Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if the Terrorists bomb us with a Weapon of Mass Destruction???

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What if the Terrorists bomb us with a Weapon of Mass Destruction???



    BUSH APPROVES NUCLEAR RESPONSE

    January 31, 2003

    By Nicholas Kralev
    THE WASHINGTON TIMES


    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. Top Stories

    "The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force — including potentially nuclear weapons — to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies," the document, National Security Presidential Directive 17, set out on Sept. 14 last year.

    A similar statement is included in the public version of the directive, which was released Dec. 11 as the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction and closely parallels the classified document. However, instead of the phrase "including potentially nuclear weapons," the public text says, "including through resort to all of our options."

    A White House spokesman declined to comment when asked about the document last night and neither confirmed nor denied its existence.

    A senior administration official said, however, that using the words "nuclear weapons" in the classified text gives the military and other officials, who are the document's intended audience, "a little more of an instruction to prepare all sorts of options for the president," if need be.

    The official, nonetheless, insisted that ambiguity remains "the heart and soul of our nuclear policy."

    In the classified version, nuclear forces are designated as the main part of any U.S. deterrent, and conventional capabilities "complement" the nuclear weapons.

    "Nuclear forces alone ... cannot ensure deterrence against [weapons of mass destruction] and missiles," the original paragraph says. "Complementing nuclear force with an appropriate mix of conventional response and defense capabilities, coupled with effective intelligence, surveillance, interdiction and domestic law-enforcement capabilities, reinforces our overall deterrent posture against [weapons of mass destruction] threats."

    Before it released the text publicly, the White House changed that same paragraph to: "In addition to our conventional and nuclear response and defense capabilities, our overall deterrent posture against [weapons of mass destruction] threats is reinforced by effective intelligence, surveillance, interdiction and domestic law-enforcement capabilities."

    The classified document, a copy of which was shown to The Washington Times, is known better by its abbreviation NSPD 17, as well as Homeland Security Presidential Directive 4.

    The disclosure of the classified text follows newspaper reports that the planning for a war with Iraq focuses on using nuclear arms not only to defend U.S. forces but also to "pre-empt" deeply buried Iraqi facilities that could withstand conventional explosives.

    For decades, the U.S. government has maintained a deliberately vague nuclear policy, expressed in such language as "all options open" and "not ruling anything in or out." As recently as last weekend, Bush administration officials used similar statements in public, consciously avoiding the word "nuclear."

    "I'm not going to put anything on the table or off the table," White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. said on NBC's "Meet the Press," adding that the United States will use "whatever means necessary" to protect its citizens and the world from a "holocaust."

    But in the paragraphs marked "S" for "secret," the Sept. 14 directive clearly states that nuclear weapons are part of the "overwhelming force" that Washington might use in response to a chemical or biological attack.

    Former U.S. officials and arms control experts with knowledge of policies of the previous administrations declined to say whether such specific language had been used before, for fear of divulging classified information. But they conceded that differences exist.

    "This shows that there is a somewhat greater willingness in this administration to use a nuclear response to other [non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction] attacks, although that's not a wholesale departure from previous administrations," one former senior official said.

    Even a slight change can make a big difference. Because it is now "official policy, it means that the United States will actively consider the nuclear option" in a military conflict, said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association.

    "This document is far more explicit about the use of nuclear weapons to deter and possibly defeat biological and chemical attacks," he said. "If someone dismisses it, that would question the entire logic of the administration's national security strategy against [weapons of mass destruction]."

    Mr. Kimball said U.S. nuclear weapons "should only be used to deter nuclear attacks by others."

    A senior official who served in the Clinton administration said there would still have to be a new evaluation before any decision was made on the use of nuclear weapons.

    "What this document means is that they have thought through the consequences, including in the abstract, but it doesn't necessarily prejudge any specific case."

    Baker Spring, a national security fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said the classified language "does not undermine the basic posture of the deterrent and does not commit the United States to a nuclear response in hypothetical circumstances. In a classified document, you are willing to be more specific what the policy is, because people in the administration have to understand it for planning purposes."

    Both former officials and arms control analysts say that making the classified text public might raise concerns among Washington's allies but has little military significance. On the other hand, they note, the nuclear deterrent has little value if a potential adversary does not know what it can expect.

    They agree that there must have been "good reasons" for the White House to have "cleaned up" the document before releasing it. They speculated on at least three:

    Although responding to a non-nuclear attack by nuclear weapons is not banned by international law, existing arms-control treaties call for a "proportionate response" to biological and chemical attacks. The question is, one former official said, whether any nuclear response is proportionate to any non-nuclear attack.

    Second, naming nuclear weapons specifically flies in the face of the "negative security assurances" that U.S. administrations have given for 25 years. Those statements, while somewhat modified under different presidents, essentially have said the United States will not use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state unless that state attacks it together with a nuclear ally.

    Finally, publicly and explicitly articulating a policy of nuclear response can hurt the international nonproliferation regime, which the United States firmly supports. That sets a bad example for countries such as India and Pakistan and gives rogue states an incentive to develop their own nuclear capabilities.

    William M. Arkin, a military analyst, wrote in the Los Angeles Times earlier this week that the Bush administration's war planning "moves nuclear weapons out of their long-established special category and lumps them in with all the other military options."

    Mr. Arkin quoted "multiple sources" close to the preparations for a war in Iraq as saying that the focus is on "two possible roles for nuclear weapons: attacking Iraqi facilities located so deep underground that they might be impervious to conventional explosives; and thwarting Iraq's use of weapons of mass destruction."

    He cited a Dec. 11 memorandum from Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to Mr. Bush, asking for authority to place Adm. James O. Ellis Jr., chief of the U.S. Strategic Command, in charge of the full range of "strategic" warfare options.
    NSPD 17 appears to have upgraded nuclear weapons beyond the traditional function as a nuclear deterrent.

    "This is an interesting distinction," Mr. Spring said. "There is an acknowledgment up front that under the post-Cold War circumstances, deterrence in the sense we applied it during the Cold War is not as reliable. I think it's accurate."


  • #2
    Who are we going to nuke?

    Here is once again our genius President and his right-wing extremist henchmen(and women) backpeddaling on decades of anti-nuclear effort. What was all the money Reagan spent on our behalf for? I thought the Cold War was over. Now we are about to start again!

    This article means to say that the US, with all its technological military might, able to reach and touch somebody all the way across the World, has to go back to the nuclear red button on the account of an act of an foreign extremist group, or even nation? Why!!!

    We are talking about nuclear weapons! Remember: mushroom cloud, spreading radiation, long-lasting chaine-link effects on food, water, environment.

    Is Bush really so desperate, is the situation really so dire that might require a response beyond what we are capable of by conventional means.

    Oppenheimer said after he designed, built and detonated the first atomic weapon in NM: "I have become God, the destroyer of Worlds." Sounds like someone else is itching to echo the same words.

    What if this policy was in place when the WTC was destroyed and the Pentagon attacked...Who would we have nuked?

    José

    Comment


    • #3
      Hey, Jibaro

      Why are you so obsessed with war? No offense here, but why are you always posting these silly cartoons that depicts destruction? Doesn't your religion teaches you to hate this stuff and to talk about peace instead? I don't understand. What does your religion teach about all this, anyway?

      Comment


      • #4
        Joey, if you can't swim, don't jump in a deep pool!

        What this document makes clear is that if our troops are again attacked with NERVE GAS, like back in the Gulf War, we may/will use our Tactical Nukes.

        Second, there are underground bunkers in Iraq a mile deep, so we WILL use megaton bunkbusters, PERIOD.

        Third, much to the dismay of China , Kim-Young-
        mentally_ILL must be aware that if/when he sends his million-man army in a suicide mission upon Seoul, they will be INCINERATED before they reach that city and so will all the places that pose a nuclear threat to South Korea and Japan:We will not wait around for that Kim-Young-mentally_ILL idiot to incinerate Tokyo.

        That Joey, is the new reality that was forced down our throats on a peaceful September 11, 2001 morning.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Hey, Jibaro

          [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tita_74
          [B]Why are you so obsessed with war? No offense here, but why are you always posting these silly cartoons that depicts destruction? Doesn't your religion teaches you to hate this stuff and to talk about peace instead? I don't understand. What does your religion teach about all this, anyway?

          _______________________________________________________________

          Dear Jibaro: Since you are so obsessed with war, I don't blame you because after all that is the society you are enamored with, violent, ruthless and dedicated to making sure "no millionaire is left behind during times of war. But if they, los "they" que sean, throw a nuke (weapon of mass destruction) at your homeland, I suggest you kiss your family goodbye and blame George Bush, alias Matojito Jr. for your good fortune.

          Basta Ya with all that whinning.

          Paz Para Vieques

          Yautia

          Comment


          • #6
            You are right Tita. And so is Yautia....El Jib has a nukey brain problem

            Tita 74,
            You said it all El Jibaro posts constantly things of violent destruction death and nuclear destruction instead of prayer and peace and saving souls for Jesus. BY THEIR FRUITS you shall know them. What do we know on this board from El Jib? Peace? Love? Prayer? Acceptance? Caring and respect for mothers and daughters and families? No. So we are forced to conclude he is a total hipocrite as a Christian with zero to the left credibility factor. We can draw no other conclusion.

            SUKI

            Comment


            • #7
              Sorry you too have the Angry Alcapurria trait...

              Anyway, you can howl at the moon all you want, and you can hate me all you want:
              • I will still not hate you, nor your Mom!


              Now, the way I feel about Saddam is the same way I feel about Adolph Hitler: they are both enemies of humanity and both evil to the core.

              Go ahead, defend Saddam and the Mentally-ILL guy in North Korea, as far as I am concerned, your anger and your post-menopausal Mom's lack of love are not threats to me and my family, only your bosses in Havana-Baghdad-Pingpong are .


              I love being a simple hillbilly!


              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Sorry you too have the Angry Alcapurria trait...

                Originally posted by El_Jibaro
                Anyway, you can howl at the moon all you want, and you can hate me all you want:
                • I will still not hate you, nor your Mom!


                El Jibaro: I think you are so bad at apologizing that it comes out as an insult. You should practice sincere contrition more.

                Now, the way I feel about Saddam is the same way I feel about Adolph Hitler: they are both enemies of humanity and both evil to the core.

                Suki: Who is defending Saddam? Are you crazy El Jib? What we are against is all the innocent lives that are going to feel the repercussions of all this. War is horrible for Iraq and for the USA. It means more starvation,more death and more destruction. For everyone. Both US people and IRaqi people. Feeling enthusiastic about dead bodies piling up (no matter of what ideological persuasion is horrible)!! And the way you talk about it El Jib you sound like an enthusiast for war instead of a sincere Pentecostal Christian. You are a hypocrite!! No hay nada mas que decir.

                Go ahead, defend Saddam and the Mentally-ILL guy in North Korea, as far as I am concerned, your anger and your post-menopausal Mom's lack of love are not threats to me and my family, only your bosses in Havana-Baghdad-Pingpong are .

                Suki: How you pin Saddam north korea and me making threats to your family all convoluted makes me think you are suffering mentally Jibaro. See your pastor and do some praying and repenting. My mother has lack of love? You are really a low life Jibaro. You are low very very low. Since you will never have the privelege of knowing her....you will never know how shameful and false such a sentence is Jib. You are the person who lacks love and has serious hangups. Since I don't mention other people's families I won't comment about what rumors there are about your own family. I don't go there.


                I love being a simple hillbilly!


                Suki: Simpleton is right. And a more war fixated, destructive celebrating death and destruction bent individual it is hard put to find on pr.com. Quoting Yautia "where are your jibaro credentials?" You don't demonstrate honesty, orgullo en puertorriquenidad, ni tampoco humildad. Carencias jibaras es lo que tienes.

                Suki

                Comment


                • #9
                  Expain something to me, Jibaro

                  What does the Bible say about a Christian's conduct? Should he/she insult others just for the fun of it, and should he/she be obsessed with war? What does the Bible say about showing love and kindness to people? Is name-calling showing love?

                  If you can't or won't answer these questions, then why call yourself a Christian? You know exactly what the Bible says about it, and since you claim to be a Christian, then you must follow what the Bible says.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Uncle Tom

                    Uncle Tom. You are a tail. It was ok for Iraq to use its weapons of mass destruction on Iran, right? Tell us, how many slaves do you have?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Expain something to me, Jibaro

                      Originally posted by Tita_74
                      What does the Bible say about a Christian's conduct? Should he/she insult others just for the fun of it, and should he/she be obsessed with war? What does the Bible say about showing love and kindness to people? Is name-calling showing love?

                      If you can't or won't answer these questions, then why call yourself a Christian? You know exactly what the Bible says about it, and since you claim to be a Christian, then you must follow what the Bible says.
                      • JESUS said: "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces."
                      • - Matthew 7:6


                      http://I am extremely sorry for givi...pearls on you!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        SACRED?????

                        What sacred thing are you talking about, insults? If you call that sacred then something IS indeed mentally wrong with you.

                        You're constantly putting down other religions and calling people stupid names for not agreeing with you. You accuse us of HATING you because we disagree with your comments, when in fact, no one ever said they hated you.

                        You never answer my question on how a Christian should act. Instead, you quote a scripture which has nothing to do with sacred things. That's an insult to God.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X