Bush Signs Papers For Nuclear Strikes

[Grasshopper27]

Today's Washington Times, front page:

"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. While the public version of this document refers to nuclear capabilities only as part of U.S. deterrent, in this classified version nuclear forces are designated as THE MAIN part of the detterent with conventional capabilities complementing nucelar weapons.

A White House spokesman declined to comment about the document and neither confirmed or denied its existence."

Given that Mr Blix and his team(UNMOVIC) can now document that Saddam dropped 13,000 chemical bombs on Iranian forces during their 1980-88 war, I would say that Saddam and his boys have a real fondness for spraying bug juice on their enemies.

Feb 2003 is going to be an interesting month.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030131-27320419.htm

 

[Adul]

damn this is going to gt ugly

 

[iamwiz82]

if we all close our eyes we can pretend Saddam Hussien doesnt have any chemical weapons!





Whoops, thought i was in Europe for a second there.

 

[jahawkin]

Given that Mr Blix and his team(UNMOVIC) can now document that Saddam dropped 13,000 chemical bombs on Iranian forces during their 1980-88 war, I would say that Saddam and his boys have a real fondness for spraying bug juice on their enemies.

Bullsh!t.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

They said a long time ago that if we were attacked with bio/chem weapons, we would use nukes. This is not news.

 

[notfred]

If we shoot nuclear weapons at ANYONE, I think 1) the rest of the world will hate us, even significantly moreso than they do now. 2) Bush will have no chance of reelction in 04.

 

[SoylentGreen]

I think it's fair since bio and small nuclear weapons are about even.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82
if we all close our eyes we can pretend Saddam Hussien doesnt have any chemical weapons!

Whoops, thought i was in Europe for a second there.

LOL!!!

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: notfred
If we shoot nuclear weapons at ANYONE, I think 1) the rest of the world will hate us, even significantly moreso than they do now. 2) Bush will have no chance of reelction in 04.

I disagree...

If Saddam kills thousands or even tens of thousands of US soldiers using weapons of mass destruction and Bush DOESN'T respond with nuclear weapons, he would probably be impeached.

The rest of the civilized world would understand the need to respond with nuclear weapons, if we don't then MAD means nothing.

Hopper

 

[Wag]

Well, you know I heard this on the news, and it sounds very much like a planted story aimed right at Al Qaeda- trying to deter them.
Of course you can't deter a fanatic by upping the rhetoric.

I mean, who is the US going to nuke? The Iraqi army is nothing compared to the US armed forces. Even if they drop a few chemical weapons on them, they have no place worth nuking. Even Bush wouldn't nuke the millions of innocent citizens in Baghdad.

 

[jahawkin]

Now if we could all close our eyes and pretend that Saddam is a threat to the us......


Whoops, I thought I was President Bush, or some other illegitimate jingoistic leader.....

 

[pyonir]

I love how they call it a classified document. Yet the media knows all about it.

 

[Analog]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
Today's Washington Times, front page:

"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. While the public version of this document refers to nuclear capabilities only as part of U.S. deterrent, in this classified version nuclear forces are designated as THE MAIN part of the detterent with conventional capabilities complementing nucelar weapons.

A White House spokesman declined to comment about the document and neither confirmed or denied its existence."

Given that Mr Blix and his team(UNMOVIC) can now document that Saddam dropped 13,000 chemical bombs on Iranian forces during their 1980-88 war, I would say that Saddam and his boys have a real fondness for spraying bug juice on their enemies.

Feb 2003 is going to be an interesting month.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030131-27320419.htm

this is all posturing. why do you think something like this got leaked to the media??????????????????????

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: notfred
If we shoot nuclear weapons at ANYONE, I think 1) the rest of the world will hate us, even significantly moreso than they do now. 2) Bush will have no chance of reelction in 04.

I disagree...

If Saddam kills thousands or even tens of thousands of US soldiers using weapons of mass destruction and Bush DOESN'T respond with nuclear weapons, he would probably be impeached.

The rest of the civilized world would understand the need to respond with nuclear weapons, if we don't then MAD means nothing.

Hopper

Saddam Heusein is not going to kill thousands of US soldiers. In 1991, Saddam had no restrictions on what type of weapons he could have. He did not have to conceal any manufacturing of anything. He was free to make anything he could figure out, and he had a much larger army than he does now. Less than 400 americans died in the gulf war, and I think we could take saddam down even faster this time.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: axiom

I mean, who is the US going to nuke?

They're going to nuke Hot Pockets.

Mmm, make mine pepperoni!

 

[Wag]

Yes, yes. I agree. All this nuclear talk is aimed directly at Al Qaeda and the various terrorist groups who would use an attack on Iraq as a screen to justify more strikes on the US and its allies. Dumb.

 

[Miramonti]

I wonder if there will be any long term international implications of bringing nuclear strikes into 21st century warfare. ehhh, probably not.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
Today's Washington Times, front page:

"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. While the public version of this document refers to nuclear capabilities only as part of U.S. deterrent, in this classified version nuclear forces are designated as THE MAIN part of the detterent with conventional capabilities complementing nucelar weapons.

A White House spokesman declined to comment about the document and neither confirmed or denied its existence."

Given that Mr Blix and his team(UNMOVIC) can now document that Saddam dropped 13,000 chemical bombs on Iranian forces during their 1980-88 war, I would say that Saddam and his boys have a real fondness for spraying bug juice on their enemies.

Feb 2003 is going to be an interesting month.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030131-27320419.htm

Bush's right, why should soldiers be slaughtered by the iraqies; it's our right to respond; moreover, this is a deterient. So it's not a first stike but a deterient and a response to an attack by WMDs.
If you are against this policy, then tell me where you live; because if i punch you then you shouldnt hit back. If you hit back your a hipicrite.

 

[Zebo]

.

.. This is just a little reminder to Saddam and his commanders in the field to think twice about using chemical weapons and what we have if he does. He'll never release them and neither will GW..

Don't sweat it.

 

[snooker]

I though the U.S President has the authority to launch Nuclear strikes regardless. Doesn't he have key codes or something to every Ballistic Missle the U.S has?

 

[Wag]

Heh. What long-term implications could there possibly be? Any country who's seen as a US ally can get nukes whenever they want, regardless of whether the US protests or not. Israel has nuclear weapons and they're much more likely to be take the brunt of an Iraqi assault than the US ever was, and yet you never hear them threatening nuclear retaliation.

Lol. I wonder what what the Bush administration is thinking? This smacks of Bush, Chainey and Rumsfeld. and Collin Powell is probably beside himself on this one.

 

[SuperTool]

Exactly who would we attack with these nuclear weapons? Cities or armies in the field?
I think if we use nukes, it will be terrible from every angle. It will kill the non-proliferation treaty, and give terrorists who want to explode a nuke in the US some more sympathisers in other governments.
We are the invading army. We should protect our troops from chem-bio attacks. If Iraq uses nukes, then we should use nukes.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: notfred
Saddam Heusein is not going to kill thousands of US soldiers. In 1991, Saddam had no restrictions on what type of weapons he could have. He did not have to conceal any manufacturing of anything. He was free to make anything he could figure out, and he had a much larger army than he does now. Less than 400 americans died in the gulf war, and I think we could take saddam down even faster this time.

Saddam didn't use bio or chem weapons last time either. This time, he has no reason not to because if we invade it is to kill him and he knows it.

We're trying to get his commanders to refuse to use them, using the direct threat of a nuclear responce if they do.

Saddam may not care about his people, but we hope some of the field commanders do and will refuse his orders to use bio or chem weapons.

Hopper

 

[Huz]

If Saddam fills his SCUDs with chemical weapons and uses them against us or his neighbors (Israel etc.), Iraq will be nuked back to the stone age and I fully support it. Yes, this is an ugly situation, but he's leaving us with no choice. What do we do, watch as tens of thousands of people writhe in the grips of nerve gas?

 

[Jmman]

Israel doesn't threaten nuclear retaliation, but I can guarantee that if any of those Scud missiles during the gulf war had carried biological or chemical weapons, Baghdad would be glowing right now and we wouldn't have this problem with Saddam. Israel doesn't need to say anything, because it is guaranteed what would happen......