Bush approves nuclear response

Washington Times ^ | 1/31/03 | Nicholas Kralev

[kattracks]

A classified document signed by President Bush specifically allows for the use of nuclear weapons in response to biological or chemical attacks, apparently changing a decades-old U.S. policy of deliberate ambiguity, it was learned by The Washington Times.

"The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force

[txhurl]

No, no, no. No nukes.

Dude, the EMP- and carbon filament-type stuff is much cleaner, and at least as devastating, yet with no unnecessary destruction of terra firma.

[Orion78]

Report: Military Plans Nuke Hits on 7 Countries (3/9/02)

[sneakypete]

Smart idea. Very smart, I like it!

I don't. We lose the moral high ground when we are the first ones to resort to using WMD,and the terrorists would make VERY effective propoganda out of this to justify them using WMD in attacks on US cities. Let THEM be the first ones to use these methods,and us be the last ones.

[Orion78]

Nuclear experts warn against implementation of START II Treaty and US Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament (2/6/01)
Russian Defector Warns US against Planned Unilateral Disarmament Measures (7/19/01)

[Orion78]

DoD News: Special Briefing on the Nuclear Posture Review (1/15/02)

[sneakypete]

Memo to the people of Baghdad: Get out now, while there is still time

The problem is they can't. The only ones who have the means and the ability to do this are the elites whose conduct over the years is bringing this about. You can believe they are already sending or making plans to send their children and other relatives to places like France,Spain,or other safe havens,leaving the innocents to do all the suffering and dying.

[ImphClinton]

I understand we have a bunker buster nuke. This would have worked great in Afganistan. It produces very little above ground radiation.

There could be some use for these in Iraq at certin palaces.

I would hope we would use them if Sadam uses any WMD. We might just take him and his family out.

[justa-hairyape]

If our troops are committed to the battlefield, to enforce the cease fire conditions from the first Gulf War, and Saddam starts lobbing Biological and/or Chemical weapons on them, tactical nuke strikes on everyone of his palaces and everyone of his bunkers should be an automatic. This would be the most humane thing to do for our troops and the Iraqi people. Think of the damage that Saddams firing of chemical and biological weapons at our troops will also have to the citizens of Iraq

We should also assume that any biological and/or chemical attack on the home soil of any of the Nations United in the physical enforcement of the terms of Saddams previous gulf war surrender, that occurs during our military actions to enforce the surrender terms, is related to the military actions against Saddam. Such chemical and biological attacks should also be responded to with the tactical nuking of every single one of Saddams Palaces and his bunkers.

[Lion's Cub]

The only ones who have the means and the ability to do this are the elites whose conduct over the years is bringing this about. You can believe they are already sending or making plans to send their children and other relatives to places like France,Spain,or other safe havens,leaving the innocents to do all the suffering and dying

I think the point here is that we might use them to take out known stores of WMDs. If these happen to be under buildings occupied by civilians, I suspect we would send some special ops or members of the resistance in to evacuate them before the weapons hit.

[Dark Knight]

If God Hadn't Wanted Fully Automatic Weapons, He Wouldn't Have Made All Those Armadillos!

ROFLMAO

DK

[NetValue]

"Memo to the people of Baghdad: Get out now, while there is still time."

Get him out now, while there is still time!

[snopercod]

I think that the public needed to be reminded of the policy considering the that - in response to a CBR attack - the previous administration would have held an encounter group and sat around a campfire in the destert singing Kum-ba-ya with the Iraqis.

[snopercod]

We lose the moral high ground...

I think you might want to consider whether not responding to a CBR attack with the best weapons in our arsenal is moral or not.

Morarality is the third branch of philosopy, and is simply the sum total of the decisions people make to achieve "the good".

Now ask yourself whether allowing American soldiers to die to maintain your image is moral.

[ASA Vet]

the threat of a nuke in response is an awfully big hammer.

This enemy doesn't respond to threats. They only respond to actual action.
It's like telling someone that's pestering you, "stop, or I'll punch you in the nose."
If you repeat it enough times, they will not believe you, because a threat doesn't hurt.

[metesky]

I agree with you, sir. The countries that sponsor the terrorist scum and asymetrical warfare have always depended on our being duped into believing that the terror groups are unaffiliated and amorphous. If they think the hammer can and will drop on them, they will rapidly rethink their options.

Unless they really do have a death wish.

[Nayt2]

...unless there was a scandal to deflect attention from.

[kabar]

Secretary Baker conveyed a similar message to Iraq prior to the Gulf War letting them know that any WMD attack us would be met with devastating force including the use of nuclear weapons. Just a shot across the bow to let them know what the consequences will be should they be foolish enough to launch a chem/bio attack. North Korea should also heed this message.

[ASA Vet]

(initials NK or P) ?

Ok, I give up, the North Korea reference is easy, but I can't think of a "P" nation which is a threat.