Pentagon plans strike-first nuclear policy
Discussion
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon has drawn up a new strategy, built on the 2002 "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive military strikes, that would allow the US to make first use of nuclear weapons to thwart an a WMD attack against the country.
Under the scheme, developed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff but yet to be ratified by Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, commanders would be able to request permission from the President to use nuclear weapons in a variety of scenarios.
According to the Washington Post, one possibility is an enemy that is using, or "is about to use" weapons of mass destruction against US military forces or civilian population.
Oh boy. They sure know how to make us sleep nice and safe don't they??
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10345189
Under the scheme, developed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff but yet to be ratified by Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, commanders would be able to request permission from the President to use nuclear weapons in a variety of scenarios.
According to the Washington Post, one possibility is an enemy that is using, or "is about to use" weapons of mass destruction against US military forces or civilian population.
Oh boy. They sure know how to make us sleep nice and safe don't they??
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10345189
cotty said:
pre-emptive military strikes, that would allow the US to make first use of nuclear weapons to thwart an a WMD attack against the country.
If they act pre-emptively how do they know whether weapons are aimed at them
That's the beauty of this policy; the evidence is vaporised!
An alternative way of looking at things is that we may be able to prevent use of WMD’s against people in the west by a pre-emptive strike.
However given the overblown claims for WMD's in Iraq it is doubtful the US could justify another invasion on the basis of intelligence, let alone a Nuclear strike.
However given the overblown claims for WMD's in Iraq it is doubtful the US could justify another invasion on the basis of intelligence, let alone a Nuclear strike.
JagLover said:
An alternative way of looking at things is that we may be able to prevent use of WMD’s against people in the west by a pre-emptive strike.
However given the overblown claims for WMD's in Iraq it is doubtful the US could justify another invasion on the basis of intelligence, let alone a Nuclear strike.
Besides, 'US Intelligence' is an oxymoron.
People didn't mind so much when we were protected from the Soviet Union by them.If the US wants to blow up some thrid rate country then let it go ahead, its not like anyone can stop them. Its only 1 nuclear bomb and probably a small yield as well, (they aren't THAT crazy) it will hardly bring about a nuclear winter. Even if it was North Korea and they managed to launch all 5 or so of their crappy missiles and managed to get them to the US mainland and actually hit a city without being intercepted its still not the end of the world. All that will happen is that everyone in the world will hate the US Government, and since the whole world hates the US anyway what have they got to lose?
Nuggs said:
I suspect that a strike-second nuclear policy wouldn't be so successful...
only if your a tiny country like Singapore. The US could easily afford to take a hit and be able to retaliate. It'd just be like kicking a sleeping bear in the balls, he'll hurt for a few seconds, then you'll hurt a lot more before dying horribly.
Sorry but its a complete non-news news story. They want the ability that "commanders would be able to request permission from the President to use nuclear weapons in a variety of scenarios"...whats stopping them from doing that at the moment, or anytime previously? Lazy, lazy journalism...
AlexH said:
Sorry but its a complete non-news news story. They want the ability that "commanders would be able to request permission from the President to use nuclear weapons in a variety of scenarios"...whats stopping them from doing that at the moment, or anytime previously? Lazy, lazy journalism...
Well its an obscure NZ newspaper and everyone knows how much the NZers love the USA and nulcear weapons.
Still it's fairly well known now that the US has been developing 'smaller' nukes for use in tactical situation like the 'war on terror'.
[quote=Eric Mc I've heard that Al Quaeda plan to put chlorine in the US water supply. quote]
No thats a mistake. The agent in question was actually a bit lower in the periodic table. Its Fluoride. Al Quaeda had a global strategy to improve dental health. They planned to add fluoride to the drinking water in the US, UK, Australia, and Spain.
Bastards
>> Edited by nickw on Thursday 15th September 19:03
No thats a mistake. The agent in question was actually a bit lower in the periodic table. Its Fluoride. Al Quaeda had a global strategy to improve dental health. They planned to add fluoride to the drinking water in the US, UK, Australia, and Spain.
Bastards
>> Edited by nickw on Thursday 15th September 19:03
I assume the vaporised evidence theory makes this tactic rather appealing to USA.
I doubt it would be a cheeky little tactical strike either. It would be the full gun, or none at all. No sense even risking a possible retalliation. Any target would be entierly razed, like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I doubt it would be a cheeky little tactical strike either. It would be the full gun, or none at all. No sense even risking a possible retalliation. Any target would be entierly razed, like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff