**US MAY USE TATICAL NUKES IN IRAQ**

LA Times and Times of India ^ | January 25, 2003 | William Arkin

[ewing]

The United States is quietly preparing for the use of tatical nuclear weapons in a war against Iraq and military planners have been actively studying lists of potential targets, the media reported Saturday.

The preparations include possible use of so called 'bunker buster' nuclear weapons against deeply buried military targets the Los Angeles Times reported on Saturday morning quoting William M. Arkin.

Defence officials have been focusing their plans on the use of tatical nuclear arms in retaliation for a strike by the Iraqis with chemical or biological weapons, or to preempt one, the daily said.

US Administration officials believe that in some circumstances, using nuclear arms may be the only way to destory deeply buried targets that may contain unconventional weapons, the report said.

Some officials have argued that the blast and radiation of effect of such strikes would be limited.

[cake_crumb]

"Using Nukes on our enemies would give us all here a great sense of satisfaction...but let's face it, it simply is not going to happen, ever."

Let's not be a wet blanket. The Islamakazis are still reeling from the shock of US reaction to 9/11/01...they don't know we won't. Trust me. Next time a rabid bunch of them makes a crack about US imperialism, ask them when we nuked Mecca and why havn't you heard about it. Then run.

PS: if Saddam DOES use a WMD on the US, a tactical nukes will be their answer. The open desert shouldn't be uninhabitable for too long.

[RobbyS]

Iraq should understand that if they use WMDs, they will regret it.

[ConservativeConvert]

Let's pray for the safety of our service men & women.

[Milwaukee_Guy]

Tom Brokaw was so excited about this story he couldn't slur his words fast enough.

Last chance for the peaceniks to create more fear and loathing here and abroad.

We have always reserved the right to respond, in kind, to any WMD attack. Lefty civilians and editorialists don't understand preemption. The military does. Cocking a loaded gun is a hostile act. Turning on targeting radars (as opposed to search radars) is a hostile act. Flying a plane into a building is a hostile act.

War is heck. Deal with it......

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..the United States is quietly preparing for the use of tatical nuclear weapons in a war against Iraq....

Gee.

I wonder why Germany and France don't want to be associated with the US, on this one?

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..I think the gov't is just letting the bad guys know that we are serious about retalliation....

No, Bones.

It sends a message to the rest of the world that the US are the bad guys.

[Norm640]

We did the same stuff (talking about nukes) before Gulf War I. Obviously, we believe the dude has WMDs,and is mad enough to use them. But I will say that if we do use nukes--even in response to a WMD attack--our legitimacy in the world will be over, and we will see hardening of strategical alliances aimed at thwarting the US.

Generally speaking, I think the US has to act with more restraint. We should always have the largest, most technologically advanced military in the world, but we should be more conservative in using it in overwhelming force.

I'm part Pat Buchanan on this one: fight the war on terror, but take a minimalist approach with our cold-war holdovers like Korea, Taiwan, etc.

I also think we should institute a draft for border security. Instead of getting called up to go to Iraq or North Korea, you go to the southern or northern states and catch terrorists.

PRAY FOR AMERICA.

[Norm640]

We don't even know the accuracy of such a report. From everywhere there are speculative reports that mean little except drive up anxiety. For example, how many of you actually believe that Washington would have told the Russian military that it plans to invade in February and that it is only going into Iraq for oil (that Hussein is a pretext?)?

Yet that is what Reuters faithfully reported.

It makes us look bad, but that's the media for ya: they have a clear agenda, and it is even more pronounced from the countries that hate us.

[Happy2BMe]

"We have always reserved the right to respond, in kind, to any WMD attack."

Yeah, but look who "WE" are (President Bush).

How do you suppose "WE" would be handling this if "WE" were Gore/Lieberman?

And how would the press be doling out hate, distrust, and division on them?

[taildragger]

"It sends a message to the rest of the world that the US are the bad guys"

Byron, Sorta of,

Look what it took to take regimes such as Nazi Germany and Japan to give up there lust for power and inhuman treatment of non-combatants, (The Holocaust for example) as well as prisoners of war. We had to Bomb the living shit out of Dresden and use 2 Nukes.

If that whats it takes to wake up the Islamifacist them so be it. It seems the history of mandkind is filled with madmen that bring about horror that it is unconceivable. It takes men of good will who truly hate evil and understand how precious liberty is, to proceed with courage and retaliate with unrelenting force to vanquish these madmen.

[Happy2BMe]

"The nation that uses nukes in a first strike will be the world's pariah. And any U.S. President that orders it will be politically dead...if not impeached."

Uh- Hum!

Can you say H-I-R-O-S-H-I-M-A?

Was THAT president impeached?

Oh, and BTW, nuclear latitude was given to field commanders during Desert Storm for use in WMD retaliation.

This time out will be no different.

[Dan Day]

This report is bogus. You don't win wars with nukes.

*cough*Japan*cough*

[Happy2BMe]

"We had to Bomb the living shit out of Dresden and use 2 Nukes."

Actually, the heat generated from the white phosphorous bombs (tens of thousands on Dresden alone) amounted to a nuclear blast.

These military actions were necessary to save American and allied lives.

Very few adults today can comprehend that this type of force was deemed absolutely necessary and appropriate response for the alternative - Nazi domination of the entire world.

This time around, Islam has decided it want to own all the real estate.

[DBrow]

"We already have an EMT/Electromagnetic Pulse bomb that will destroy every computer and electronic circut in Baghdad and make it inoperable for the next 1,000
years..I would use that first!"

And permanently disable the two desktop and three laptop machines in Bagdad? A waste of resources, IMO (LOL).

The graphite fiber stuff that shorts out substations is better, in a lightbulb technology.

[Happy2BMe]

Byron_the_Aussie . . "It sends a message to the rest of the world that the US are the bad guys."

Ya, right - And what message did the awful, awful, evil, wicked United States get on 9/11/01 there buddy?

Does This Ring A Bell?

BTW: When was the last time Sydney's tallest buildings were blown out of the sky and over 3,000 Aussies were killed in one fell-swoop?

[DBrow]

The B61-11 is a rehash of an older US warhead toughened up to withstand earth penetration. It has a dial-a-yield capability of between .3 and 300 kilotons depending on how it is set up and configured.

The OKC bomb was about .004 kilotons.

[Howlin]

Well, there is that......LOL.

Not today though; imagine what would come after.

[Rain-maker]

Headlines we'd rather see:

 

Dept. of Defense Uses Baghdad Buster

 

[Kozak]

Also, we have had a "Respond in Kind" policy for the use of WMD for years. You use a WMD on us, we drop a nuke on you - quid pro quo.

Yup. Remember our Wing Commander discussing what we would do if our base was hit by Soviet chemical attack. Started talking all about how we would decontam, opperate etc. Then stopped and said " shit boys, they toss us a chemical scud and we hang the "silver bombs" on the F-4's and send them the Bright White Light..."
That got him a standing O from the pilots.

[Centurion2000]

You would basically start WWIII.

WWIII started on 9/11/2001