Bush approves nuclear response (If Allied forces are attacked by Chemical Weapons)!

The Washington Times ^ | January 31, 2003 | By Nicholas Kralev

[First_Salute]

I'm impressed with the utter thoughtless and careless treatment of this topic by most of the members of this forum represented on these pages.

To suggest the use of nuclear weapons, undercuts the great risks we are taking to help free the Iraqis.

The lack of self-discipline here, will prove mute testament when things go awry; the members will have earned their silence.

Almost nobody here, has thought about how these pages can be used against our troops in the field.

Instead, and as usual, little or no acts of contrition will present.

Just swell; great; way to go; very impressive.

The propaganda ministers for radical fascist Islamism thank you.

[Lucky Lyn]

Its like this man, I love it and they should understand it

[ladyinred]

I suspect this was purposely leaked to the press.

So do I, and I think it is brilliant.

[Frank_2001]

The Republican Guard is a vicious sadistic outfit, hopefully they still have enough sense to be deterred (by threat of US nukes) from using chemicals or biologicals. If not, too bad for them!

[Polybius]

And why are documents labelled as 'Secret' in the press? If I published various clearance information I have been cleared with, I'd be in jail for the rest of my life. De-classify and publish, no problem. But, never, ever should 'Secret', 'Classified', or 'Top-Secret' documents be published in the press. Once we have tolerated this breach, why not publish everything else?

Deterrence does not work unless the other guy knows what you are going to do to him if he does X to you.

Some "Secret" documents are meant to actually be secret.

Some "Secret" documents are meant to be plastered on every newspaper with a circulation above 157.

[Pompah]

I just love it when the "Grown Up's" are in charge of these kinds of things.
Can you imagine Sore/Loserman calling the shots on this.?

[Mihalis]

It is brilliant in the sense it may act as deterrent. But I truly hope we don't have to reach that point.

[Dec31,1999]

I can't make heads or tales of this stuff. What do you think?

[vannrox]

The "cold war" was a direct result of us using a nuclear weapon.

Everyone was afraid of getting us angry.

You could argue that it was the threat of the use of nuclear arms that prevented the major powers from getting involved in major conflicts.

But man is stupid and greedy.

Wars continued, but their nature changed.

America became involved in "Police Actions".

These "Police Actions" had no timetable, goals, or constitutional justification.

Their justification came from treaty or policy decisions.

...

This war is really different.

Because, contrary to what other may think, this Iraqi conflict is but a small part of an ongoing "War on Terror".

It is really clear. Bush made it very clear. He has repeated it over and over. He has been ridiculed for it.

Terrorists have attacked the United States.

They have attacked it using a new kind of warefare that involves subterfuge and deception. It is spread out and difficult to identify.

These terror elements are operating under various names and organizational structures...much like tribes of ancient times.

They operate as Surrogates for actual client states who use them as pawns in a global game of chess.

These countries are known to train, support, and provide assistance to these terror organizations.

The states are: Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Afghanistan was a Terror Refuge, but that has since been altered.

States that do not support terrorists are not involved in this "axis of evil". However, certain states have supplied and have relations with the terror states. These second tier countries are: Russia, France, Germany, and China.

...

The "Jimmy Carter" school of thought and of warfare declares that there are limits to damage and limits to constraint. I agree to a point. Where we differ is that when "Jimmy Carter" limit is reached he advocates negotiation leading to capitulation. Personally, I believe war is dangerous; it is nasty; it is horrible; and it should be ended as soon as possible. So when the limits of constraint have been reached, the use of supreme force is advocated because without it there is no viable deterrent against war.

I do not make this advocacy lightly.

...

The issues of whether America will become a maligned and avoided entity in the global village is a non-issue. What is at issue is whether or not the US response with Weapons of Mass Destruction will result in a PYRRHIC VICTORY.

...

That, I believe, is your point.

[sheik yerbouty]

It kills the enemy and sterilizes and destroys microbes.

[Victoria Delsoul]

hopefully they still have enough sense to be deterred

Sense? I'm afraid I don't agree with you.

[2nd Amendment]

The Iraqis will respond with nuclear hand grenades!

[Frank_2001]

Victoria, please pardon my momentary lapse into wishful thinking! What we call "sense" is a concept alien to those Islamofascist fanatics....

[Victoria Delsoul]

I was being sarcastic. LOL, next time I will add the smiling face. :-)

[Salvation]

Frightening possibility. But still it is a possibility.