U.S. drops pledge on use of nukes

Washington Times ^ | 2/22/02 | Nicholas Kralev

[kattracks]

The Bush administration is no longer standing by a 24-year-old U.S. pledge not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, a senior administration official said yesterday.

Washington is "not looking for occasions to use" its nuclear arsenal, John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, said in an interview.

[WALLACE212]

I heard about that myself... another Nazi secret project whose records are forever lost. Those guys were into some esoteric stuff, too bad most of it is pure conjecture to us today.

[RightWhale]

It is conjecture.

On another WW II note, I personally met one of the Japanese who firebombed Oregon/Washington with weather balloons. Good thing he didn't float a nuke across in the jet stream.

[mad_as_he$$]

Yikes I have never forgiven Jimmy for the Iranian thing. If he had said "Look you a$$holes you have 24 hours to return our hostages unharmed or we will nuke your butts!" the world would be a completely different place. Oh yea, he would of had to use them - Ronnie would never have been prez. Carter would have done two terms (the down side) but every mf'er in the middle east would have a different opinion of us.

[LenS]

Actually, it is no secret that George HW Bush let it be known through back-door channels that, were Hussein to use chemical or biological weapons AT ALL during the Gulf War, tactical nukes were a serious option.

That's why Hussein never used anything but conventional weapons.

True. But since then, several of the people who worked in that administration (their names are evading my brain at the moment) commented in interviews/books that they didn't believe that Bush Sr. would have used nukes if Hussein had used chemical/biological weapons. In other words, they believed that the US was bluffing during the Gulf War. Such comments, whether correct or not, sent a message to Hussein and other potential Islamic aggressors that the US would only bluff when it came to nukes.

Sadly, the only way to restore the power of the US nuclear threat with regards to the Islamofascist states will be by using nukes against them.

[Stefan Stackhouse]

The choice between droping a nuke on Bagdad or standing by helplessly while 40% of our children and young people die of smallpox should not be a difficult one to make at all.

[LenS]

The downsizing process did start in late 1989. A board to reduce the number of Army LTs. convened in early 1990. The first early releases of LTs. occurred in late summer/fall of that year (even as Desert Shield was temporarily calling up needed reservists). The Gulf War only delayed the process of downsizing. But you are correct that the downsizing predates the Clinton years (not that they didn't muck it up badly).

[ffrancone]

This may be related to the bunker buster nuclear weapons that are in development. I suspect a bunker buster nuclear weapon could be pretty easily cobbled together out of our existing arsenal.

I understand that conventional explosives will not do for extremely deep and fortified bunkers like, say, those in Iraq. We may be planning to use them, if necessary, in Iraq against bunkers.

And it just might be to make Saddam nervous.

[ffrancone]

Well, I do not share antienvironmentalist's fascination with nuclear weapons. But I was probably born because my father didn't have to take part in an invasion of Japan--because we used nuclear weapons.

If the choice is to use a bunker buster nuclear weapon to root Saddam out from 500 feet under the desert or to take the complex by storm at the cost of hundreds of American lives, that is a tough call.

As for your puerile remarks about W, I suspect you were comfortable that Bill and Hillary Clinton had the keys to the car for eight years. That despite Bill being the most irresponsible and infantile personality who has ever held the office of president. I know that if W authorizes use of nuclear weapons, it will be thoroughly and well considered and it will be in America's interest. He and his team will approach that question with the seriousness and solemnity it deserves.

That sort of calculation was, regrettably, impossible for our recent narcissist-in-chief.

[conqueror]

I say keep them busy rebuilding the mosques and cities and mecca and medina and cairo and baghdad and and till the few who are left are weak with radiation sickness.

[conqueror]

would you rather it was Saddams finger on the trigger?

[Mitchell]

Bump. Thanks for posting this.

[Lady In Blue]

Bump

[lawdog]

"Yes, and at risk of igniting another separate discussion, was fully justified in doing so."

Oh no, I agree with 'sink' on this one,now I know the world's in trouble!

[Polnick]

2,000 Russian nukes might cause Bush to reconsider pushing any button. If the Russians see the US use nukes in that manner they might just conclude they need a first strike.

[TD911]

Go rent the movie Deterrence.

It's precisely about our future downsized and spread out military (mostly in Korea) dealing with a second invasion by Iraq.
Unable to move any forces into the region in time, the Nuclear Card is dealt.

[visitor]

Thank Goc, GWB is NO JFK, jimmy carter or anyother D.RAT ...rto

[rightwing2]

SOL2 rightagain! As given in the brief of last Sept, and again in October, the US made this decision at a secret meeting of Western leaders. You declared the brief false. Dave wrong yet again!

Sorry, you completely lost me on this one. I have no idea what you are talking about...

Yours,
AlwaysRightWing2