Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Oh man, this is not good...........

Have we not learned a damn thing?


***********

Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan
Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 11, 2005; A01



The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.

At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States would "respond with overwhelming force" to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces or allies, and said "all options" would be available to the president.

(clip)

The first example for potential nuclear weapon use listed in the draft is against an enemy that is using "or intending to use WMD" against U.S. or allied, multinational military forces or civilian populations.

Another scenario for a possible nuclear preemptive strike is in case of an "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy."

Better them than us!? ?:yes:

"Gotta nuke somethin'." - Nelson (The Simpsons)

I guess it's better to use the nuclear bomb option for supposed WMD. That way, nobody can ever prove they didn't exist....since there won't be anything but a hole in the ground anyway. ::)

lol

This makes sense. Leave it to nukes to destroy dangerous biological agents. It would be safer to destroy bioweapon labs with nukes than conventional bombs because normal weapons wouldn't destroy all of the bioweapons. It might even be worse, since a plague can kill more than radiation.

We can detect an enemy strike much easier now than even 20 years ago. Preemptive strikes are very possible and very important now that we can pull them off. There's no point for waiting for the enemy to launch his missiles before we launch ours if we can see him arming them beforehand!

I actually do think nuclear weapons are going to far....for now anyway.  But I think there is a happy medium.

The U.S. could so easily fight most of it's wars with air power alone. 

For instance, contrary to the opinions of some, we've been quite generous in Iraq.  We didn't have to put a whole lot of "boots on the ground."

Yea, that is why we are losing over there..... ::)

The Joint Chiefs, being who they are (and what) just may be a little more than behooved to draft such a document, wouldn't you say? And I'd challenge you to challenge that.

As for the imminent or potential use of nukes, I'd say that's highly unlikely. And to think otherwise is to entirely miss the point of DA BOMB in the first place; i.e. the implied threat.*

I'm sorry but all I see here is a thinly veiled political attack that ignores larger issues for the sake of internal political strife.

There's a portent of doom being espoused here, a hint of American conservative pretension being the catalyst for premature or superfluous use of nuclear weapons that's just plain DUM DE DUM DUM...

*Meaning the role of DA BOMB in today's reality.

I think your efforts would have been enhanced with fewer words, and less of them......

Don't go gettin' pissy with me now, I thought we were beyond that.

I'm just calling it like I see it - cheap political maneuvering.

I'll even apologize for how the "dum" comment came off as personal; seeing as how it wasn't.

I'm not getting pissy, I was joking.

Thought we were beyond that (getting pissy).........

I apoologize for seeming pissy, or making that post come off as personal;seeing as how it was not.

Good one.

if america went around nuking countries then they would have to start making nikes and other products themselves...and theyd have no one to borrow money off of :hihi:

Good point.

Who would work for us?

And who would loan us money?

While I have my own opinions on if we are "losing over there" or not, that wasn't the point I was trying to make.

Putting troops on the ground does two things -

1) It lowers civilian casualties that are more easily caused by air power

2) It makes our soldiers more vulnerable to attack

People against the war talk a lot about the Iraqi civilian dead, including inflating statistics.?

Yet the U.S., stictly speaking, didn't have to do it the way they have.? In reality, targets on the ground could be all but obliterated from the air, with troops going in afterwards to very little or no resistance.

Problem is, the enemy's strategy is to hide among civilians.

As a result, and as a means to minimize civilian casualties, we take great risk with our troops.

That is not correct and not why they used ground troops.

But then again, you are not right about much are you?

Good grief Charlie Brown.? I'll try this one more time...

...on second thought, nevermind.

Lost cause.? :P