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 and posted on a Pentagon web site. 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. "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. [/b]"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.
So if Iran unwittingly had terrorists in its midst, we could go ahead and nuke them?
twoply
Only Built 4 Manzanita Links 2,917 Posts
Comments
Terrorists, liberals, you know. Only those deserving.
Yeah but the nucular bomb is different.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS TRUTH
If 6 Was 9.......
Yeah, what I got off of wikipedia is this:
An atomic bomb refers to a nuclear weapon that uses fission as the source of its energy.
Most modern nuclear weapons though use fusion instead because the reaction is far more potent and destructive. These were once known, now anachronistically, as hydrogen bombs.
Not to mention the use of WMDs to prevent the use of WMDs. How can Joe American not make this connection and see the U.S. executive branch as the terrorist organization it is? The "Shock and Awe" strategy was an attempt to instill fear in the hearts of the Iraqis so they'd just bend over for us. Is the strategic cultivation of fear through the use of massive violence not more simply referred to as terrorism?
Now the nukes.
Well my powerful leaders, what you reap is what you sow.
I'd venture that the strategic considerations underlying these policies are equally, if not more so, driven by concerns about China and other emerging powers than Middle Eastern states like Iran .. again though, this is not a new influence of American foreign policy
The Iraq situation is an appropriate example. Never were the "WMDs" an issue at all. That whole story was simply used to justify the attack. Fact is, with the global demand for oil skyrocketing, the Bush boys had to secure "U.S. interests" ... gobble up the Iraqi economy and control the pumps. Let China buy from us, not from the Iraqis. By "us" I mean the 6 people that would actually benefit as the prices for the consumer go up regardless.
Anyway .. the use of violence was justified by using a "pre-emptive strike" scenario. All bullshit of course as there was never a true threat and I'm sure this was known at the highest levels.
So, what's to make anyone believe the next pre-emptive strike story? Isn't it perhaps more likely that the attack will be an offensive one, like in Iraq? Can we truly justify an attack of that magnitude to protect U.S. access to a resource such as oil? (And all this "low level" nuke talk is BS. Those fuckers will kill thousands of people, period.)
Wouldn't it be perhaps more prudent to start promoting the use of biodiesel engines so that a decade or two down the line we can stop fighting over the depleted stocks of oil? No, I'm a fucking hippy for even thinking it. Lets keep the oil wars going ... hell, lets pre-emptively attack China! Fuckers think they can increase their demand for oil and raise prices worldwide! How about shoving some "low level" unobtrusive nukes right up their collective asses! Then we'll start the Water Wars!
yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah football yeah yeah nuclear war yeah yeah yeah yeah reality tv yeah yeah yeah yeah simulacrum yeah yeah yeah John Wayne yeah yeah yeah yeah
Anyway ... back to funk records.
Wouldn't it all be good then?
It's easy. "Set target to Broader Middle East"