• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

U.S. drops longstanding no nuke use against non-nuke powers policy

glenn1

glenn1

Lifer
Story link

The Bush administration is no longer standing by a 24-year-old U.S. pledge not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, a senior administration official said yesterday.

Washington is "not looking for occasions to use" its nuclear arsenal, John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, said in an interview. But "we would do whatever is necessary to defend America's innocent civilian population," he said.

In case of an attack on the United States, "we would have to do what is appropriate under the circumstances, and the classic formulation of that is, we are not ruling anything in and we are not ruling anything out," Mr. Bolton said. "We are just not into theoretical assertions that other administrations have made," he said in reference to a 1978 commitment by the Carter administration not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states unless they attack the United States in alliance with nuclear-armed countries.

On June 12 that year, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance made the following statement on behalf of President Carter, which became known as "negative security assurances":


 
Interesting article. It sounds like the administration's intent is to put together a statement saying "we will not use weapons of mass destruction against any country or organization that does not use them against us." Sounds fair and reasonable in the current world situation, but hey, my opinion is worth what you paid for it.
 
Yeah!!!! Start with the most evil countries first..........Canada, then Mexico!!!! Then move on to the less evil countries like N. Korea.😎
 
It's been longstanding US policy that anyone that uses ANY WMD against the US, will be responded to by the US with a WMD. Since we only use nukes that would be the response. This statement just solidifies that the US maintains the right to use its nukes. I also think the Administration is expect some type of attack using a WMD within the next few years.
 
Wouldn't 4 large passenger airplanes filled to the brim with highly volatile jet fuel launched at major metropolis's meet the definition of weapons of mass destruction?
 
I thought we would use nukes in response to biological or chemical weapons, not just nukes?

😕
 
Nukes should never ever be used, because if they were supposed to be used there would most likely be much higher civilian casualty count than of those in the militery.
 


<< Nukes should never ever be used, because if they were supposed to be used there would most likely be much higher civilian casualty count than of those in the militery. >>



yeah that would be like ramming a passenger plane into the tallest building in New York..

or strapping a bomb to your chest, going to the mall of your enemy and seeing how many women and children you can kill when you blow yourself up..
 


<<

<< Nukes should never ever be used, because if they were supposed to be used there would most likely be much higher civilian casualty count than of those in the militery. >>



yeah that would be like ramming a passenger plane into the tallest building in New York..

or strapping a bomb to your chest, going to the mall of your enemy and seeing how many women and children you can kill when you blow yourself up.. >>


exactly, except that nukes are ALOT worse
 
Yeah, that's what I said.

WMD = Weapon of Mass Destruction



<< I thought we would use nukes in response to biological or chemical weapons, not just nukes?

😕 >>

 
Actually Czar - you're right and you're wrong.

City busters - big ICBM's are worse because of the mass scale. But, the amount of damage inflicted to the WTC was the equivalent of that caused by a tactical nuclear weapon.

Terrorists, which are supported by the sh!tbag countries, use alternative WMD's that are capable of inflicting far more widespread damage than even some nukes.

Does it really matter whether a nuke was used if the damage inflicted is the same?

Are you saying that we should respond with conventional weapons or even diplomacy?
 
advocate,
In some way you are also right and also wrong😉

It is true that the destruction scale of the WTC crash could be about equal to a very small nuke (i dont have a clue realy), but the "destructive force" was the building itself so to get that desrtuctive force you would have to a pick a target like the WTC. With nukes you can bring that "destructive force" to any place you want.

Ever since Hiroshima nukes have been something forbidden to use, it has been unthinkable unless as a last resort and every country in the world has been tryint to stop that "last resort" opertunity from happening. When the next nuke goes off this stopping force will be gone and using nukes will no longer be "forbidden". Reason for that is that the often used kindergarden logic "if he did it then why cant I".
 
), but the "destructive force" was the building itself so to get that desrtuctive force you would have to a pick a target like the WTC

No, you're wrong again. The destructive force of the plane and the fuel was calculated to be equivalent to a low yield nuclear weapon. That calculation has nothing to do with the buildings falling. It's much the same with a large conventional bomb like the 15,000lb BLU-72 which has destructive force comparable to small nuclear bombs.
 
What happenned on Sept 11 2001 isn't equal to a nuclear weapon in any respect. 6,000 dead( I don't buy the current 2,800 something count) isn't 2,000,000 dead. Picture the aftermath of Sept 11 2001 and and cover it over NYC.

I hold the CIA totally responsible for Sept 11.

 
What do you mean you don't buy the 2800 count?



<< What happenned on Sept 11 2001 isn't equal to a nuclear weapon in any respect. 6,000 dead( I don't buy the current 2,800 something count) isn't 2,000,000 million dead. Picture the aftermath of Sept 11 2001 and and cover it over NYC. >>

 


<< What do you mean you don't buy the 2800 count?



<< What happenned on Sept 11 2001 isn't equal to a nuclear weapon in any respect. 6,000 dead( I don't buy the current 2,800 something count) isn't 2,000,000 million dead. Picture the aftermath of Sept 11 2001 and and cover it over NYC. >>

 >>



It is an impossibly low number conisdering how many people worked in the buildings, were in them when they went down. Sort of like the magic bullet concept in the JFK death. I think the gov't did everything it could to lower the death count.
 


<< I hold the CIA totally responsible for Sept 11. >>



Just curious, but do you mean responsible by way of negligence (not knowing of/giving advance warning of the attack), or by active agency (they actually directed/assisted the attack in some form) ?



 


<< "we will not use weapons of mass destruction against any country or organization that does not use them against us." >>

I was hoping more for a statement along the lines of "if we have to bury a couple thousands of our citizens again because of a terrorist attack, some country is going to inherit a very large parking lot...maybe we'll build a shopping mall there after a few thousand years."
 


<< I was hoping more for a statement along the lines of "if we have to bury a couple thousands of our citizens again because of a terrorist attack, some country is going to inherit a very large parking lot...maybe we'll build a shopping mall there after a few thousand years." >>



Amen to that.
 
Don't worry guys, we can still pump oil through glass. 😀






By the way, that was a joke, even if it was in very poor taste.




<< Ever since Hiroshima nukes have been something forbidden to use... >>



I think some people in Nagasaki would disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top