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, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-175 next last
To: Hodar
This is a sanctioned leak. It's a way of warning Iraq what we're prepared to do without stating it in front of the world. It's good geopolitics.
21
posted on
03/25/2003 1:25:27 PM PST
by
Publius
To: vannrox
Holy Crap!!!
22
posted on
03/25/2003 1:25:30 PM PST
by
bedolido
To: backhoe
"MIke" 10.4MT H-Bomb
Operation Ivy 1952
23
posted on
03/25/2003 1:25:50 PM PST
by
vannrox
(The Preamble to the Bill of Rights - without it, our Bill of Rights is meaningless!)
To: vannrox
"DEBKAfiles military sources: Saddams Fedayeen around Baghdad armed with super-gun capable of firing chemical, biological and nuclear shells. Al Medina Division known to be armed with chemical weapons.
Saddams WMD red line for Baghdad is Iron Triangle enclosing Special Republican Guards positions around city as revealed in earlier reports" from Debka 3/25/03. Where exactly is this Iron Triangle and are our people near this point?
To: vannrox
There is a very very slight chance that perhaps we might use tactical nukes.
There is literally NO chance we will use any nukes bigger than that, even if our troops would not be in the area where they would pose a danger to our side as well.
25
posted on
03/25/2003 1:27:03 PM PST
by
rwfromkansas
(Soli Deo Gloria)
To: vannrox
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.
To: vannrox
I find it interesting that none of the text is in quotes.
Is this for legal reasons or is this just another liberal, DOD leak?
To: vannrox
How do we intend to drop a NUKE and still minimize civilian casualties? I do believe GW has the nads to do this. However I see the entire world REVOLTING against us if this happens. Hence..... I think we will take the HIGH ROAD even if the worst happens.
28
posted on
03/25/2003 1:27:52 PM PST
by
PISANO
To: vannrox
Not a chance. You think we have diplomatic problems NOW?
There's no way we are going to be the only country ever to use nukes in the history of man unless our territorial integrity, or the existence of a first tier ally is threatened.
29
posted on
03/25/2003 1:28:09 PM PST
by
Woahhs
To: Real Cynic No More
Time to drop the hammer and light em' up.
30
posted on
03/25/2003 1:28:42 PM PST
by
mlbford2
To: Real Cynic No More
bob marley wrote a lot of songs about this. of course his songs where merely adaptations of what he read from his Bible.
Chant down Babylon.
To: Mortimer Snavely
Since Saddam has no chemical weapons according to all the con-war people, this is not a concern to anyone.....
I am consoled by this response to Saddam's supposed intentions.
There are other things I devoutly wish they would also do to stop some of the other bilge going on.
32
posted on
03/25/2003 1:29:29 PM PST
by
Spirited
To: vannrox
Is that sunrise or sunset?
To: vannrox
Bluff, we wouldn't do it unless they nuked a US city, and even then I don't buy it.
34
posted on
03/25/2003 1:30:19 PM PST
by
Porterville
(Screw the grammar, full posting ahead.)
To: amused
What would it matter to the Baathists. They are dead men walking anyway. Bad scene.
To: Mihalis
I agree. The Bush Admin doesn't leak, unless it is deliberate.
To: k2blader
Now my head REALLY hurts.
37
posted on
03/25/2003 1:31:15 PM PST
by
Howlin
To: The Vast Right Wing
Well, I'd say that is kickin' it up a notch. Tactical nukes on a division, let allah sort em' out
This might be for the Iranians and North Koreans.
38
posted on
03/25/2003 1:32:06 PM PST
by
duk
To: Real Cynic No More
I doubt the MOAB has the destructive capacity of any kind of nuke weapon. Tactical nukes are rated in terms of kiloton yields, right? What's a MOAB rated at? A fraction of a kiloton is my bet.
To: Publius
Notice the date on the article.
I imagine that this was known by everyone at the UN... including FRANCE.
Which makes me think that they don't think the US has the BRASS to use these weapons.
8.9 Mt H-Bomb.
Detonation "OAK" test firing.
"Hardtack I" 1958
40
posted on
03/25/2003 1:32:24 PM PST
by
vannrox
(The Preamble to the Bill of Rights - without it, our Bill of Rights is meaningless!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 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