Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Cyber Liberty
Only idiots would consider using nukes against someone who uses a WMD against us? "

Get real, the idiots who put this together were advocating first strike. Rummy would not be upset if this was about using nukes in defense.

When we got the best conventional forces in the world, it takes an idiot to encourage the development of nukes by the rest of the world.

34 posted on 03/13/2002 8:37:22 AM PST by ex-snook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: ex-snook
Given your obvious display of ignorance of all things military, I would "go easy" on calling our strategic planners idiots.
104 posted on 03/13/2002 9:42:18 AM PST by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

To: ex-snook
Get real, the idiots who put this together were advocating first strike. Rummy would not be upset if this was about using nukes in defense.

Its been U.S. policy for at least 25 years (that I know of, maybe longer) that we will NOT rule out first use of nuclear weapons. Jimmy Caht-ah threatened Iran in '79. Saddam was also warned prior to the Gulf War that use of any WMD on his part (e.g. chemical weapons) could draw a nuclear response, and Clinton re-iterated this warning during his term, around '96 I think.

I'm confident that no sensible person here doubts that Rumsfeld is in total agreement that the maximum deterrent effect of our nuclear arsenal is acheived by reserving the right to employ them in response to the use of non-nuclear WMDs, or other genuninely extra-ordinary military circumstances.

110 posted on 03/13/2002 10:01:15 AM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

To: ex-snook
the idiots who put this together were advocating first strike

Not so. They were postulating scenarios where the threat of a nuclear response would be a deterent. What has got a lot of anti-nuclear leftists upset if that they say it "lowers the bar to the use of nuclear weapons." To take that arguement to the extreme, why don't we just build a nuclear arsenal with only city buster 10 megaton weapons? Oh, those are so terrible we'd never use them!! Bottom line, the US is more secure with a mix of strategic AND tactical nuclear weapons.

118 posted on 03/13/2002 10:28:08 AM PST by ironman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

To: ex-snook
As if that's future tense. Got news for you. There's already an arms race and we are not even off the starting block. While we talk about cutting 2/3 of our warheads, the cheating born again Soviets are still hiding the ones they've cheated on pie crust treaties with and are building new ones. The ChiCOMs are building up. So too are the Pakis and who knows who else. Welcome back to a reality that, as much as we wished it to have ended as we prematurely declared victory in 1991, has gotten even more troubling. What to do, what to do?....
151 posted on 03/13/2002 5:20:18 PM PST by GOP_1900AD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

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