U.S. may allow nuke strikes over WMD

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20050502a3.htm
WASHINGTON (Kyodo) The U.S. military is considering allowing regional combatant commanders to request presidential approval for pre-emptive nuclear strikes against possible attacks with weapons of mass destruction on the United States or its allies, according to a draft nuclear operations paper.
The March 15 paper, drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is titled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," providing "guidelines for the joint employment of forces in nuclear operations . . . for the employment of U.S. nuclear forces, command and control relationships, and weapons effect considerations."

"There are numerous nonstate organizations (terrorist, criminal) and about 30 nations with WMD programs, including many regional states," the paper says in recommending that commanders in the Pacific and other theaters be given an option of pre-emptive strikes against "rogue" states and terrorists and "request presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons" under set conditions.

The paper identifies nuclear, biological and chemical weapons as requiring pre-emptive strikes to prevent their use.

Allowing pre-emptive nuclear strikes against possible biological and chemical attacks would effectively contradict a "negative security assurance" policy declared 10 years ago by the Clinton administration during an international conference to review the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Creating a treaty committing nuclear powers not to use nuclear weapons against countries without nuclear weapons remains one of the most contentious issues for the 35-year-old NPT regime.

A Pentagon official said the paper "is still a draft which has to be finalized" but indicated that it is aimed at guiding "cross-spectrum" combatant commanders how to jointly carry out operations based on the Nuclear Posture Review report adopted three years ago by the Bush administration.

Citing North Korea, Iran and some other countries as threats, the report sets out contingencies for which U.S. nuclear strikes must be prepared.

It calls for developing earth-penetrating nuclear bombs to destroy hidden underground military facilities, including those for storing WMD and ballistic missiles.

"The nature (of the paper) is to explain not details but cross spectrum for how to conduct operations," the official said, noting that it "means for all services -- army, navy, air force and marine."

In 1991 after the end of the Cold War, the United States removed its ground-based nuclear weapons in Asia and Europe as well as strategic nuclear warheads on warships and submarines.

But the paper says the U.S. has the capability of reviving sea-based nuclear arms.
Insane...completely and utterly insane these people are.

What purpose would be served by pre-emptively striking again? How in the hell is the rest of the world ever going to trust the U.S. again after the PNAC neocons falsified the intelligence which got us into this useless war in Iraq?

Britain is going to spend 10 billion pounds on new nukes. Rumsfeld says researching earth-penetrating nukes "makes all the sense in the world."


When did we enter Bizarro world and when did Col. Jack Ripper become president?? :Q
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,804
46,630
136
In 1991 after the end of the Cold War, the United States removed its ground-based nuclear weapons in Asia and Europe as well as strategic nuclear warheads on warships and submarines.

Our submarines still cary nuclear warheads. Only the surface ships had them removed.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
It isn't so much that I question the concept of pre-emptive nuclear strikes in cases of imminent attack per se, it's more that I question our ability to judge whether or not we are in danger of imminent attack. Remember, this isn't just a theoretical concept, we have to think about how it will be applied by a group of people who were totally 100% positive Iraq had WMDs and that they would use them. As we all know, they turned out to be totally full of it. So I guess I must be crazy thinking that maybe NUCLEAR pre-emption isn't the greatest idea ever.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: MCWAR
Hooray! We have balls for brains.

Fixed v2.0

Heh, so true.

Reminds me of that James Bond movie where the Defense Minister tells M that she doesn't have the balls for the job. She responds with, "Perhaps, but the advantage is that I don't have to think with them all the time". I always loved that scene :)
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Well, if they use nukes, then they won't have to justify not finding what they claimed was there in the first place... all neat and tidy, one of those accusation as proof "create your own reality" kind of deals...
 

ahurtt

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2001
4,283
0
0
OMFG. . .just. . .OMFG.:( It's a shame God had to create such a unique and beautiful planet in all the universe and put a$$holes in charge of it. This really makes me want to cry.

[EDIT] Wait, why is this article in the Japan Times? What is their source? Is this information published in any American paper?
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
you have to ask yourself Who Would Jesus Bomb?

By:Jhhnn
Well, if they use nukes, then they won't have to justify not finding what they claimed was there in the first place... all neat and tidy, one of those accusation as proof "create your own reality" kind of deals...

You hit the nail on the head.

 

MCWAR

Banned
Jan 13, 2005
197
0
0
You guys are so smart! I just cant figure out why your not running the world by now and not waisting twentyfour hours a day on a political forum.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
The U.S. military is considering allowing regional combatant commanders to request presidential approval for pre-emptive nuclear strikes against possible attacks with weapons of mass destruction on the United States or its allies, according to a draft nuclear operations paper.
So what? This is common sense.
 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
The U.S. military is considering allowing regional combatant commanders to request presidential approval for pre-emptive nuclear strikes against possible attacks with weapons of mass destruction on the United States or its allies, according to a draft nuclear operations paper.
So what? This is common sense.

How is this common sense? My common sense tells me that irradiating large parts of our shared planet is BAD.
 

MCWAR

Banned
Jan 13, 2005
197
0
0
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: MCWAR
Hooray! We have balls.

Amazing. With men like you on our side, it'll be no surprise to me when I wake up dead one day.
You can wake up dead?
With guys like you on our side I am suprised we already havn't.
Woops, I forgot, your not on our side.

 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
12
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
The U.S. military is considering allowing regional combatant commanders to request presidential approval for pre-emptive nuclear strikes against possible attacks with weapons of mass destruction on the United States or its allies, according to a draft nuclear operations paper.
So what? This is common sense.

Not really.

And secondly, this definitely is NOT common sense with the current administration. This whole war in Iraq was a pre-emptive strike. Had this have been passed a few years ago, Iraq would be nuked to sh!t right now.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: ahurtt
OMFG. . .just. . .OMFG.:( It's a shame God had to create such a unique and beautiful planet in all the universe and put a$$holes in charge of it. This really makes me want to cry.

[EDIT] Wait, why is this article in the Japan Times? What is their source? Is this information published in any American paper?
How about the Moonie Times?

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050501-033240-5837r.htm
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
The U.S. military is considering allowing regional combatant commanders to request presidential approval for pre-emptive nuclear strikes against possible attacks with weapons of mass destruction on the United States or its allies, according to a draft nuclear operations paper.
So what? This is common sense.


huh?? I don't know what's worse...the possibility that you might be trolling, or the possibility that you actually believe what you just said.
 

Passions

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2000
6,855
3
0
Originally posted by: MCWAR
You guys are so smart! I just cant figure out why your not running the world by now and not waisting twentyfour hours a day on a political forum.

:thumbsup:

I'd rather trust the President and his top advisors for the direction of our country, than arm-chair politicians on a computer forum. :laugh:
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
The same president that got us into a mess in Iraq that's cost almost 1600 US soldiers their lives and over $160 billion of deficit spending? The same president that pissed away a chance to secure Social Security forever and turned it into an ill-advised tax cut? The same president that's gutted the Roadless Rule, Clean Water, and Clear Skies acts? The same president whose administration has paid its own pundits to act as actual news outlets to spread its propaganda?
 

InfectedMushroom

Golden Member
Aug 15, 2001
1,064
0
0
Originally posted by: Passions
Originally posted by: MCWAR
You guys are so smart! I just cant figure out why your not running the world by now and not waisting twentyfour hours a day on a political forum.

:thumbsup:

I'd rather trust the President and his top advisors for the direction of our country, than arm-chair politicians on a computer forum. :laugh:

Gotta love your blind, idiotic faith. I'm sure you would have trusted Hitler too had you been born in Germany during that time.