Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
Posted: 6/10/2002 4:50:08 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 7:16:57 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 7:19:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ilikelegs: Well !!! What do you guys think ? Do you think we should strike first ?
View Quote
Strike early. Strike often.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 7:31:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Originally Posted By ilikelegs: Well !!! What do you guys think ? Do you think we should strike first ?
View Quote
Strike early. Strike often.
View Quote
[:D]
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 8:33:10 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 8:59:22 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 9:01:36 AM EDT
[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..."
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 9:24:27 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 10:02:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Originally Posted By ilikelegs: 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.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 10:46:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/10/2002 10:52:27 AM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
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.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 2:22:16 PM EDT
See:[url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&ncid=716&e=3&u=/ap/20020610/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_world_conservatives_3[/url]
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 2:25:07 PM EDT
Just a bunch of talk by yet another politician. You people are so damned gullible. [stupid assed grin]
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 2:31:11 PM EDT
It sounds good... ...but I will believe it when it actually happens. [:\] Eric/Tyler
Top Top