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

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

[vannrox]

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.

[SJSAMPLE]

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.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

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.

[CheneyChick]

Time to dust off the Enola Gay?

[freeper12]

>>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...

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Well, I'd say that is kickin' it up a notch.

BAM!

[Semper Paratus]

A nuclear response would be small but your would have to rename some Iraqi units as "The Ionized Republican Guard"

[hchutch]

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?

[Right Brigade]

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.

---

[two23]

The NUKE .50

(click and give it time to load)

[Aggie Mama]

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.

[mlbford2]

Make it like a Poo-Poo Platter and they can choose 3. 30 min deliver guaranteed.

[Sabertooth]

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.

[Mortimer Snavely]

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

You and me both.

[SirAllen]

Someone needs to forward this report to Baghdad.

[Tallguy]

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?

[aught-6]

Although a tactical nuking would be well deserved, it might be more politically palatable to respond in kind with our own chemical munitions.

[Petronski]

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.

[Centurion2000]

bump

[colorado tanker]

Oh, just serve 'em the combination platter - let 'em sample a little of everything!