nuclear policy." In the classified version, nuclear forces are designated as the main part of any U.S. deterrent, and conventional capabilities "complement" the nuclear weapons.

[plain talk]

Yep. Leak this out so the SOBs see we mean business.

[Cicero]

On the whole it's better to give a stern warning than to act weakly and then be forced to use the damned things. I wish a few peaceniks understood that. Teddy Roosevelt put it succinctly--and clinton always did the opposite, to cheers from the liberal media.

[Pushi]

I think this is just fine. IMHO Bush's first mistake was that as soon as we learned that Osama was involved in 911 he should have dropped a low yeild nuclear weapon up in the hills in Afghanistan. The bastards that survived would have been served notice that their crap is not going to be tolerated.

I loved what Blair said yesterday--and apparently it went unnoticed by almost everyone, except me. He said if we go into Iraq it will show the North Koreans that we mean business--that it will make dealing with NK much easier.

The world has gotten used to dealing with wimpy presidents in the US. They can't handle a president with balls.

[noutopia]

If Iraq uses WMD on our troops, I say give Iraq 48 hrs to evacuate thier cities and level them all.The people of Iraq would turn on thier ruler within the day.

[azhenfud]

I'd say Kim Jong Il is the one that should sit up and take notice. A firm warning needs to be leveled in that direction.....

[Light Speed]

A few articles have appeared in the past concerning a 'Tunneling' missile..which has a Micro nuke warhead.
Intel claims Israel and U.S. went joint venture this direction post Desert Storm.
Saddam had several bunker complexes contracted by Euro firms.
The designs were found to have earth concrete layers....multiple..to obsorb the munitions energy..while the lower vaults remained intact.
Isreals concern in this regard is aligned to Syria..which also had Euro firms build her deep layered missile chain complexes...some post Desert Storm...with knowledge of their survivabiltity.

[DAnconia55]

Go Bush!!!

[sarasmom]

The USA has always reserved the right to respond with total nuclear force in the face of WMD threats.

I fail to see anything new in policy.Policy has always been in retalliation to WMD, the USA will employ overwhelming force,including nuclear force

This is not a test.

This is reality.

That some people are not aware of the consequences of implementintation of full USA military involvement, is not an excuse for ignorance of reality.

The current situation of the world reminds me of more prosaic times of entering bars with my former husband.We just went out to dance, and have fun together, but there was always that little guy, the drunkest loudmouth in the bar, who wanted to prove his nonexistant manhood, by baiting an alpha male.

Atempting to ignore him did not work.Pacifying him did not work.Knocking him off the barstool and standing on his throat was the only thing that worked.

I never understood the testosterone of the inferior male confronting the superior male in the abscence of an overt threat.

Must be a guy thing.

But I am OK with nukes.I quess that is a USAF veteran woman thing.I wont pretend to be happy about it, but I wont pretend to be sorry.

[Monti Cello]

Humor me here, I'm not an engineer, nor a soldier...

Remember when we quickly sank that shaft in Pennsylvania to rescue those miners? Could we hold off assault in an area long enough to do this in downtown Baghdad?

If Saddam's troops turn on him and he is holed up in some underground bunker, why not just drill some deep holes and 'Insert nukes here'.

[Light Speed]

Ya..It would be great to have a "Dig the rat out spectacle"...Vegas could run a betting pool.

Problem is unions require the workers to be fed...does Bugdud have coffee trucks?

[azhenfud]

"I fail to see anything new in policy.Policy has always been in retalliation to WMD, the USA will employ overwhelming force,including nuclear force"

What is different is the "WILL" instead of a "MIGHT", which to most would-be adversaries, is a CLEAR message of consequence. Where recent past administrations claimed that ambiguity to foes threats were sufficient, Bush is clearing any doubt concerning their utter destruction, ie Taiwan, Korea. GO BUSH!!!