Horror at Dubya's secret attack plan on 7countries Posted on 03/11/2002 6:09:28 AM PST by Pokey78
PRESIDENT Bush faced world anger last night over America's seven-nation nuclear hit list.
British MPs joined the outcry after a leaked Pentagon report revealed contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Syria and Libya. The secret policy was denounced as warmongering "lunacy".
Alarmed officials from Moscow to Tehran warned that the "power crazy" President, buoyed up by the successful campaign in Afghanistan, could plunge the world into chaos. British politicians said the strategy threatened the stability of the Nato alliance.
International tension mounted as Washington pressed Britain to back an attack on Iraq - including the possible commitment of 25,000 British troops to topple Saddam Hussein.
Cabinet Minister Clare Short hinted that she might resign if Tony Blair supported a mass strike against Baghdad. She said: "We need to deal with the problem of Saddam Hussein - we don't need to inflict further suffering on the people of Iraq."
Labour MPs Alice Mahon and Tam Dalyell will today deliver a letter to 10 Downing Street warning the Prime Minister against joining any military action.
US Vice President Dick Cheney arrived in London last night for talks with Mr Blair which will cover the threat posed by Iraq.
No 10 insisted last night: "No decisions have been taken."
Amid mounting anger, the target nations accused America of intimidation and "wreaking havoc on the whole world" and branded the plans a "lunatic" threat to world peace.
In Britain, MPs said the sensational disclosures threatened the stability of the Western alliance.
Labour MP Alice Mahon said: "The lunatics have taken over the White House. This report must be ringing alarms throughout Nato." The Pentagon document, known as the Nuclear Posture Review, was leaked as the US lobbied Britain to join an invasion of Iraq.
International Development Secretary and Cabinet Minister Clare Short hinted she might resign if a strike went ahead.
The review says the US must be ready to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Syria and Libya. It then identified four areas where the US should be prepared to press the button:
In an Arab-Israeli conflict, in a war between China and Taiwan, in an attack by North Korea on South Korea and in an attack by Iraq on Israel or another neighbour. Additionally, the weapons could be used against targets able to withstand conventional attack and in retaliation for the use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
They could also be used in the event of "surprising military developments", reflecting fears that rogue states or terrorists could deploy weapons against the US.
The review, leaked to the Los Angeles Times, orders the military to plan for the use of "smaller nuclear weapons" as a more effective deterrent against terrorist attacks. It also calls for cruise missiles to carry nuclear weapons. It is the first time the US has reviewed its nuclear strategy since 1994 and the first list of target nations to be made public.
Last night it was seen as a warning to those states who might be harbouring terrorists. In Russia, defence hawk General Leonid Ivashov said: "The heart of US political doctrine is to push powerful Russia off the political scene."
Russian politician Dmitry Rogozin added: "This is a nuclear stick intended to intimidate us." Vyacheslav Nikonov, of the Politika think tank, branded the plans a "very negative signal" which would be "received in an appropriate fashion by Russia's leadership".
Iran's former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, an aide to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said: "The US believes that by threatening countries they'll withdraw their demands. Their policy is one of intimidation.''
The Tehran Times newspaper said: "This indicates the US is going to wreak havoc on the world to establish its domination." Professor Michael Yahuda, professor of international relations at the London School of Economics, warned: "China won't be happy to be classified among rogue nations."
Liberal Democrat spokesman Menzies Campbell said: "America seems to be moving from nuclear deterrence to nuclear war fighting.
"It would drive a coach and horses through Nato's doctrine of nuclear strikes as a last resort."
US Secretary of State Colin Powell insisted the report did not signal imminent action.
He said: "We should not get carried away with some sense the US plans to use nuclear weapons in some contingency in the near future.
"It's not the case. What the Pentagon has done with this is sound military, conceptual planning.
"Not a single nation is being targeted by an American nuclear weapon on a day-to-day basis."
National security adviser Condoleezza Rice added: "We all want to make the use of weapons of mass destruction less likely.
"The way that you do that is to send a very strong signal to anyone who might use them against the United States that they'd be met with a devastating response."
Vice-President Dick Cheney arrived in London last night to meet Tony Blair. He is expected to appeal for military support against Iraq. It is reported the US will ask for up to 25,000 British troops to form part of an invasion force.
In the first sign of a Cabinet split, Ms Short denounced any invasion plans yesterday. She said: "An all-out military attack is, of course, not at all sensible.
"We need to deal with the problem of Saddam Hussein. We don't need to inflict further suffering on the people of Iraq."
Ms Short said the best answer was to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq, a move firmly ruled out by Iraq's Vice-President Taha Yassin Ramadan yesterday. Her warning amounted to a threat to resign if there is a strike against Iraq. Donald Anderson, Labour chairman of the Commons foreign affairs select committee, said military action on Iraq must only be a last resort.
He said: "I think there are reckless elements in the Pentagon who are on a roll because of Afghanistan.
"I would hope part of the task of our Government is to influence those who take a contrary view."
Downing Street played down the reports of an American request for British troops. A spokesman said: "No decisions have been taken, let alone any requests made."
Any American government that did NOT have a nuclear contingency plan would be traitorous IMO.
CONTINGENCY PLANS! The government is doing exactly what they are supposed to do. Consider and plan for every possibility, however remote. It does not mean that Bush desires to nuke anyone.
Sheesh! What a bunch of idiots.
If you're looking for loonies, fetch a mirror.
Letter to the Editor, Buffalo News
Contrary to the repeated denials of Editor Margaret Sullivan, the Buffalo News exhibits bias daily in not only its’ own news coverage but stories supplied by the far left wing sister paper, the Los Angeles Times. A story from the far left wing, LA Times in this Sunday’s paper, exhibits the EXACT type of bias described in Bernard Goldberg’s’ book “Bias”.
The body of the article “7 nations on U.S. list as targets for nukes”, contains references to 3 groups. The first 2 groups, which were in opposition to the subject of the article, are simply referred to by name. “Carnegie Endowment for International Peace” and “Council for a Livable World”.
The last group mentioned, “Heritage Foundation” was clearly identified as “the conservative Heritage Foundation”
What were the first 2 groups, left wing, socialist, communist, anti-capitalists, anti-American, Marxist?
Tell me Ms Sullivan, why does the LA Times and the Buffalo News continue to do this? I certainly do not mind the Heritage Foundation labeled as “conservative” because they are a conservative group and that tells me their point of reference, which is supporting the US Constitution. I cannot determine the point of reference for the first 2 groups because for some reason, the media refuses to place the pejorative label preceding any left wing group’s name.
I would highly recommend your entire editorial staff read and attempt to understand Mr. Goldberg’s book so that we don’t have to keep referring to the far left wing Buffalo News.
Ever since the end of the second world war, social psychologists and communication scholars have been conducting empirical studies in order to learn more about the effectiveness of fear appeals.
All other things being equal, the more frightened a person is by a communication, the more likely her or she is to take positive preventive action.
Fear appeals will not succeed in altering behavior if the audience feels powerless to change the situation.
Fear appeals are more likely to succeed in changing behavior if they contain specific recommendations for reducing the threat that the audience believes are both effective and doable.
In summary, there are four elements to a successful fear appeal: 1) a threat, 2) a specific recommendation about how the audience should behave, 3) audience perception that the recommendation will be effective in addressing the threat, and 4) audience perception that they are capable of performing the recommended behavior.
No, that was Bill Clintons works . Thank God Bush is here to correct that!
True. The Sunday news shows mentioned that the 60's mentality has died. That means liberal power has died. And it was on ABC!!!
Ok Mohammed, I see your sense of proportion is par for the Muslim course.
These are not just contigency plans for an eventual strike back when the US is targeted by a nuclear ICBM.
This manifesto of nuclear madness rendered by an anonymous team of Dr. Strangeloves essentially states that the US will use nuclear weapons just as they damn well please, no longer as a last resort when their national survival is at stake, but to put down regional revolts on the farthest frontiers of their global empire. In short, as a response to "surprising military developments," nukes will now be used as weapons of conquest. Let's say the US invades Iraq, and the war starts to go badly, perhaps because other Arab countries enter the fray and US troops are caught in a general conflagration, a replay of what happened at that Marine barracks in Beirut only on a much larger scale. According to the new policy, in that case the US can always nuke 'em into submission. Indeed, the mere threat is enough to at least temper the thought of resistance, which is another reason I tend to think this "leak" was sprung from the top.
The next Century will be an American and Asian Century. You are becoming more irrelevant every day.
I got this far and went into a fit of uncontrollable yawning.
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.