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.

[Gadsden1st]

Speak softly and carry a REALLY BIG stick.

Speak softly and USE a really big stick.

[gratefulwharffratt]

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.

THAT ought to turn a few towelheads.

[Lumberjack]

Pleast take this comment outside of any political considerations, as a simple analysis of the strategy being suggested.

Is anybody starting to question yet (as I did months ago) why we seem to only be able to bomb other nations, but are quite scant in regards to the "troops on the ground"? We have what, something like 130 nations with a U.S. troop presence, right? While I don't have any numbers in front of me, I will investigate further to try and back up the hypothesis that I am going to relate.

I think we don't have the manpower to conduct this "war on terror" as Bush and his cabinet define it at all. I think that with the reductions in the military from Clinton, as well as our massive presence in many other nations, we are shaved razor thin on manpower from a ground troop perspective.

Consider how fast the Reserves and Guard are activated now for any military maneuver. Now I know they've always been activated and put on alert during times of conflict, but from my knowledge of history they are never put on the front line as "first see" troops at the very immediate outset of an engagement like they are being used today. I could be wrong, again, I need to research this a bit.

Add to this the bills we see floating around proposing a reactivation of the draft, what, two or three months after the "war" was engaged, and I'd say that the Pentagon and powers that be are quietly acknowledging a severe shortage of manpower for the task at hand.

Add to that this recent pronouncement that we no longer will have a prohibition on nuking non-nuclear states, and I have to wonder why they would say this? What possible reason would we have to do this kind of thing, unless we were unable to meet out military objectives using conventional forces (or massive casualties would be taken on our side). Now since we are engaging third world powers using the equivalent of 19th century military tactics, I hardly see how we would take what could be considered massive casualties....unless we didn't have the manpower to spare for any sizable military engagement.

This is obviously all conjecture at this point, but its worth investigating. Folks, we may be a lot weaker militarily than the flag waving and oompah band playing suggests.

[poweqi]

YEAHHHHH!!!!!!! It's about freaking time... After Daniels horrible murder, these people need to feel some heat. Heat that only a big a** nuke can provide. Like Hackworth said this morn. on Fox, the ONLY thing they understand is if you are badder than they are. They ain't seen nothing yet. I think Musareef(sp) is a liar.

[antienvironmentalist]

If this gives you the 'jollies', I'd step back and talk to God about it

God dosn't listen to atheists. But you may be right anyway. I am completely fascinated by nuclear weapons and I really look foward to seeing them used in the defense of the USA. They are, in an odd way, the height of man's reasonable capabilities and it seems as though we are wasting our abilities if we do not use them to furthur our own existence. I have a feeling that God would not see eye to eye with me on this one.

[Overtaxed]

THAT ought to turn a few towelheads.

Let's broadcast Dr. Strangelove at 'em 24/7. YeeeHaaahhh!

[Physicist]

We are far weaker than we need to be, but it isn't as bad as you paint it. First, GWB is taking steps to increase manpower. (The most important thing he did in that regard is to restore the dignity of the Commander-in-Chief, but he's also raising pay and at least moving in the direction of better equipment.) Second, if push really came to shove, GWB would suck troops from our overseas deployments faster than you could say "occupation".

[SBeck]

Before everyone gets their knickers tied in a twist over this, please understand that the statement is a reiteration of the policy that holds that the U.S. reserves the option to use nuclear weapons against any nation that employs WMD (nuclear, chemical or biological). This has been the doctrine for at least 20 years. (The last time the use of tactical nuclear weapons was seriously considered against a nation or target that did not employ (or have) WMD was during the Vietnam War during the height of the siege at Khe Sanh).

[Physicist]

Nah. On the Beach.

[Rain-maker]

[Petronski]

"Get on the horn to SAC, warm up the nukes, scramble the bombers. Looks like we might have to go through with this thing after all." --WarGames

[Tall_Texan]

What this represents (and why the commielibs will screech and moan) is another step away from the "We-are-da-world-we-are-da-chillun" global political dogma of the UN/NATO types. This is Bush saying "America is looking out for #1 and we don't give a crap what the rest of the world thinks."

Amazing for someone that is still portrayed as an NWO stooge like his father.

This is absolutely the correct posture. Just as we can't afford to let political correctness put our airplanes and cities in jeopardy, we shouldn't let the frowning of other nations who have paid only lip service while America covered their asses the past fifty years dictate how we should conduct military strategy.

We are the world's remaining superpower. I have no qualms about us acting like one.

[Overtaxed]

Works for me! :)

[SBeck]

You need to go further back than Clinton to understand the reduction of troop strength. Attrition started under Bush I and the only reason why it wasn't accelerated during his administration was because of Desert Storm.

This is what the American people wanted at the time after we won the Cold War and everyone wanted their "peace" dividend.

[Overtaxed]

Amazing for someone that is still portrayed as an NWO stooge like his father.

Now if he'd get us out of the UN....

[SBeck]

How to act like one.

[palmer]

They are, in an odd way, the height of man's reasonable capabilities and it seems as though we are wasting our abilities if we do not use them to furthur our own existence

I would say they are the height of our scientific capabilities, but it doesn't seem "reasonable" or even plausible to kill thousands of innocent people to deter terrorism among the survivors. I think there are better ways to guarantee our existence such as using friendly religions to fight hostile ones.

[Lumberjack]

We are far weaker than we need to be, but it isn't as bad as you paint it. First, GWB is taking steps to increase manpower. (The most important thing he did in that regard is to restore the dignity of the Commander-in-Chief, but he's also raising pay and at least moving in the direction of better equipment.) Second, if push really came to shove, GWB would suck troops from our overseas deployments faster than you could say "occupation".

Well, I wasn't trying to paint a "gloom and doom" so much as suggest that recent actions point to a weaker military than many would think we have.

I also don't see this "we'll nuke anybody" signal as particularly encouraging, as I don't see a reason outside of what I outlined in my original post for this being stated.

I'm not so sure we'd pull troops out of the 130 or so other countries unless things become real dire. Speaking objectively with no politics attached, the U.S. would be abandoning the empire its built up over the last 100 years if it did so, and I don't see that happening. Of course, I could be wrong.

[twenty-two/two-fifty]

I am completely fascinated by nuclear weapons and I really look foward to seeing them used in the defense of the USA. They are, in an odd way, the height of man's reasonable capabilities and it seems as though we are wasting our abilities if we do not use them to furthur our own existence. I have a feeling that God would not see eye to eye with me on this one.

I'm not against the use of nukes, but I sure am glad your not the one to decide when to push the button.

[Lumberjack]

You need to go further back than Clinton to understand the reduction of troop strength. Attrition started under Bush I and the only reason why it wasn't accelerated during his administration was because of Desert Storm.

This is what the American people wanted at the time after we won the Cold War and everyone wanted their "peace" dividend.

You are correct about the time frame. I would have liked a peace dividend as well as a pull out from the 130 or so countries we now inhabit. A strong military for our defense, most certainly, but without the attached empire troops we now have in 1/3 of the nations in the world. I think we could have had both under my "plan" as opposed to what we have now, namely a decimated military at home and an occupying army's worth of troops overseas too commited to maintaining our presence in other nations to be of effective use in real nation defense situations.