Lower nuclear threshold?

Sac Bee ^ | 2/7/03 | Bee Editorial Staff

[NormsRevenge]

Reports that the Bush administration is developing plans for the possible use of low-yield nuclear weapons in pre-emptive strikes against underground targets in Iraq are raising concerns in Washington. Officials dismiss these worries by saying that such plans merely reflect the need for a full range of military options in an unstable new environment and do not imply a change in the U.S. nuclear doctrine of deterrence.

[Pushi]

I think nuclear weapons would be a wonderful way of destroying known stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons--and maybe nuclearweapons.

[canuck_conservative]

Keep 'em guessing, keep 'em off-balance. Sounds good to me.

[garjog]

In November I went to the D-day Museum in New Orleans and walked through the European theater exhibit -- which dramatized the horror of the beach assault. Hundreds of our young men were mowed down. Our forces paid a huge price to take Normandy.

Then I pass through the Pacific Theater of the D-day Museum -- which ends with Hiroshima. Commentary explained that the bomb saved a million lives and our fighting forces were spared much suffering.

My father would have been in the invasion force of Japan and I probably wouldn’t be freeping just now.

Question: What if a tactical nuclear strike of a deeply buried bunker is the only way to prevent Iraq from using their proven stockpile of mass murder weapons? Literally hundreds of thousands of people could be saved.

I say think of it as another underground nuclear test.

[gusopol3]

But coming from an administration with a flair for confrontation, for unilateralist gestures and for threatening to attack hostile regimes, it is not very reassuring. If the administration lowers the threshold for resorting to nuclear weapons, why wouldn't others react in kind?

"We start the bombing in five minutes."

[First_Salute]

The editors are are already suing for peace.

[kms61]

We make a first strike and we cede the moral high ground once and for all.

Bad, bad idea IMO. If this is actually being considered, it's my first major disagreement with Bush's foreign/defense policy.

[okie01]

"...and the threat by President Bush to take unilateral military action against Iraq."

Unilateral (according to the editors of the Sac Bee): A coalition of twenty-something nations, not including France.