Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush approves nuclear response (If Allied forces are attacked by Chemical Weapons)!
The Washington Times ^ | January 31, 2003 | By Nicholas Kralev

Posted on 03/25/2003 1:17:01 PM PST by vannrox

Edited on 07/12/2004 4:01:59 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

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.


(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: bush; bushdoctrineunfold; chemical; dontmesswithtexas; germ; guard; hate; illegalweapons; iraq; iraqifreedom; islam; nuclear; saddam; terror; use; warfare; warlist; wnd; wtc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-175 next last
To: vannrox

101 posted on 03/25/2003 2:09:50 PM PST by Charles Martel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
The MOAB itself weighs in at 21,000-pounds. A 30,000-pound weapon called Big BLU (Bomb Live Unit) is being developed.

Note that the "kiloton" rating just means 1000 tons. But the "ton" referred to is the explosive force of one ton of TNT. Modern explosives are much more powerful than TNT, which has an explosive yield of 700 calories per gram.

I have no idea how much more powerful the explosive warhead of the MOAB is compared to TNT. Anyone knowing that could then calculate the fraction of a "kiloton" that the MOAB produces in explosive force. For example, if the MOAB explosive were 5 times as powerful as TNT, knowing the MOAB explosive warhead weighs in at a bit more than 10 tons means that it would (hypothetically) be equivalent to 1/20 of a kiloton. (The MOAB weight has to be multiplied to produce an equivalent TNT "weight".)

Way smaller than a nuke.

102 posted on 03/25/2003 2:14:49 PM PST by dark_lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Charles Martel

U.S. Nuclear Free-Fall Bombs

Nuclear Bomb Yield = to how many Hiroshima blasts Type Weight of Bomb
B28 70kt to 1.45 MT 4.6 - 95 Fusion 919kg-1152kg (2,026-2,540 lb)
B43 1MT 66.6 Fusion 934kg-971kg (2,060-2,141 lb)
B53 9MT 600 Fusion 4014kg (8,850 lb)
B57 5kT to 10kT 0.3 - 0.6 Fission 231kg-322kg (509-710 lb)
B61 10kT to 500kT 0.6 - 33.3 Boosted Fission 326kg-347kg (719-765 lb)
B83 1-2 MT 66.6-133.3 Fission 1092kg (2,407 lb)

       Bomb		      Yield    Type		Weight
       -------------------------------------------------------------
       B28	     70kt to 1.45MT    Fusion		919kg to 1152kg
       B43			1MT    Fusion		934kg to 971kg
       B53			9MT    Fusion		4014kg
       B57		5kT to 10kT    Fission		231kg to 322kg
       B61	       10kT to 100kT   Boosted Fission	326kg to 347kg
       B83			 MT    Fission		1092kg

Mods-3, -4, -10. The Mod-10 is a converted warhead. All have CAT F PALs and IHE. Each Mod has four yield options: The B61-3 (0.3, 1.5, 60, and 170 kilotons), the B61-4 (0.3, 1.5, 10, and 45 kilotons), and the B61-10 (0.3, 5, 10, and 80 kilotons).

The warheads to be disassembled over the next three years (through mid-1999) include the W79 army artillery warheads, the W55 for the SUBROC (submarine rocket), the W69 for the SRAM-A (short-range attack missile), the W56 Minuteman II warhead, and B61 Mod-2 and Mod-5 bombs. The W48 artillery shell (March 1996), the B61 Mod-0 bomb (June 1996), and the W70 for the Lance (February 1996) are warheads for which disassembly has been completed, or is nearly complete.

Warhead Yield Use Year Status Remarks
W69 170 SRAM-A Year Status Remarks
W55 Yield Subroc Year Status Remarks
W56 Yield Minuteman II Year Status Remarks
W70 Yield Lance Year Status Remarks
W48 Yield Artillery shell Year Status Remarks
W85 Yield Pershing II Year Status Remarks
W87 300 MX missile Year Status Remarks
W79 Yield Artillery shell Year Status Remarks
W78 335 - Year Status Remarks
W76 100 Trident I C-4, Trident II D-5 Mk-4 Year Status Remarks
W88 475 Trident II D-5 Mk-5 Year Status Remarks
W80-0 ? ? Year Status Remarks
W80-1 ? ALCM, ACM Year Status Remarks
W62 170 - Year Status Remarks
W28 1 Megaton Hound dog missile Year Status Remarks
W84 ? Ground-launch cruise missiles (GLCMs) Year Status Remarks

The figures and numbers below are real world guess-estimates based on the averaging of data from many sources including Janes Defense Information Group, the the Russian Aviation Page and the MILNET Military Open Source Encyclopedia.  As such this data is not likely to agree with any single source

top.gif (1333 bytes)

103 posted on 03/25/2003 2:17:27 PM PST by vannrox (The Preamble to the Bill of Rights - without it, our Bill of Rights is meaningless!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord
AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missile

The Advanced Cruise Missile is the follow-on to the ALCM. It entered into service in 1991, with 1,461 missiles planned, but the program was cut short and only 460 ACMs were produced. The ACM incorporates stealth features to reduce radar cross section and infrared signature and also has greater accuracy and longer range than its predecessor. Many details about this new system remain classified.

One justification put forward for the ACM was the specter of a similar Russian system purported to be in development. The AS-X-19 Koala was touted as a supersonic, long-range, stealthy cruise missile. It was also supposed to be ready for deployment in the early 1990s, though the program was cancelled around 1993. Ironically enough, the U.S. counterpart, the ACM, was cancelled only after several hundred missiles were produced.

Actually, the argument that the ACM was needed because of its improvements over the ALCM do not ring true. The range of the ALCM was better than had been originally reported (2,400 km), and the ACM (3,000 km range) offers little improvement. Likewise, the ACM's small increase in accuracy has no operational significance. The GAO has also concluded that the belief that the ALCM had low survivability, and required the ACM as a replacement, has not been demonstrated. However, given that the ACM has already been procured in large numbers, despite its large, superfluous expense, it will serve well to equip approximately half the the B-52H fleet under START II.

The Advanced Cruise Missile was built as a stealthy replacement for the AGM-86, but the end of the Cold War caused production to be curtailed, and only 461 were built. The ACM carries a W80-1 nuclear warhead (5Kt or 170-200 Kt yield), is 6.84m long with a 3.34m wingspan, weighs 1680kg and has a range of 3000km. It has a number of design features to minimise radar cross-section, including a minimal number of straight edges, low-power sensors, forward-swept wings, fuselage RAM, a flush inlet and shielded exhaust.
Nuclear Bombs

B61-7 10/66 sub to 350 yield # 350 The Mod-7 is a converted Mod-1 with a Cat D PAL IHE and several yield options up to 350 Kt; Weighs 763lb

B61-11 1996 sub to 350 yield # 50 Earth penetrator, modified B61 Mod-7 weighing an additional 450lbs

B83 6/83 low to 1,200 yield # 600 Strategic megaton-range bomb.
B61 Tactical Bomb 3/75 0.3 to 170 AF 400 Mods-3, -4, -10. THe Mod-10 is a converted W85 Pershing II warhead. All three Mods have Cat F PALS and IHE. Each Mod has four yield options. The B61-3 (0.3, 1.5, 60, and 170 Kt.), and the B61-10 (0.3, 5, 10, and 80 Kt).

AGM-86B/C ALCM (Air Launched Cruise Missile)

Country of Origin: USA
Manufacturer: Boeing
Type / Purpose: long range air launched cruise missile
Date in Service: December 1982 for B June 1986 for C
Cost: 1.1 Million dollars

Power Plant: F-107-WR-10 turbofan engine built by Williams Research Corp.
Engine Thrust: 600lb (270 kg)

Max. Range: 1,500 miles (B) 1,200 miles (C)
Speed: 480 knots (890 km/h) about Mach 0.73
Length: 20 ft, 9 in (6.29m)
Diameter of missile body: 24.5 in (623 mm)
Wingspan: 12 ft (3.64m) when wings are fully extended.
Weight: 3,150 lb (1,420 kg)
Warhead: W80-1 nuclear warhead selectable in the 150-170 kiloton range (B)   992-pound high-explosive blast-fragmentation warhead (C)

104 posted on 03/25/2003 2:19:56 PM PST by vannrox (The Preamble to the Bill of Rights - without it, our Bill of Rights is meaningless!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Mihalis
A timely leak indeed.
105 posted on 03/25/2003 2:25:00 PM PST by PianoMan (Liberate the Axis of Evil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Agree with both your analysis.

As you are probably both aware, the initial date for WWII is now considered by many to be the 1931 invasion of Manchuria by Japan. Note the following chronology, including action ranging from Asia, to Africa, to Europe, with the accompanying demise of the League of Nations.

1931 09 18 Japan Invades Manchuria

1933 01 30 Hitler Becomes Chancellor Of Germany

1935 10 03 Italy Invades Abyssinia

1936 03 07 Germany Occupies The Rhineland

1936 07 15 Spanish Civil War Begins

1938 03 12 Germany Annexes Austria

1939 03 15 Germany Occupies Remainder Of Czechoslavakia

1939 03 28 Spanish Civil War Ends

1939 04 07 Italy Invades Albania

1939 08 23 Soviet - German Non - Agression Pact Signed

1939 09 01 Russia Invades Estonia

1939 09 01 Germany Invades Poland

106 posted on 03/25/2003 2:26:03 PM PST by happygrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: happygrl
There are some analysts and historians who believe that as further time goes by, the two World Wars will be consider one long Thirty Years War, especially since the causes of the second are so tightly emmeshed with the precipitous and ill-considered conclusion of the first.

It's a compelling argument, but I don't know if I'm on board yet.

107 posted on 03/25/2003 2:29:17 PM PST by Petronski (I'm not always cranky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: two23
ROFL where do you people come up with this stuff!! It is hilarious!! (smiley head in microwave)
108 posted on 03/25/2003 2:30:26 PM PST by BriarBey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
We won't use nukes just because Saddam tries to gas our troops. I doubt we would use nukes even if we were attacked with weapons of mass destruction (anthrax?) at home, and hundreds of thousands of people died.

The political fallout would be so bad that we would lose much more than we gained.

Basically, we can't/won't use nukes unless nukes are used on us first.

This political reality may be the reason MOAB was invented but has not been used. It gives us a very scary, very useable deterent.
109 posted on 03/25/2003 2:31:38 PM PST by EternalHope (Chirac is funny, France is a joke.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mortimer Snavely
You're right. The "in" crowd says he's innocent. No WMD's whatsoever... What's the big deal?

Chemical weapons? But Saddam hasn't any chemical weapons. That's what all the cool and groovy people think, anyway...

110 posted on 03/25/2003 2:32:45 PM PST by GOPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: The Vast Right Wing
It also sends a very strong message to China or the UN who think they are going to come in after us to "stop" our liberation.

Mess with the bull, get the horns.
111 posted on 03/25/2003 2:35:51 PM PST by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
National Security Presidential Directive 17, set out on Sept. 14 last year.

And leaked today.

Good, put the 'animals' on notice.

Lets see them show what they've got now.

Too much use of the term

when what is really meant is not just buildings but or
112 posted on 03/25/2003 2:37:06 PM PST by flamefront (Take the oil money from the islamofascists! And not for the UN. Only UN-Americans ignore U.S.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: mcookhouse
Tactical

It also sounds like they are taking Sam Cohen's suggestions seriously to convert some existing weapons to smaller neutron weapons.

113 posted on 03/25/2003 2:38:49 PM PST by flamefront (Take the oil money from the islamofascists! And not for the UN. Only UN-Americans ignore U.S.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord
The lowest reported tactical nuke yield I've seen herein is 0.3 kiloton, or equivalent to 300 tons of TNT. If the entire MOAB weighs just 10.5 tons, I doubt the explosive yield, in TNT equivalents, is greater than the entire weight of the bomb, even given more efficient explosives than TNT.

I don't think we should be equating a MOAB with a nuke. There are too many nuts out there, within and without our borders, who would be glad to claim that we used nukes if we drop a MOAB and pronounce it, erroneously, as having the same effect as a small nuke.

114 posted on 03/25/2003 2:39:35 PM PST by PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Thud
ping
115 posted on 03/25/2003 2:42:16 PM PST by Dark Wing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Real Cynic No More; the_doc; Jerry_M; OrthodoxPresbyterian; A.J.Armitage
This appears to be setting the stage for use of the new MOAB, which may have the destructive capacity of a tactical nuke, but without the follow-on radiation. Woody.
116 posted on 03/25/2003 2:43:30 PM PST by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
ROENTGEN EQUIVALENT MAN
117 posted on 03/25/2003 2:43:51 PM PST by RedhairRedhair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts
Thank-you, mighty fine posting!
118 posted on 03/25/2003 2:52:03 PM PST by The Vast Right Wing (Some drink from the fountain of knowledge, the French and Germans only gargle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: BriarBey
(smiley head in microwave)

It's a keeper, huh? LOL

119 posted on 03/25/2003 2:53:10 PM PST by two23
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: kinghorse
What would it matter to the Baathists. They are dead men walking anyway.

The people in the field who would have to "push the button" to carry out such an order are not in that position -- they're ordinary officers who have a reasonable hope of mercy if captured... unless they commit this war crime.

120 posted on 03/25/2003 2:57:59 PM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-175 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson