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.

[Naspino]

The biggest problem with this statement is the "world view" that wars must be conducted against soldiers only. World War II was the last war in which it seemed reasonable to expect civilian casualties.

Americans need to understand that WAR is about killing people and accomplishing a goal. For Hitler it was the conquest of Europe. For the Allies it was the defeat of the German offensive.

There could not have been any "strategic" or "precise" attack to accomplish either goal. I'm afraid that the world has become accustomed to that kind of war as evidence by the label of "War Criminal" for anyone that is involved in a civilian death.

At some point this war on terrorism will escalate and there will not be any way to defeat the enemy without killing civilians and any attempt to do so will lead to massive American casualties. In World War II the enemy location was vague and hence cities were bombed. In this war the enemy location is DEFINETLY vague but alot more potent than the enemy in World War II if they have biological or nuclear capabilities.

[blackie]

Nuke-em all!!

Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!

Molon Labe !!

[Tallguy]

would you rather it was Saddams finger on the trigger?

I'm not sure that I get your meaning. If you re-read Post #139, I'm indicating that I have no problem with the change in US nuclear policy. We did a similar thing (threaten nuclear retaliation against Iraq) prior to Desert Storm. The understanding conveyed by Sec. of State Baker to Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Azizz was essentially this: The US will turn Iraq into a glass parking lot if you guys unleash any of your CNB weapons on allied troops. The threat was effective.

I don't think that it is advisable for a superpower to be playing tit-for-tat with an inferior regional power when it comes to weapons of mass destruction. You don't have to declare a policy of first use when massive retaliation will do.

[Tallguy]

There is a story that when the Iranians seized the U.S. Embassy that they also seized the Russian embassy. Supposedly the Russian Foreign Minister told the Iranians precisely that - release the embassy within 48 hours or Tehran will cease to exist. The embassy was released.

Never heard that one. It would have been foolish for Iran to pick a fight with the USSR because the tanks would have rolled and revolutionary Iran couldn't have done squat to stop them.

I did hear a similar story about a Russian diplomat being snatched in Beirut during a flurry of western kidnappings back in the 80's. Supposedly, the KGB rounded up the families of the likely suspects and started delivering severed body parts until their guy was released. But I guess that could be an "urban legend" too.

[mad_as_he$$]

Yup the only language these guys understand is bloody nose talk!

[ProudEagle]

Ignorance is bliss isn't it?

[ProudEagle]

Howdy Lumberjack, apologies for the late reply, just returned from vacation. Stats were compiled from the DOD website, comparisons ran on the 1992 service levels to current levels. Washington Times and Chicago Sun Times had done similar pieces in the last 12 months, so I did a little investigative work. Hope we can turn it around quick enough. Eagle