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 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161-167 next last
To: flamefront
My bet: if it has not been formally rescinded in a classified PDD, then it is a mere "declaratory policy" to keep the soccer moms from panicking, while Bush quietly announces to the rest of the world that Clinton's idiotic PDDs do not in any way, shape, or form, act as a constraint on President Bush's actions.
81 posted on 02/22/2002 7:21:18 AM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Don Myers
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.

82 posted on 02/22/2002 7:21:18 AM PST by Lumberjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
"I hope we have a contingency plan for quickly killing 1.2 billion (or so) Muslims in case they don't react in the way the wishfully-thinking assume they would."

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.

83 posted on 02/22/2002 7:22:31 AM PST by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
"!"

x

84 posted on 02/22/2002 7:24:38 AM PST by B-Chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lumberjack
"If we went simply for "get it over with quick", we'd have nuked Korea and Vietnam without a second bat of the eyelash."

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.

85 posted on 02/22/2002 7:25:43 AM PST by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
INDEXING
86 posted on 02/22/2002 7:29:26 AM PST by Robe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don Myers
True.

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".

87 posted on 02/22/2002 7:34:48 AM PST by WALLACE212
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
This, is to me, great news. Someone is finally showing their cojones in dealing with this terrorist scum. The situation calling for release has already been met..If anyone can tell me that the use of a commercial airliner, flown by suicide pilots, into the WTC on 9/11 is not considered a WMD, then what is?

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

88 posted on 02/22/2002 7:48:51 AM PST by gwmoore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: palmer
I'm all for shooting the wives and infant children of all the TERRORISTS. Let them come to know terror for what it really is.

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.

89 posted on 02/22/2002 7:53:08 AM PST by stumpy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

Comment #90 Removed by Moderator

To: piasa
The French mad at us? Wait until you hear the demowits start yelling. Soon they will be calling OUR President W evil.
91 posted on 02/22/2002 7:57:40 AM PST by gulfcoast6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.

92 posted on 02/22/2002 8:13:38 AM PST by Mixer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Bravo. Could common sense be creeping in?

MM

93 posted on 02/22/2002 8:15:35 AM PST by MississippiMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: flamefront
Yes, but what of the standing order known as Clinton's PDD 60 - to absorb a first strike?

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

94 posted on 02/22/2002 8:19:15 AM PST by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
But "we would do whatever is necessary to defend America's innocent civilian population," he said.

Not bravado. Simple statement of fact. Good for W.

95 posted on 02/22/2002 8:20:36 AM PST by Faraday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lumberjack
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).

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)

96 posted on 02/22/2002 8:29:28 AM PST by John O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: twenty-two/two-fifty
I sure am glad you are not the one to decide when to push the button

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.

97 posted on 02/22/2002 8:35:59 AM PST by antienvironmentalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ksen
Excellent find, thank you; but unfortunately its suggestive title only ambiguously is meant not to address 'launch on warning' but rather general space launch capabilites only.

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.

98 posted on 02/22/2002 8:38:39 AM PST by flamefront
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: antienvironmentalist
Am I sick because this really excites me?

Yes. Very.

Welcome to the club...

99 posted on 02/22/2002 8:40:31 AM PST by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lumberjack
Force levels prior to and subsequent to 911 are consistent with force levels on 12/7/41 i.e., woefully inadequate. I concur with the Bush decision to drop the pledge; however, were I a non-nuclear country, I would now be giving serious consideration to removing the "non' designator, and that gives me reason for concern.
100 posted on 02/22/2002 8:41:49 AM PST by bilh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161-167 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