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 ...
Ref Post 23. Regarding the draft, I am not sure they will reinstate. Judging from all of the crying from many "freepers" over the prospect of serving in the military, I can imagine the resistance from the general population.
I'm not sure the FedGov would care too much if they felt they needed the cannon fodder.
The military forces first use their technology. Nuclear weapons are part of the technology. And, yes, we only have so many people in uniform. There aren't enough to go around
Agreed they'd use technology to minimize loss. They should use technology to minimize loss, that's the way to win wars after all. However, to throw the nuke card out on the table this early in the game...not a good sign for our side. If we went simply for "get it over with quick", we'd have nuked Korea and Vietnam without a second bat of the eyelash.
With what appears to be a manpower shortage of 11B's to be had, and with the ambitious goals of the WOT (to say the least), I cannot help but see this early trump card play as anything but a sign of quiet weakness under the guise of chest thumping bravado.
The way that things are going, that might be a good contingency plan to have. Yes, Mecca would ignite a war. And I am wondering if that will not happen anyway.
x
We have a different world than we had even in the Vietnam era. For starters, the US does not want to see mass casualties on our side. Many people fall over in a faint if some of our troops even get wounded.
My point was the increasing noise of the rattling plutonium sabres. By the two boys on the block who are still targeting each other, even while we paying lip service to "our new friendship".
There is, IMHO only one way to stop this terrorism. Cut the head off the chicken, and you have a whole load of "peaceful" people without any shrine, or place to plot. It took 2 nukes, very primitive 1 gen at that, to end WWII. IF the US had been forced to invade the home islands of Japan, the people were,likewise conditioned to fight to the death. We would have sustained massive casualties, even in an already weakened country.
2 nukes here, would go a long way toward stopping this,FWIW. The targets of choice I will self-censor, believing that most every FReeper knows the 2 cities of which I make reference.
Let's warm 'em up people.
Keep the Faith for Freedom
MAY GOD BLESS AND PROTECT THIS HONORABLE REPUBLIC, FROM THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER FACING HER FROM BOTH WITHIN HER BORDERS, AND OUTSIDE.
Greg
It is one thing to commit terror, and another to suffer it. Not a good anology, but think of the schoolyard bully after somebody finally gets around to cleaning his clock.
Translation = If Iraq keeps firing on us in the no-fly zone we are going to nuke them. < Grin> In my opinion. Iraq is the subject of this article but in less then 2 years they will have nuclear weapons if something is not done soon. I am sure we will strike them by the end of the year in an attempt to overthrow Saddam and this must be done.
MM
There is a website here that lists President Bush's directives. There is one listed called "NSPD4". The description next to it says "Review of U.S. nuclear offensive and defensive postures". Maybe that changes what x42 did. I couldn't find the text, but maybe someone else can.
-ksen
Not bravado. Simple statement of fact. Good for W.
While I agree that we may need more men I wanted to address the above line.
First the tenor of your statement seems to imply that killing someone with a nuke is worse than killing them with conventional weapons. I disagree. Dead is dead. Whether the corpse smokes or the ashes glow is of no concern to me (or to the recent tenant of said corpse or ash heap)
Second, we (IMHO) reserved the right to nuke anyone who attacks us for two reasons. 1) War ends when the enemy is dead. After a nuke the enemy will be dead. 2) The world needs another lesson in "we are normally really nice guys and are very patient but don't piss us off"
And then there's my unofficial reason 3) Nukes are cool. and they achieve the objective (death of the enemy) very quickly.
Of course Neutron bombs are far better in that they don't destroy as much of the infrastructure, but some 'democrat' decided that having a useful weapon was just too icky and cancelled it. I'm hoping that President Reagan or President Bush had some built on the sly anyway.
God Save America (Please)
LOL. My dad has said the same thing to me. I really would do it too. But not to worry, I am quite sure there are enough things that I did in college to keep me from ever being dog catcher, much less president. I'll be glad to keep the title of ardent capitalist and pro-nuke citizen.
The FAS link to the document was missing there. Here it is: National Space Launch Strategy
NSPD-4, July 10, 1991.
Good try. I think it is publicly unaddressed, though.
Yes. Very.
Welcome to the club...
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.