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."
And I want to take this opportunity to thank you for popping your head out of your ass long enough to submit your inane "thoughts" to candid criticism. I knew that if I only looked around for a bit, I could find one of you "peace, love, dope" types. I needed the therapy, so here goes:
You are a collosal ignoramous. Your stupidity is so profound that it apparently has overwhelmed your instinct to self-preservation.
This document explicates US policy with respect to the uses of nuclear weapons and lays out the possible rationales . None remind me of Dr. Strangelove. Rather, they reflect reality in an increasingly dark world. A world in which the USA functions as a beacon of light. We may need to use nuclear devices to destroy deep bunkers/nests of wicked and evil men who hunker down there, planning the next 9/11 atrocity. You got a problem with that? Sign up for the platoon that would go in there to do the job manually if the nuke option were off the table. Probability of use: low. Probability of you joining the service: nil.
As a retaliatory technique, this document isn't any different than the 50+ years of MAD that kept the nuclear peace during the Cold War. The only difference is that we may actually have to retaliate. The USSR proved sane in the sense that they loved their children more than their marxist ideology. Arab Islamofascists have shown repeatedly that they love the promise of virgins in paradise and the vision of global islamofascist domination to the continued health and vitality of their children. To sub-human barbarians such as these, the very real threat of Mecca and Medina engulfed in a radioactive fireball must be clearly and unequivocably communicated. Repeatedly, if necessary. We'll have to hope that this is enough to keep them from implementing a deranged plan to detonate a stolen warhead in NY or Washington DC, or perhaps, your hometown.
And this document reveals that we reserve the right to use nuclear weapons if the military situation calls for them, in order to reverse surprising military developments. Sorry, Perrin, but we won't simply roll over and die to please you and your tie-dyed friends notions of "morality".
You may choose to live in a fantasy world based on Disney scripted versions of reality. That choice seems all the more inexplicable in light of 9/11, but I've never been wrong over-estimating the stupidity and naivete of knuckleheads on the left (or far, far right).
The rest of us will prefer to judge reality on the evidence of what our eyes, ears and noses tell us, as we stood on the street corners of NY on that awful Tuesday morning, or watched in horror on the television.
Cower in the corner, wretched punk. Shrink from the realization of the awful burden our generation of Americans have had forced upon us. Hide under the bed, and at long last, simply recognize that the grown-ups will have to do the hard, dirty work of keeping your sorry excuse for a citizen free and safe. Perhaps one day, you may have the grace to whisper a long overdue "thank you".
Our weapons, our rules. I don't see what the problem is.
God Save America (Please)
"The Bush administration has directed the military to prepare contingency plans..."These are not just contigency[sic] plans for a...
They are just contingency plans as the LA Times stated, your paranoia not withstanding. Refer to my final statement in post #5 if applicable.
Many resent Russian arms-sales to some of these rogue states, as do I. But look at recent history. The US sold arms to Iraq and Iran not so long ago. Israel has sold to the Chinese (last year, correct me if I'm wrong). We need to get around arms sales and look at REAL alliances.
I hope to see Russia continue as our partner in the fight against terrorism. On a flight from Moscow to JFK in 1999, I was engaged in political conversation with US businessman. At the time, he understood the Chechen war, and overtly stated he wished that the average American understood the war too.
I'm glad to know, but saddened in the process, that now they do understand.
Not only are you a mindless leftwinger with a penchant for hating your own country, but you are a rotten, no good
As much as I despise what Justin Raimondo writes from time to time, you do not have the right to steal his work, you rotten intellectual thief.
Here's your garbage...
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.
Now here's what Justin Raimondo wrote in his screed earlier today....
Thirdly, this manifesto of nuclear madness rendered by an anonymous team of Dr. Strangeloves essentially states that we will use nuclear weapons just as we damn well please, no longer as a last resort when our national survival is at stake, but to put down regional revolts on the farthest frontiers of our global empire. In short, as a response to "surprising military developments," nukes will now be used as weapons of conquest. Let's say we invade 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 we 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.
If you don't get banned from this board for this act of intellectual laziness and thievery, Jim Robinson ought to give us the reasons why.
Get lost, liberal plagiarist scum. Or should I say, farewell, Doris Kearns Goodwin!
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Actually, I'm somewhat surprised that Raimondo didn't show up here to defend his work against this intellectual looter.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Uh, thanks for abrogating the NATO pact of mutual defense - when the US was attacked the rest of NATO allies (with the exception of UK) hemmed and hawed.
WE DON'T CARE WHAT EUROPE THINKS!!
They are irrelavent.
Lenin had a term for liberals like you: Useful idiot.
John Stuart Mill had some thoughts that apply to you too:
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse...."
"A man who has nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the existing of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other."
You, sir, are that miserable creature, "Who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the existing of better men than himself."
Contingency planning does not say anything about who you plan to attack. It says what you plan to do if you are attacked by any given power. Makes sense to me.
I'm thinking this would go over like a turd in the punchbowl, here, huh? Ya think?
Secondly, you're really out to lunch, ain't ya? All the US is saying is "play ball with us or we'll stick the bat up your arse." They're taking a protective stance, not an aggressive one. If you need this explained a little more, get back to me - Nintendo may not be enough to do it for you.
The article uses these words, but apparently the author doesn't understand their meaning. It means if you do not attack us with weapons of mass destruction we won't nuke you.
What on earth could be easier to understand than plain english when spoken to an Englishman?
I suggest that since their affiliation with the EU, Brits have lost the ability to understand their own language.
Oh, the timing is bad, but since it's a leak of secret information, it isn't a matter of timing. There's never a good time for a secret to leak.
If I were Russian, I'd be appalled at my government if they didn't have a contingency plan for dealing with a nuclear attack from ALL of the world's nuclear powers.....to include the world's largest nuclear power.
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.