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 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-175 next last
To: Porterville
"Bluff, we wouldn't do it unless they nuked a US city, and even then I don't buy it." "They" eventually will, because we refuse to take necessary and prudent actions to prevent such atrocities. Whether it is Al Quaeda or some other name, eventually an American city will be vaporized. I just hope it ain't where I park my butt (L.A.).
I sincerely hope that when it happens we wake up and use all the means at our disposal to deal with radical Islam.
As I am fond of pointing out, on 9/11/2001, the enemy defined the terms of war: no innocents, no non-combatants, women and children may be attacked at will.
OK; now we understand...I hope.
--Boris
141
posted on
03/25/2003 5:57:55 PM PST
by
boris
(Education is always painful; pain is always educational)
To: nevergore
"Nuclear weapons com in al sizes just like high explosives range from an antipersonnel device to a MOAB...... " An antipersonnel nuke? Like in the awful rendition of Starship Troopers produced by Hollywood?
--Boris
142
posted on
03/25/2003 6:02:02 PM PST
by
boris
(Education is always painful; pain is always educational)
To: TheBattman
"don't worry - not even GW has the balls to use any sort of Nuke in Iraq. I cannot even imagine us using them even if we were to loose a whole division to chem weapons....it's just not a box that the US is willing to open - period. This is all psy-ops and nothing more." Let Saddam--or any Arab nation--launch WMD against Israel and see what happens.
--Boris
143
posted on
03/25/2003 6:03:38 PM PST
by
boris
(Education is always painful; pain is always educational)
To: Sabertooth
Thanks Saber.
144
posted on
03/25/2003 6:04:17 PM PST
by
Jen
(Support our Troops * Stand up to Terrorists * Liberate Iraq)
To: SevenDaysInMay
Thank you. I concur.
145
posted on
03/25/2003 6:05:45 PM PST
by
boris
(Education is always painful; pain is always educational)
To: Ichneumon
The Davy Crockett was a bazooka-type missile with a W54 nuclear warhead. It could be mounted on a Jeep, or a three-person team could carry it. The weapon system used a spin-stabilized, unguided rocket fired from a recoiless rifle. While early atomic missiles were heavy and awkward, the Davy Crockett was only 30 inches long, 11 inches wide and weighed 76 pounds.
Two types were made: a 120-mm with a range between 1,000 to 6,500 feet; and a 155-mm with a range between 1,000 to 13,000 feet. The Davy Crockett also could carry a conventional high-explosive round for use as an anti-tank weapon. Stockpiled from 1960 to 1971, the Davy Crockett brought nuclear capability to the infantry.
The W54 warhead used on the Davy Crockett weighed just 51 pounds and was the smallest and lightest fission bomb (implosion type) ever deployed by the United States, with a variable explosive yield of 0.01 kilotons (equivalent to 10 tons of TNT, or two to four times as powerful as the ammonium nitrate bomb which destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995), or 0.02 kilotons-1 kiloton. A 58.6 pound variant--the B54--was used in the Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM), a nuclear land mine deployed in Europe, South Korea, Guam, and the United States from 1964-1989.
146
posted on
03/25/2003 6:16:28 PM PST
by
boris
(Education is always painful; pain is always educational)
To: All
147
posted on
03/25/2003 6:17:00 PM PST
by
Bob J
Comment #148 Removed by Moderator
To: Sabertooth
More good news as I see it.
To: amused
There is an excellent little movie called "Deterrence". It is low budget and the whole movie takes place in a roadside diner during a blizzard. The president, on a campaign swing thru the area is forced to take refuge during the storm. At that time, the Iraqi army masses on the Saudi border, led by Adai Hussein , Saddam's son. The entire movie takes place within the diner as the prez tries first diplomacy, then threats, to hold off the attack. He finally resorts to the nuclear option. Fascinating little film.
150
posted on
03/25/2003 6:43:36 PM PST
by
plusone
To: The Vast Right Wing
"Let Allah Sort Them Out--"
NO, "Let Allah Sort Out Their Black Souls!"
To: ASA Vet
bob, thought you might be able to print this out for the boys to peruse. Just post #60 and possibly the article. Thanks.
karri
152
posted on
03/25/2003 6:54:57 PM PST
by
gracex7
(The LORD is not slack concerning His promise....but is longsuffering to us-ward. 2 Peter 3:9)
To: vannrox
bump
153
posted on
03/25/2003 7:00:41 PM PST
by
GOPJ
To: vannrox
Nuclear Weapon Database: United States ArsenalWhere'd that come from? FAS? Pike's outfit? Interesting information, but we could do without the snide editorial comments sprinkled throughout the text.
154
posted on
03/25/2003 7:05:15 PM PST
by
Chemist_Geek
("Drill, R&D, and conserve" should be our watchwords! Energy independence for America!)
To: Petronski
What I want to hear is an Israeli-style policy: use of WMD against Allied forces WILL result in nuclear retaliation. Bad idea. There may be circumstances in which Saddam or the Iraqi leadership wants us to use a nuke. In such a case I see no reason why should oblige him.
155
posted on
03/25/2003 7:09:32 PM PST
by
supercat
(TAG--you're it!)
To: vannrox
I'll see ya VX and raise ya a mushroom cloud.
Comment #157 Removed by Moderator
To: vannrox
Nuke em Danno!
158
posted on
03/25/2003 7:32:12 PM PST
by
slimer
To: Sabertooth
Thanks for the heads up!
To: boris
How does the explosive yield of the W54 compare to that of a MOAB?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson