Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. drops pledge on use of nukes
Washington Times ^ | 2/22/02 | Nicholas Kralev

Posted on 02/21/2002 11:22:30 PM PST by kattracks

Edited on 07/12/2004 3:37:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

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.


(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: hughhewitt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-167 next last
To: RightWhale
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.
141 posted on 02/22/2002 1:14:27 PM PST by WALLACE212
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: WALLACE212
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.

142 posted on 02/22/2002 1:22:06 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Jemian
Yikes I have never forgiven Jimmy for the Iranian thing. If he had said "Look you a$$holes you have 24 hours to return our hostages unharmed or we will nuke your butts!" the world would be a completely different place. Oh yea, he would of had to use them - Ronnie would never have been prez. Carter would have done two terms (the down side) but every mf'er in the middle east would have a different opinion of us.
143 posted on 02/22/2002 1:22:18 PM PST by mad_as_he$$
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Comment #144 Removed by Moderator

To: sinkspur
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.

145 posted on 02/22/2002 1:43:27 PM PST by LenS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
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.
146 posted on 02/22/2002 1:47:50 PM PST by Stefan Stackhouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheHundred
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).
147 posted on 02/22/2002 2:06:21 PM PST by LenS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Lumberjack
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.

148 posted on 02/22/2002 3:12:21 PM PST by ffrancone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: TheHundred
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.

149 posted on 02/22/2002 3:20:27 PM PST by ffrancone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
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.
150 posted on 02/22/2002 3:31:32 PM PST by conqueror
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy
would you rather it was Saddams finger on the trigger?
151 posted on 02/22/2002 3:33:58 PM PST by conqueror
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Bump. Thanks for posting this.
152 posted on 02/22/2002 3:53:26 PM PST by Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hugh Hewitt;Generalissimo Duane;deport;PhiKapMom;blackie;Deb,Miss Marple;Howlin;GUIDO
Bump
153 posted on 02/22/2002 4:27:15 PM PST by Lady In Blue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"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!

154 posted on 02/22/2002 4:30:14 PM PST by lawdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Attillathehon
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.
155 posted on 02/22/2002 8:40:11 PM PST by Polnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Lumberjack
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.

156 posted on 02/22/2002 8:54:46 PM PST by TD911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Comment #157 Removed by Moderator

To: kattracks
Thank Goc, GWB is NO JFK, jimmy carter or anyother D.RAT ...rto
158 posted on 02/23/2002 4:23:15 AM PST by visitor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonofliberty2
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
159 posted on 02/23/2002 7:22:40 AM PST by rightwing2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

Comment #160 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-167 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