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.

[MEG33]

We never preclude using our nukes. We haven't used them since 1945. Never tell the enemy you won't use them.

[nevergore]

Field nukes are low yield and considered tactical....

Nuclear weapons com in al sizes just like high explosives range from an antipersonnel device to a MOAB......

NeverGore

[jriemer]

From Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists May/June 1997

[snip]

At present (Ed.: May 1997), said Smith, the United States had no conventional weapon capable of destroying the plant (Ed.: a Libyan chemical weapons factory under construction underground at Tarhunah, 40 miles southeast of Tripoli) from the air, and such a weapon would not be ready in less than two years . However, by the end of the year the United States would have a nuclear warhead based on the B61 that would be able to do the job.

[/snip]

The B-61-11 nuclear bomb is in the inventory despite Clintonian foot-dragging. In the meantime, the Libyan chemical weapons factory is purportedly operational.

It stands to reason in 2003, the United States has a conventional bomb capable of penetrating any underground bunker and destroying it. Also, the MOAB bomb demonstrates the low end of a nuclear yield. We have extremely powerful non-nuclear options still available that we just haven't used - yet.

[Petronski]

I don't think a response on the 'Mike' scale is very, err, rational.

[Petronski]

Is that sunrise or sunset?

I think the test of the 'Mike' device is best characterized as 'sunrise.'

[Woahhs]

my post is predicated on the fact that we are the only nation to use nukes.

[SevenDaysInMay]

The Battle of Iraq, like Afghanistan, is but a small engagement in Pan-Islam's War on America. Europe and Asia hope to sit this one out. These battles will continue like a fever consuming our people and treasure for generations until Islam's reformation or Baptism.

Within a few years if not now, Islamists will have their dirties and nukes and use them. The USA is the only power on earth capable of destroying this cancer, which has long been helped by the post-commie fascist states, read China and federated Russia.

This is a proxy war with sponsoring nation states claiming plausible deniability. XY43 does not play that game. Will XX44 Hillary's Politburo? No, submission to the UN garners the Clintons more power, so they believe. We may have but 2 or 6 years to win this very bloody Islamo-fascist war. Will we actually use The Bomb? Yes. This proxy war is over civilization and power.

The American economic miracle is Pan-Islam's prime target. Post-commies are helping them. Area deniability terrorism is crippling; dead Americans are for fun and All-jazz-era ratings. Trigger a world-wide depression and Islam may win this UBL declared Hundred Years War.

Most of Europe may become Muslim this century because submission is what socialists are conditioned for. The Islamic womb is a real population bomb even now exploding in Chiraq's France.

[Centurion2000]

bump

[Question_Assumptions]

That will certainly get NK's attention.

[duk]

Did I miss any?


YES YOU DID...THE B-53 (9 MEG)

[SuperLuminal]

Old news....and probaly not applicable to the current campaign.

The U.S., IMHO, are hoping for a chemical attack to provide the final nail in sadamm's and his associate tom dasshole's coffins.

(Guess it's time to dust off the old March For Justice signs.......
Treason Is The Reason!

[Minty]

Like this; "You better stop messing with me and change your ways or I will make you change your ways and become a loving pleasing person when I'm finished with you."

[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.

Now, I just hope GW prooves me wrong IF we do get attacked with WMD.

[Helms]

Hey folks, if you don't know it by know, and GWB certainly has known for some time, we have benn put in the position and are playing for all the marbles.

[Petronski]

The Battle of Iraq, like Afghanistan, is but a small engagement in Pan-Islam's War on America. Europe and Asia hope to sit this one out. These battles will continue like a fever consuming our people and treasure for generations until Islam's reformation or Baptism.

Seven, you have read my mind. I agree on all levels, including calling this the Battle of Iraq (part of WWIII), and the fact that it will not end without Reformation of Islam (an end to Wahhabist-style warmaking). I'd like to see it end by Baptism, but I'm not willing (right now) to Baptize by the sword, so as far as I'm concerned, as long as it ends, it ends.

And Seven Days in May is a GREAT film. Frankenheimer, right? I love that film.

[the Deejay]

"I support use of nuclear weapons as President Bush deems necessary."

That's how we had to stop the Japanese, with the A-Bomb. (It was a last resort.)

[Ichneumon]

Being only "50 miles" within the city limits, how does this nuclear option help us? Someone please explain this clearly.

There is literally a 5-million-fold range in the sizes of nuclear weapons in the US arsenal -- from 0.02 kilotons up to 100 megatons (or perhaps more). Not all nukes are the big dramatic "city-busters" that get all the movie scenes.

The smallest nuclear weapons are only about 10 times as powerful as the truck bomb that took out the federal building in OKC -- enough to lay waste to a city block or 2, but falling off rapidly in destructive effects a few hundred yards away from the blast point.

Even a 1 kiloton bomb (the size of the so-called "suitcase nukes") would, if set off on the Capitol steps in DC, only blow out windows in the White House, and someone standing unprotected outside at the Lincoln Memorial would only get knocked on their butts with perhaps an instant mild sunburn.

A 25-megaton monster, on the other hand, would severely damage everything within TWENTY MILES.

Not all nukes are created equal.

[PuNcH]

..... I think we will take the HIGH ROAD even if the worst happens.

Well the problem with the high road is that we are not actually immune to chemical attacks. Also it would not be single attack there would be no reason for them to stop shelling our troops with chemical warheads once they start.

The only way to put a stop to that quickly is with nukes.

[happygrl]

Thanks to you (and Jane's) for the education.

We may have to choose whether we will be loved or respected.

What's love got to do with it?

[mcookhouse]

The army has tactical nukes that can be used within that range. They are smaller devices that can be delivered via tanks or artillery