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 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-175 next last
To: vannrox
It'll never happen.
Our nuclear response was intended for use against Eastern Block countries in a full out war, where their use could be rationalized against the attacking hordes. The USSR has the full intention of precursing all ground attacks with non-persistent agents to weaken the defenses of the Western forces.

In Iraq, any chemical attack is bound to be small. The Iraqis lack the communication and coordination to launch anything but a company or battalion sized chemical attack, so any response would be against those specific forces. You can't nuke Baghdad just because some battalion commander got frisky with Sarin or VX.
61 posted on 03/25/2003 1:42:28 PM PST by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Whitey
George Bush is not going to stand and watch as hundreds or thousands of American troops are hit with a chemical or biological cloud. The president should use all the weapons we have when their need becomes obvious.
62 posted on 03/25/2003 1:42:43 PM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: aShepard
Time to dust off the Enola Gay?
63 posted on 03/25/2003 1:43:07 PM PST by CheneyChick (Lock & Load)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Bisesi
>>However I see the entire world REVOLTING against us if this happens

Agreed, if it comes to that, a world war will be right around the corner...we use, then pakistan and india decide to use them, and n/s korea and then who knows who else...
64 posted on 03/25/2003 1:43:38 PM PST by freeper12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: The Vast Right Wing
Well, I'd say that is kickin' it up a notch.

BAM!

65 posted on 03/25/2003 1:43:59 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (®)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE
A nuclear response would be small but your would have to rename some Iraqi units as "The Ionized Republican Guard"
66 posted on 03/25/2003 1:44:35 PM PST by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative; Poohbah; section9; Dog; colorado tanker
The Republican Guard can pick how we respond:
B61
B83
AGM-69
W82s from Paladin howitzers
AGM-86
UGM-93
UGM-133
LGM-30
LGM-118
AGM-129

Did I miss any?
67 posted on 03/25/2003 1:44:44 PM PST by hchutch ("But tonight we get EVEN!" - Ice-T)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeUSA
General Buck Turgidson : Mr. President, we are rapidly approaching a moment of truth both for ourselves as human beings and for the life of our nation. Now, truth is not always a pleasant thing. But it is necessary now to make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless *distinguishable*, postwar environments: one where you got twenty million people killed, and the other where you got a hundred and fifty million people killed.


68 posted on 03/25/2003 1:44:45 PM PST by Right Brigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
The NUKE .50
(click and give it time to load)

69 posted on 03/25/2003 1:44:50 PM PST by two23
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #70 Removed by Moderator

To: SJSAMPLE
They aren't going to nuke Baghdad. Small tactical nukes in field operations will do the job nicely. It's not we are going to discharge a city buster over Baghdad. A small nuke is still a nuke and will put the fear of Allah into anyone that wishes us harm.

What is the point in having nukes if we are unwilling to use them? The only thing that this part of the world understands is brute force. I would much rather they fear us than try and be friends.
71 posted on 03/25/2003 1:46:29 PM PST by Aggie Mama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Make it like a Poo-Poo Platter and they can choose 3. 30 min deliver guaranteed.
72 posted on 03/25/2003 1:46:52 PM PST by mlbford2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Because it is now official policy, it means that the United States will actively consider the nuclear option in a military conflict, said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association.

In the first instance of a chemical attack against American civilians or military forces, I believe our response will be so devastating that it may as well have been nuclear, without actually crossing that threshold.

It will make our actual response seem moderated, and leave us with an option for escalation should there be any second attack.




73 posted on 03/25/2003 1:47:25 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spirited
"There are other things I devoutly wish they would also do to stop some of the other bilge going on."

You and me both.

74 posted on 03/25/2003 1:47:29 PM PST by Mortimer Snavely (More Power to the Troops! More Bang for the Buck!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Someone needs to forward this report to Baghdad.
75 posted on 03/25/2003 1:48:25 PM PST by SirAllen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
And why are documents labelled as 'Secret' in the press?

Two possibilities:

1. It's a bluff, or
2. In order for the threat to be effective it must be overt.

Take your pick. War is full of choices like this. Is the enemy bluffing, or not?

76 posted on 03/25/2003 1:49:02 PM PST by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Although a tactical nuking would be well deserved, it might be more politically palatable to respond in kind with our own chemical munitions.
77 posted on 03/25/2003 1:49:16 PM PST by aught-6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
It's a bluff. What I want to hear is an Israeli-style policy: use of WMD against Allied forces WILL result in nuclear retaliation. None of this 'reserve the right' for the 'possibility' crap. Lay it out there. We have nukes in all sizes, and if our guys get whacked by chem/bio, we ought to at least use one of those 'self-boring' nuclear bunker busters.
78 posted on 03/25/2003 1:50:19 PM PST by Petronski (I'm not always cranky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
bump
79 posted on 03/25/2003 1:50:23 PM PST by Centurion2000 (We are crushing our enemies, seeing him driven before us and hearing the lamentations of the liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Oh, just serve 'em the combination platter - let 'em sample a little of everything!
80 posted on 03/25/2003 1:51:14 PM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 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