Pentagon Plans Use of Nukes Against Terrorists (4 Viewers)

Zlatan

Senior Member
Jun 9, 2003
23,049
#1
U.S. Nuke Arms Plan Envisions Pre-Emption


WASHINGTON (AP) - A Pentagon planning document being updated to reflect the doctrine of pre-emption declared by President Bush in 2002 envisions the use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies.

The ``Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations,'' which was last updated 10 years ago, makes clear that ``the decision to employ nuclear weapons at any level requires explicit orders from the president.''

But it says that in a changing environment ``terrorists or regional states armed with WMD will likely test U.S. security commitments to its allies and friends.''

``In response, the U.S. needs a range of capabilities to assure friend and foe alike of its resolve,'' says the 69-page document dated March 15.

A Pentagon spokesman said Saturday evening that Navy Cmdr. Dawn Cutler, a public affairs officer for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has issued a statement saying the draft is still being circulated among the various services, field commanders, Pentagon lawyers and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's office, .

Its existence was initially reported by The Washington Post in Sunday editions, which said the document was posted on a Pentagon Internet site and pointed out to it by a consultant for the Natural Resorces Defense Council.

The file was not available at that site Saturday evening, but a copy was available at www.globalsecurity.org.

``A broader array of capability is needed to dissuade states from undertaking ... courses of action that would threaten U.S. and allied security,'' the draft says. ``U.S. forces must pose a credible deterrent to potential adversaries who have access to modern military technology, including WMD and the means to deliver them.''

It says ``deterrence of potential adversary WMD use requires the potential adversary leadership to believe the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective.''

It says ``this will be particularly difficult with nonstate (non-government) actors who employ or attempt to gain use of WMD. Here, deterrence may be directed at states that support their efforts as well as the terrorist organization itself.

``However, the continuing proliferation of WMD along with the means to deliver them increases the probability that someday a state/nonstate actor nation/terrorist may, through miscaluation or by deliberate choice, use those weapons. In such cases, deterrence, even based on the threat of massive destruction, may fail and the United States must be prepared to use nuclear weapons if necessary.''

It notes that U.S. policy has always been purposely vague with regard to when the United States would use nuclear weapons and that it has never vowed not to be the first to use them in a conflict.

One scenario for a possible nuclear pre-emptive strike in the draft would be in the case of an ``imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy.''

The Bush administration is continuing to push for development of an earth-penetrating nuclear warhead, but has yet to obtain congressional approval.

However, the Senate voted in July to revive the ``bunker-buster'' program that Congress last year decided to kill.

Administration officials have maintained that the U.S. needs to try to develop a nuclear warhead that would be capable of destroying deeply buried targets including bunkers tunneled into solid rock.

But opponents said that its benefits are questionable and that such a warhead would cause extensive radiation fallout above ground killing thousands of people. And they say it may make it easier for a future president to decide to use the nuclear option instead of a conventional weapon.

The Senate voted 53-43 to include $4 million for research into the feasibility of a bunker-buster nuclear warhead. Earlier this year, the House refused to provide the money, so a final decision will have to be worked out between the two chambers.



FULL DOCUMENT

---------------



God help us all :sigh:
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
#2
I see we have learnt absolutely nothing from Iraq.

By the by, why not build a nuclear weapon that would blow up the entire planet?
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
115,984
#4
I think Kanye West's quote sums up this document...

"Whatever comes first I'll be prepared for the worst, whatever comes second I'll be there with my weapon."

This sounds like just a protective measure and a "scare tactic," and unless another country has detonated a nucler bomb in the US obviously you don't have to worry about our government blowing up half the world.
 
Mar 6, 2005
6,223
#5
++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++
I think Kanye West's quote sums up this document...

"Whatever comes first I'll be prepared for the worst, whatever comes second I'll be there with my weapon."

This sounds like just a protective measure and a "scare tactic," and unless another country has detonated a nucler bomb in the US obviously you don't have to worry about our government blowing up half the world.
Breathe in Breathe out?
 
Mar 6, 2005
6,223
#7
++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++
You got it buddy. One of the best rap pieces in history.
You got that right..! :thumb:

That song, along with Slow Jamz (Kanye West Album Version [there's a huge difference from the single]), are my two fav songs from the college dropout... :cool:
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
115,984
#8
My favorite tracks on College Dropout are "Get Em High" and the one that goes "Drug dealin just to get by, stack ya money till it gets sky high." Two of the sickest songs I have ever heard.

And by the way, you should pickup Kanye's latest CD Late Registration...it's another amazing album. He's one of the best rappers in the game...ever.
 
Mar 6, 2005
6,223
#9
++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++
My favorite tracks on College Dropout are "Get Em High" and the one that goes "Drug dealin just to get by, stack ya money till it gets sky high." Two of the sickest songs I have ever heard.
"We Don't Care" ;)
And by the way, you should pickup Kanye's latest CD Late Registration...it's another amazing album. He's one of the best rappers in the game...ever.
I'm waiting for it to hit the stores here.. Man they're getting so late with the orders here.. :down:

and, Yeah, I believe Kanye West revolutionised and revitalized a dying genre.. :D
 
OP

Zlatan

Senior Member
Jun 9, 2003
23,049
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #10
    ++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++
    I think Kanye West's quote sums up this document...

    "Whatever comes first I'll be prepared for the worst, whatever comes second I'll be there with my weapon."

    This sounds like just a protective measure and a "scare tactic," and unless another country has detonated a nucler bomb in the US obviously you don't have to worry about our government blowing up half the world.

    With this administartion in office we do and you should.
     

    Tom

    The DJ
    Oct 30, 2001
    11,726
    #11
    The only one that knew what he was doing, Colin Powell ain't there anymore to give any decent advice to that moron of a president, so god only knows what he'll try to do next. Thankfully he's only got 3-4 years left in office - touch wood nothing happens by then.
     

    Slagathor

    Bedpan racing champion
    Jul 25, 2001
    22,708
    #12
    One scenario for a possible nuclear pre-emptive strike in the draft would be in the case of an "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy.''
    There is truth to that. Sadly modern science has managed to develop biological and chemical weapons so fierce, only nuclear weapons can destroy them.

    Ain't that pretty :lazy:
     

    Vinman

    2013 Prediction Cup Champ
    Jul 16, 2002
    11,482
    #13
    I have a hard time believing that they are committed to this plan

    I mean, god forbid Al Queda unleashed a suitcase nuke within our country, who do we go after ???

    Al Queda isnt isolated to just 1 country, they are spread out everywhere (including here !!),and come from many different countries- Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, Pakistan, etc, etc.... so can you see the US hitting, lets say, Iran, just for the hell of it ???

    I think its just a scare tactic, so that the leaders of governments allied/connected to Al Queda put pressure on them to cease their operations (like that will happen), or face being attacked by the USA (which also wont happen)
     
    OP

    Zlatan

    Senior Member
    Jun 9, 2003
    23,049
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #15
    ++ [ originally posted by Vinman ] ++

    Al Queda isnt isolated to just 1 country, they are spread out everywhere (including here !!),and come from many different countries- Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, Pakistan, etc, etc.... so can you see the US hitting, lets say, Iran, just for the hell of it ???

    Few saw the US attacking Iraq for the hell of it but that still happened...
     

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    Mar 16, 2004
    115,984
    #16
    ++ [ originally posted by Zlatan ] ++



    Few saw the US attacking Iraq for the hell of it but that still happened...
    Attacking Iraq and starting thermonuclear war is not exactly the same thing, Zlatan. You must really think our government is absolutely mad...almost to a point of hilarity.
     

    Vinman

    2013 Prediction Cup Champ
    Jul 16, 2002
    11,482
    #18
    ++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++


    Attacking Iraq and starting thermonuclear war is not exactly the same thing, Zlatan. You must really think our government is absolutely mad...almost to a point of hilarity.
    thats about what I was going to say....
     

    jaecole

    Senior Member
    Apr 7, 2005
    3,017
    #19
    ++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++


    Attacking Iraq and starting thermonuclear war is not exactly the same thing, Zlatan. You must really think our government is absolutely mad...almost to a point of hilarity.
    Not really, it's just an advancement in weapons. Just another weapon.
     
    OP

    Zlatan

    Senior Member
    Jun 9, 2003
    23,049
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #20
    ++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++


    Attacking Iraq and starting thermonuclear war is not exactly the same thing, Zlatan. You must really think our government is absolutely mad...almost to a point of hilarity.

    Pretty much so, yes.
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 3)