How do you feel about the administration's plan to use nukes against possible terrorist or other enemies?

I'm horrified by it.



"Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan
Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 11, 2005; A01

The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.

At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States would "respond with overwhelming force" to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces or allies, and said "all options" would be available to the president."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053_pf.html

I'm horrified by pretty much everything this administration does. They've been talking about this for a while, and even about making "baby nukes" for using to blow up bunkers.

They have "baby nukes" already. Look at the Nike project back in the 1950s. The Nike Hercules could carry a 2-40kiloton nuke. (The Nike project could be considered the forerunner of SDI -- it consisted of putting antiaircraft and antimissile weapons around US cities and military installations.)

I doubt that the current government in the US would ever use a nuclear weapon except in response to a nuclear attack. Its just not worth it, politically. For destroying an area, a conventional bombing run can be just as effective as a nuclear weapon, even back in WWII.

They want to drop nuclear bombs on nuclear bombs? :wall:

We should have turned Fallujah into glass from the get go.

This doens't sound like a very good idea...

We should have turned Fallujah into glass from the get go.

Then they should blow up Afghanistan to find Bin Laden. Oh wait. Where is he now? Who cares, lets blow up Afghanistan.

We should them do the same to Cuba. Then to those damn Chinese that won't float their currency. Then to France just for the heck of it.
[/sarcasm]

"But Congress has thus far declined to provide funds for a study into the so-called "robust nuclear earth penetrator", not least because of criticism that such a move would make a mockery of US-led efforts to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation, and make it more, rather than less likely, that such weapons would be employed.

However the Pentagon document argues that proliferation has already made it more likely that nuclear weapons could be used.

It claims that some 30 nations have WMD programmes -- not to mention terrorists, or "non-state actors" as they are described, acting either independently or under the sponsorship of a state opposed to the US.

It also points out that even during the Cold War the US refused to commit itself to a "no first use" of nuclear weapons."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10345189

Yeah, I remember as a kid in the 80s the basic bottom line was that the Soviet Block had tanks and infantry in East Germany, and NATO had nukes in West Germany. Not a pleasant thought.

Then they should blow up Afghanistan to find Bin Laden. Oh wait. Where is he now? Who cares, lets blow up Afghanistan.

We should them do the same to Cuba. Then to those damn Chinese that won't float their currency. Then to France just for the heck of it.
[/sarcasm]

LMAO!:gun:

>>We should have turned Fallujah into glass from the get go. >>

Okay. Now you're just trying to get a rise out of us. :)

ebola

They have "baby nukes" already. Look at the Nike project back in the 1950s. The Nike Hercules could carry a 2-40kiloton nuke. (The Nike project could be considered the forerunner of SDI -- it consisted of putting antiaircraft and antimissile weapons around US cities and military installations.)

I doubt that the current government in the US would ever use a nuclear weapon except in response to a nuclear attack. Its just not worth it, politically. For destroying an area, a conventional bombing run can be just as effective as a nuclear weapon, even back in WWII.pretty good post, i would amend it by mentioning the "davy crockett"
http://www.brook.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/davyc.HTM

the payload for nuclear weapons is unique and i don't think it's wise to make comparisons to conventional like "just as effective", because that was only somewhat true in WWII and certainly not true today (yes i read slaughterhouse five). theres more extreme delivery methods for nuclear options because they are extreme responses. the "usuable nuke" question is something we should look at because we don't have biological or chemical weapons and sometimes you need a proportional response.

Nuclear radiation doesn't actually turn sand into glass, does it?

It doesn't seem like it would, but I'm not a scientist.

Not the radiation, but the heat from a large explosion could, I think. Just like a meteoric inpact can turn sand into glass.

He hasn't done it. He not planning to do it. He's just leaving it open as an option.

Would anyone be happy if he said he was planning to not respond to the next terrorists attack?

How can a preemtive strike be a response to a terrorist attack...

but the heat *smacks own head*

Doh!:dunce:

Would anyone be happy if he said he was planning to not respond to the next terrorists attack?
Actually, I'd be happier if he didn't respond at all than I was over invading some country that wasn't involved.

If the government ever wants to make me happy, they can just stop doing things across the globe that make people want to attack America. No one ever killed anyone because they hate our freedom, or because we're infidels, or any of those other nonsensical reasons given by the administration. We've been attacked because we enable an imperialist government, and they are responsible for the deaths of untold thousands of innocents. We all share in that responsibility. It occurs to me the first logical strategy is to stop blowing up people. The Bush administration went in the other direction, however, and blew up more people.

Horrified, but not surprised.

The world is getting a bit sick of this....

How can a preemtive strike be a response to a terrorist attack...


Right, keep in mind this plan is about preemptive nuclear strike - hitting a country with nukes because the administration thinks they have WMD they plan to use against the US.

...because the administration thinks they have WMD they plan to use against the US.
Now that is a scary thought.

"But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons."

"Saddam also devised an elaborate program to conceal his active efforts to build chemical and biological weapons."

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

Each statement was made by Dick Cheney, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars 103rd National Convention, on August 26, 2002.

Now that is a scary thought.

"But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons."

"Saddam also devised an elaborate program to conceal his active efforts to build chemical and biological weapons."

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

Each statement was made by Dick Cheney, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars 103rd National Convention, on August 26, 2002.

Exactly.

Furthermore, I think it is impossible to use nuclear weapond against terrorists, even if this could be justified. Terrorists do not form states, or even cities, to attack with (nuclear) bombing. They live sort of underground in many different countries.

By stating this, the US only causes other countries to increase their nuclear researche, for weapons in response, making this world unsafer place.

pretty good post, i would amend it by mentioning the "davy crockett"
http://www.brook.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/davyc.HTM

the payload for nuclear weapons is unique and i don't think it's wise to make comparisons to conventional like "just as effective", because that was only somewhat true in WWII and certainly not true today (yes i read slaughterhouse five). theres more extreme delivery methods for nuclear options because they are extreme responses. the "usuable nuke" question is something we should look at because we don't have biological or chemical weapons and sometimes you need a proportional response.

What do you base such reasoning on? From what I can tell, a conventional bombing run can be hideously effective. Take Dresden -- 50 year old technology. 15 sq km of the city was supposed to be completely destroyed. This was equivalent to a 1 megaton nuclear weapon. This calculation may be flawed -- I can't find an effective number for what part of Dresden is supposed to have been heavily damaged. A 1 MT nuke would heavily damage about 120 sq km. Dresden was about 300 sq km, but I haven't found a figure for what percentage of the city was heavily damaged. Conflagulation damage may be greater for the nuclear weapon. But this is 50 year old tech, we can do better with modern bombers. We have GPS and cluster bombs. And some people don't think there isn't progress!

From what I can find, most of the nuclear bombs in the US nuclear arsenal is under or about 1 megaton yield. (This was a quick search -- I may be misinformed.) Larger bombs have been made -- google for Tsar Bomba, for example. But for the most part, it seems that under or about 1 MT is the typical yield of a modern US nuclear weapon.

So why use a nuclear weapon and risk political fury by domestic voters and foreign nations when a conventional bombing run works just as well?

Currently, I see two or three probable situations in which the world would see nuclear weapons being used. The first would be if Israel was invaded -- it has a small stockpile of nuclear weapons, and would probably use them in self defense (this scenerio may be rather doubtful, Israel seems stronger then its current neighbors). The second would be Pakistan -- while the current regime seems stable, that country isn't too far away from a religious fanatic carrying out a coup. Finally, *if* North Korea has a nuclear weapon, they may use it in a first strike on a nearby neighbor. It depends on who has their trigger on the button in North Korea, if they have a working design, and how insane the North Korean leadership really is.

But the US? Doubtful.

Just my $.02

das_nut

Hmmm... But the US is the only country who has ever used nuclear bombing in the past. I'm not sure about them not doing it again.

Caped Crusader,
With all due respect, it's our military bases scattered across the planet that stabilize the entire world’s borders. If we pulled everything back to within our own borders the world would erupt in anarchy. The first thing that would happen is some third rate Middle Eastern country would try to invade Israel. Israel would respond probably with nuclear weapons and we’d be smack dab in the middle of WWIII.

Your premise that it’s the Bush administration’s fault is either naive or disingenuous. We were attacked many more times during the Clinton Administration. It would appear that Bush’s strategy is working.

The simple truth is that a bully never stops bullying people when they ignored him. If they try to walk on the other side of the playground the bully follows them. That the way it works. The times in my life when I’ve stopped a bully was when I stood up and bloodied his nose. Even the times when I stood up to a bully, got into a fight and lost, stopped the bullying. They simply move on to an easier target.

So many liberals claim to want human rights but seem perfectly happy to turn their backs on the women in Afghanistan and the Kurds in Iraq. Growing out your underarm hair and singing songs didn’t stop the human rights abuses in Afghanistan nor Iraq. It took brave men making difficult decisions and risking their lives. I count George W. Bush as one of those brave men.

This is just one man's opinion.