Bush - New Policy Of Striking First + Nuclear

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Bush - New Policy Of Striking First + Nuclear

Posted: 6/10/2002 4:50:08 AM EDT

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22374-2002Jun9.html[/url]

Bush hinted at the new doctrine in his State of the Union address in January, when he labeled Iraq, Iran and North Korea an "axis of evil" and warned that he would not allow them to threaten the United States with weapons of mass destruction. The president articulated the doctrine for the first time June 1 in a commencement address at West Point.

By adopting the doctrine as part of its formal national security strategy, the administration will compel the U.S. military and intelligence community to implement some of the biggest changes in their histories, officials said. That is already touching off heated debates within the administration and among defense commentators about what changes need to be made and whether a doctrine of preemption is realistic.

View Quote

Just part of the article.

Alright, its settled, lets make a glass desert.
[img]http://xzodus.com/nuke[1].gif[/img]

Posted: 6/10/2002 7:16:57 AM EDT

[#1]

Well !!!
What do you guys think ?
Do you think we should strike first ?

I do !!!
Here is more of the article

The Bush administration is developing a new strategic doctrine that moves away from the Cold War pillars of containment and deterrence toward a policy that supports preemptive attacks against terrorists and hostile states with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

The new doctrine will be laid out by President Bush's National Security Council as part of the administration's first "National Security Strategy" being drafted for release by early this fall, senior officials said.

One senior official said the document, without abandoning containment and deterrence, will for the first time add "preemption" and "defensive intervention" as formal options for striking at hostile nations or groups that appear determined to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States.

But there is general agreement that adopting a preemption doctrine would be a radical shift from the half-century-old policies of deterrence and containment that were built around the notion that an adversary would not attack the United States because it would provoke a certain, overwhelming retaliatory strike.

Administration officials formulating the new doctrine said the United States has been forced to move beyond deterrence since Sept. 11 because of the threat posed by terrorist groups and hostile states supporting them. "The nature of the enemy has changed, the nature of the threat has changed, and so the response has to change," said a senior official, noting that terrorists "have no territory to defend. . . . It's not clear how one would deter an attack like we experienced."

The administration's embrace of the new doctrine has triggered an intense debate inside the Pentagon and among military strategists about the feasibility and wisdom of preemptive strikes against shadowy terrorist networks or weapons storage facilities.

View Quote

Posted: 6/10/2002 7:19:01 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Well !!!
What do you guys think ?
Do you think we should strike first ?

View Quote

Strike early.

Strike often.

Posted: 6/10/2002 7:31:46 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Well !!!
What do you guys think ?
Do you think we should strike first ?

View Quote

Strike early.

Strike often.

View Quote

[:D]

Posted: 6/10/2002 8:33:10 AM EDT

[#4]

[B]

Quoted:
Well !!!
What do you guys think ?
Do you think we should strike first ?

I do !!!

View Quote

[/B]

What do I think?
Well, IMO, Rather be them than us. Can't talk senses with radical, extremist type of people.
BTW, how was the trip, man?

Posted: 6/10/2002 8:59:22 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

What do I think?
Well, IMO, Rather be them than us. Can't talk senses with radical, extremist type of people.
BTW, how was the trip, man?

View Quote

The trip was good.
My new co-workers think I am fearless now.
I road the scarry rides at a theme park over and over, with hands up at all times.
Those Pussy's,
Dragged my wife on a rollercoaster for her first time.
I thought she was gonna have a heart attack
and start crying. I warned her about marrying me!!! I take a lot of risk's and live for thrills.
I was wasted on Borbon street and ate a shit load
of food.
Allegator, jumbolia (sp) Creol, eveything and
anything I could shove down.
New Orleans is a dirty town. But it does have a certain appeal.

Posted: 6/10/2002 9:01:36 AM EDT

[#6]

[size=4][blue][i]Pre-Emptive Strikes[/i][/blue][/size=4]

Ever see the movie "Deterrence"?
1997.
"We are the United States of America; we have Nuclear Weapons, and we WILL use them..."

Posted: 6/10/2002 9:24:27 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
[size=4][blue][i]Pre-Emptive Strikes[/i][/blue][/size=4]

Ever see the movie "Deterrence"?
1997.
"We are the United States of America; we have Nuclear Weapons, and we WILL use them..."

View Quote

What we should do is let the Arab gubments know
that it doesn't matter who or which terroist group
attacks us, We will waste all their cities in
retalliation.
We'll leave there oil field alone so we can come
back and take their oil.
So they can try and sneak one dirty bomb in, we
will drop hundreds of Nukes on all their civilization.
The new and improved Deterrence of Mutual assured destruction.
Only it won't be mutual. We will survive!

Posted: 6/10/2002 10:02:27 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Well !!!
What do you guys think ?
Do you think we should strike first ?

View Quote

Strike early.

Strike often.

View Quote

Beat me to it.

Posted: 6/10/2002 10:46:59 AM EDT

[#9]

Actually this isn't as big a change as it sounds.

This sentance: The Bush administration is developing a new strategic doctrine that moves away from the Cold War pillars of containment and deterrence toward a policy that supports preemptive attacks against terrorists and hostile states with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
Has been deliberately written badly by the reporter to imply that we would start using nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons first. But there is no sign that that is the case. This is simply media sensationalism.

the sentance should be read as "toward a policy that supports preemptive attacks against terrorists and hostile states [i]with[/i](as in [i]possessing[/i]) chemical, biologica, or nuclear weapons."

This is still ALMOST as controversial as switiching to a nuclear first strike policy. BECAUSE IT CALLS FOR A WARFIGHTING DOCTRIN WHERE CONGRESS WOULD [red]NEVER[/red] BE INCLUDED IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS.

If ever actually carried out, this could only result in the Congress being faced with wars and military actions as a 'fait accompli'. Only the members of the two intelligance comitties have clearance to see the information needed to make the decision on action-and this idea of a preemptive strike forces additional time constraints and a even GREATER need for security to make it work, with the result that seeking Congressional approval would have to be either skipped or done so late (like after planes are already in the air) as to be a meer token. It is impossible to see how this doctrin could be impplimented and still have time for the Congress to deliberate in any meaningful way on the use of military forces.

Congress currently has given the Administration free reign to act militarily only against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks and their supporters not against ALL terrorists or all states that currently or have in the past sponsored terrorism against Americans.

Furthermore I would suggest that the inclusion of the word terrorism is window dressing. The real target of this doctrin would be Communist China. This is a move to offically take steps to exploit our technological advantage over the Chinese nuclear deterrant force before China can update and expand their nuclear force.

For those who have forgotten Chinas total effective nuclear force consists of about a dozen- certainly fewer than 20- liquid fueled ICBMS kept in bunkers in the North China Plain. These ICBMs require about a half hour to get ready to launch, and once fueled can only be kept in readiness for only a hour or two. While their bunkers are designed to be nuclear weapons proof, they are not capable of withstanding the various custom designed bunker destroying conventional weapons we have developed over the last decade. And China's air defence survailance system is both obsolete and badly layed out. The result is that their nuclear force is totally vulnerable to a preemptive strike by US heavy bombers using conventional bunker defeating weapons.