Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/9/2002 5:41:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/9/2002 5:49:36 AM EDT by Grock]
[shock] This is worth review: [url]www.latimes.com/news/nationw...0902bombs.story [/url] seems the link has ceased to link- so I posted the entire article below...
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 5:46:18 AM EDT
By PAUL RICHTER, Times Staff Writer http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...0902bombs.story WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration has directed the military to prepare contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries and to build smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations, according to a classified Pentagon report obtained by the Los Angeles Times. The secret report, which was provided to Congress on Jan. 8, says the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. It says the weapons could be used in three types of situations: against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or "in the event of surprising military developments." A copy of the report was obtained by defense analyst and Times contributor William Arkin. His column on the contents appears in Sunday's editions. Officials have long acknowledged that they had detailed nuclear plans for an attack on Russia. However, this "Nuclear Posture Review" apparently marks the first time that an official list of potential target countries has come to light, analysts said. Some predicted the disclosure would set off strong reactions from governments of the target countries. "This is dynamite," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear arms expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. "I can imagine what these countries are going to be saying at the U.N." Arms control advocates said the report's directives on development of smaller nuclear weapons could signal that the Bush administration is more willing to overlook a long-standing taboo against the use of nuclear weapons except as a last resort. They warned that such moves could dangerously destabilize the world by encouraging other countries to believe that they, too, should develop weapons. "They're trying desperately to find new uses for nuclear weapons, when their uses should be limited to deterrence," said John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World. "This is very, very dangerous talk . . . Dr. Strangelove is clearly still alive in the Pentagon." But some conservative analysts insisted that the Pentagon must prepare for all possible contingencies, especially now, when dozens of countries, and some terrorist groups, are engaged in secret weapon development programs. They argued that smaller weapons have an important deterrent role because many aggressors might not believe that the U.S. forces would use multi-kiloton weapons that would wreak devastation on surrounding territory and friendly populations. "We need to have a credible deterrence against regimes involved in international terrorism and development of weapons of mass destruction," said Jack Spencer, a defense analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. He said the contents of the report did not surprise him and represent "the right way to develop a nuclear posture for a post-Cold War world." A spokesman for the Pentagon, Richard McGraw, declined to comment because the document is classified.
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 5:46:54 AM EDT
Congress requested the reassessment of the U.S. nuclear posture in September 2000. The last such review was conducted in 1994 by the Clinton administration. The new report, signed by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, is now being used by the U.S. Strategic Command to prepare a nuclear war plan. Bush administration officials have publicly provided only sketchy details of the nuclear review. They have publicly emphasized the parts of the policy suggesting that the administration wants to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons. Since the Clinton administration's review is also classified, no specific contrast can be drawn. However, analysts portrayed this report as representing a break with earlier policy. U.S. policymakers have generally indicated that the United States would not use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states unless they were allied with nuclear powers. They have left some ambiguity about whether the United States would use nuclear weapons in retaliation after strikes with chemical or nuclear weapons. The report says the Pentagon should be prepared to use nuclear weapons in an Arab-Israeli conflict, in a war between China and Taiwan, or in an attack from North Korea on the south. They might also become necessary in an attack by Iraq on Israel or another neighbor, it said.
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 5:47:48 AM EDT
The report says Russia is no longer officially an "enemy." Yet it acknowledges that the huge Russian arsenal, which includes about 6,000 deployed warheads and perhaps 10,000 smaller "theater" nuclear weapons, remains of concern. Pentagon officials have said publicly that they were studying the need to develop theater nuclear weapons, designed for use against specific targets on a battlefield, but had not committed themselves to that course. Officials have often spoken of the advantages of using nuclear weapons to destroy the deep tunnel and cave complexes that many regimes have been building, especially since the Persian Gulf War of 1991. Nuclear weapons give off powerful shock waves that can crush structures deep in the Earth, they point out. Officials argue that large nuclear arms have so many destructive side effects, from blast to heat and radiation, that they become "self-deterring." They contend the Pentagon needs "full spectrum deterrence"--that is, a full range of weapons that potential enemies believe might be used against them. The Pentagon was actively involved in planning for use of tactical nuclear weapons as recently as the 1970s. But it has moved away from them in the last two decades. Analysts said the report's reference to "surprising military developments" referred to the Pentagon's fears that a rogue regime or terrorist group might suddenly unleash a wholly unknown weapon that was difficult to counter with the conventional U.S. arsenal. The administration has proposed cutting the offensive nuclear arsenal by about two-thirds, to between 1,700 and 2,200 missiles, within 10 years. Officials have also said they want to use precision guided conventional munitions in some missions that might have previously been accomplished with nuclear arms. But critics said the report contradicts suggestions the Bush administration wants to cut the nuclear role. "This clearly makes nuclear weapons a tool for fighting a war, rather than deterring them," said Cirincione. -----------------------------------
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 5:55:05 AM EDT
Snippet from article:
The report says the Pentagon should be prepared to use nuclear weapons in an Arab-Israeli conflict, in a war between China and Taiwan, or in an attack from North Korea on the south.
View Quote
Gee, in an 'Arab-Israeli' conflict? I wonder which side the US will be supporting with its nuclear weapons? Heh-heh! At least our political and military leaders seem to know who the enemy might be, even if others don't, or simply refuse to acknowledge who our enemies are in the region.
They might also become necessary in an attack by Iraq on Israel or another neighbor, it said.
View Quote
Still protecting Israel, I see. Eric The(Way-To-Go!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 6:05:51 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 6:49:11 AM EDT
[:\] hmmmmm....
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 6:59:59 AM EDT
...according to a classified Pentagon report obtained by the Los Angeles Times.
View Quote
What I want to know is why it's so easy to obtain "classified reports".
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 7:08:29 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 7:21:52 AM EDT
I've got to admit that GW's handling of the war in Afghanistan seems to be going very well, however, a direct attack on our country like we saw 9-11 deserved a nuclear response. It would have made some real believers out of the islamic trash that is so intent on doing us harm. There's no denying that! As scary as nukes are they are the one weapon these fanatics fully understand the implications of. Unfortunately, these are realities of the modern world.
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 7:32:51 AM EDT
I don't understand why they haven't already used nukes. They seem to be getting alot of soldiers killed up there in the mountains trying to get Al Qaeda. Why not simply pull our troops back to a sfae distance and drop a nuke right into the middle of the mountains/caves where Al Qaeda is hiding. Boom, no more Al Qaeda.
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 7:56:08 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 8:32:21 AM EDT
15 of the 19 a**holes that did the 9/11 outrage were from Saudia Arabia. They provide much of the money to these idiots. They are one of the most corrupt governments on the planet. There human rights record is horrible. I sincerely believe a number of "enhanced radiation devices" (or neutron bombs) carefully applied would eradicate the infestation of vermin in SA yet leave the oil facilities operational so we could pump the place dry - for free. Should have happened on Sept 12 2001 at the latest!
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 8:43:29 AM EDT
Stud poker on a global level.[:)] The bastards in Beijing threatened us not too long ago. Now if GW would just get rid of Ridge and Mineta.
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 8:44:51 AM EDT
Nobody wants to let the nuclear genie out of the bottle. While I am sure that some eyebrows went up in Peking and Moscow, those two regimes must realize that given their existing arsenal of nuclear weapons, they are the largest if not the most likely threat. Any use of a nuke will likely result in a political firestorm, at home as well as abroad. The immediate collateral damage will be very heavy, not to mention the radioactive fallout..... My personal opinion is that use of even a tactical nuke may very well start us down the slippery slope that will end in WW 3.
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 8:47:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By cc48510: I don't understand why they haven't already used nukes. They seem to be getting alot of soldiers killed up there in the mountains trying to get Al Qaeda. Why not simply pull our troops back to a sfae distance and drop a nuke right into the middle of the mountains/caves where Al Qaeda is hiding. Boom, no more Al Qaeda.
View Quote
I think it's training for our troops who havent seen action since the Golf War. Look at the kill ratio that the US soldiers are getting. We have about 10 soldiers dead (KIA) on our side and thousands on their side. As long as our casulties are light, we will continue to proceed as we have been. I say let the ground troups have all the fun they want bringing a miserable death to the Al Quaeda. IceMan
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 8:54:05 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 10:00:12 AM EDT
They seem to be getting alot of soldiers killed up there in the mountains trying to get Al Qaeda. Why not simply pull our troops back to a sfae distance and drop a nuke right into the middle of the mountains/caves where Al Qaeda is hiding. Boom, no more Al Qaeda.
View Quote
If the winds blow west then you can't if they blow towards Iran and IRAQ you can. Alas the winds blow west and you would be putting a blanket of fallout on Pakistan and China. Ben
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 10:09:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/9/2002 11:25:16 AM EDT by tayous1]
I don't think it matters what type of nukes we use. Other country will use theres on us. We don't need this to be a nuclear war at all. GB is an a-- hole if he does drop a nuke! Because all the sleeping cells around here will then start the terrorist acts. The will stop at nothing there will be many American lives that will be killed for this act. If they can hi-jack 4 airplanes who says they can can't get near the Hover Dame and blow that? Attack nuclear power plants ? Then the people are going to be asking for the help of the military they don't feel safe and at that point we will be placed under Marshal law for are "Safety".
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 10:13:11 AM EDT
I think the main issue is whether we're willing to open this can of worms? Are we willing to throw a nuke and throw the gloves off and wait for other countries to then start developing them because they NEED them too? Don't get me wrong, I'm more willing than anyone else to wipe out the middle east, but when its practically in China and Russia's backyard, we might be getting more than we could handle.
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 12:07:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By osprey21: So why not one of these; "ENHANCED RADIATION WARHEAD, specialized type ...
View Quote
It's still a nuclear weapon with long-term radioactive fallout.
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 1:13:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By tayous1: I don't think it matters what type of nukes we use. Other country will use theres on us. We don't need this to be a nuclear war at all. GB is an a-- hole if he does drop a nuke! Because all the sleeping cells around here will then start the terrorist acts.
View Quote
You mean like happened 9/11? They perceive that we are weak. The only thing they understand is strength. Sooner we get it over with the better. Now I am not advocating nuclear war. However, be aware, as I'm sure most all of us are, that the overwhwlming majority of Arabs/Muslims support Bin Laden, Saddam, and the rest of the scumbags over there. They are the enemy. Its time people realize it. They are not a bunch of peaceful peasants suffering at the hands of their leaders. Their culture and religion is not one of peace and tolerance. They hate us. Maybe they've got reasons, maybe not. Who gives a fuck? They are our enemy. I watched this country fuck around in Nam letting the enemy strengthen itself every time we had him on the ropes. This time it is not a piece of ground on the other side of the planet at stake. It is the survival of our nation, ourselves, our children and grandchildren. NYC will get nuked within ten years. You can go to the bank on that one. We will nuke a substantial portion of the Middle East in retaliation. SHTF? Yeah, I think. We'll be way better off than most of Asia in the aftermath but repercussions will be felt around the globe.
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 2:03:49 PM EDT
drjarhead I understand what you are saying. But America is not prepared for this type of war. We first need to strengthen America. We need to take care of are own right now. We need the government to start strengthening are borders and air ways so that less of these terrorist can get in to are country. We need the military to teach people and town's to build a reserve of medical supples, food ,water, firearms and other supples that we will need. The military needs to also teach people what to do in the event of a nuclear or terrorist attack before we start dropping nukes and staring a new war one that no American has ever fought. We feared it in the 50 or 60 when ever Stallion had nukes 90 miles of the cost of Florida and are government also feared it and helped the people out. Right now are government would just drop a nuclear weapon without first off helping the people of there county help them set up reserves for supples. We just need to think of reinforcing are people right now most of all.
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 2:12:37 PM EDT
This is great I love it. I was so sickend when I was in the military and the Clinton administration began takeing off alert so many nuclear missles. I used to work on the Minuteman 3 nuclear missle silo. I was stationed at Malmstrom AFB,GreatFalls Montana. It was the scariest thing to go down into a launch tube and look at and work on something that could reak so much havac. Anyway it is about time our president began to do something about our nuclear capabilities. Good ol clinton really smoozed the Russians and the United Nations by lowering our nuclear weapons capabilites. As far as I am concerned we should just nuke the hell out of Irac,Iran,Palestine,Parts of Pakistan,Parts of Afganistan,all of china, japan,India, The philiipines and were ever else these terrorrists want to hide. Heck I would even be so inclinded to support the microwave effect on the United Kingdom just for being so liberal and stupid. Anyway Just make all those desert areas one glass bowl, Is just fine with me. Because you know if all those countries I said could justify nuking us they would do it in a heartbeat, no qualls about it.I would more then gladdly re-enlist to go back to work on the nuclear missle silos to maintain mission readiness. In a heart beat with President Bush as commander in Cheif. I would be proud to serve President Bush.
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 2:45:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By tayous1: drjarhead I understand what you are saying. But America is not prepared for this type of war. We first need to strengthen America. We need to take care of are own right now. We need the government to start strengthening are borders and air ways so that less of these terrorist can get in to are country. We need the military to teach people and town's to build a reserve of medical supples, food ,water, firearms and other supples that we will need. The military needs to also teach people what to do in the event of a nuclear or terrorist attack before we start dropping nukes and staring a new war one that no American has ever fought. We feared it in the 50 or 60 when ever Stallion had nukes 90 miles of the cost of Florida and are government also feared it and helped the people out. Right now are government would just drop a nuclear weapon without first off helping the people of there county help them set up reserves for supples. We just need to think of reinforcing are people right now most of all.
View Quote
Time? We're about out of time, Tayous. I know we ain't gonna do shit. Hell, we should've put 2 divisions of Marines in Afganistan if we were going to put 1. We won't deal with this now and just as our failure to deal with it 10 years ago led to the WTC, so will our failure now lead to escalation in the future. That is why I'm so confident NYC, possibly elsewhere, will get nuked. I wish I could put some money on it somewhere. The bottom line is that the majority of the american people don't have the stomach for it. either to deal with it or suffer the hardships necessary. But listen to 'em whine when it happens. My 2 cents.
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 3:07:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By drjarhead: Time? We're about out of time, Tayous. I know we ain't gonna do shit. Hell, we should've put 2 divisions of Marines in Afganistan if we were going to put 1. We won't deal with this now and just as our failure to deal with it 10 years ago led to the WTC, so will our failure now lead to escalation in the future. That is why I'm so confident NYC, possibly elsewhere, will get nuked. I wish I could put some money on it somewhere. The bottom line is that the majority of the american people don't have the stomach for it. either to deal with it or suffer the hardships necessary. But listen to 'em whine when it happens. My 2 cents.
View Quote
Your right!!!! I'm just guessing we might get hit sooner then 10 years especially if GBJ uses nukes over there. We might get one the next day? That will be the SHTF day for all of us.
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 3:24:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/9/2002 3:28:55 PM EDT by drjarhead]
Originally Posted By tayous1: Your right!!!! I'm just guessing we might get hit sooner then 10 years especially if GBJ uses nukes over there. We might get one the next day? That will be the SHTF day for all of us.
View Quote
You're correct also, of course. I just firmly believe that to show any weakness to that bunch is a huge mistake. If allowed to go on for 10 years how many nukes do you think they will have? That's pretty scary. I have a pretty fair idea of how to make a nuke go boom. A little research into the details and...There really are only two limitations. Obtaining enough enriched plutonium or uranium and getting the timing of the detonation sequence correct. Putting it together is not terribly difficult other than that. I'd say that Iran, Iraq, N. Korea, have the nuclear material. Trying to get it all right may be a little difficult. Now, outfits like Al Quaeda have enough money to buy some of the available nukes out there. Not much know how involved. Further, why are we letting all these terrorists into this country. Political correctness? Give me a break. So instead of going after the bad guys or preventing them from coming into the country in the first place we spend our time and effort strip-searching little old ladies at the airport. Maybe we deserve what we get for being so fucking stupid and ineffectual. End of Rant...Sorry. Just can't help myself sometimes[):)] Edited to add: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 3:31:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By drjarhead:
Originally Posted By tayous1: Your right!!!! I'm just guessing we might get hit sooner then 10 years especially if GBJ uses nukes over there. We might get one the next day? That will be the SHTF day for all of us.
View Quote
You're correct also, of course. I just firmly believe that to show any weakness to that bunch is a huge mistake. If allowed to go on for 10 years how many nukes do you think they will have? That's pretty scary. I have a pretty fair idea of how to make a nuke go boom. A little research into the details and...There really are only two limitations. Obtaining enough enriched plutonium or uranium and getting the timing of the detonation sequence correct. Putting it together is not terribly difficult other than that. I'd say that Iran, Iraq, N. Korea, have the nuclear material. Trying to get it all right may be a little difficult. Now, outfits like Al Quaeda have enough money to buy some of the available nukes out there. Not much know how involved. Further, why are we letting all these terrorists into this country. Political correctness? Give me a break. So instead of going after the bad guys or preventing them from coming into the country in the first place we spend our time and effort strip-searching little old ladies at the airport. Maybe we deserve what we get for being so fucking stupid and ineffectual. End of Rant...Sorry. Just can't help myself sometimes[):)]
View Quote
Well for about 8 year we had the biggest f-ck up in the white house and he cut down are defense forces.
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 3:49:58 PM EDT
AS long as FRANCE is first on the list I am all for it..... Bulldog OUT
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 4:12:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By tayous1:
Originally Posted By drjarhead:
Originally Posted By tayous1: Your right!!!! I'm just guessing we might get hit sooner then 10 years especially if GBJ uses nukes over there. We might get one the next day? That will be the SHTF day for all of us.
View Quote
You're correct also, of course. I just firmly believe that to show any weakness to that bunch is a huge mistake. If allowed to go on for 10 years how many nukes do you think they will have? That's pretty scary. I have a pretty fair idea of how to make a nuke go boom. A little research into the details and...There really are only two limitations. Obtaining enough enriched plutonium or uranium and getting the timing of the detonation sequence correct. Putting it together is not terribly difficult other than that. I'd say that Iran, Iraq, N. Korea, have the nuclear material. Trying to get it all right may be a little difficult. Now, outfits like Al Quaeda have enough money to buy some of the available nukes out there. Not much know how involved. Further, why are we letting all these terrorists into this country. Political correctness? Give me a break. So instead of going after the bad guys or preventing them from coming into the country in the first place we spend our time and effort strip-searching little old ladies at the airport. Maybe we deserve what we get for being so fucking stupid and ineffectual. End of Rant...Sorry. Just can't help myself sometimes[):)]
View Quote
Well for about 8 year we had the biggest f-ck up in the white house and he cut down are defense forces.
View Quote
They guy there now isn't doing much more to stop the excessive immigration. What would it take to put a moratorium in place untill we can come up with a good plan to weed out the trash? Seems like it would be little more than a pen stroke. No huge systems to replace. Remember his little idea that it would be good to legalize all of the currently here mexican illegals.
Link Posted: 3/10/2002 7:12:45 AM EDT
U.S.C 18&794 (b): "Whoever, in time of war, with intent that same shall be communicated to the enemy, collects, publishes, or communicates... ...any other information related to the public defense, which might be useful to the enemy, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any number of years or for life." Time to round up some folks at the LA Times, and perhaps agree to spare their lives in exchange for the names of whatever congress persons or government employees that comitted this treason.
Link Posted: 3/10/2002 7:54:14 AM EDT
There is little doubt in my so called mind that the vermin either have, or soon will, nukes. They need no action from us to decide to use them. Our only hope is to destroy them first. The enemy is Islam and we need to recognize that and deal with it.
Link Posted: 3/10/2002 9:20:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MadMatt: U.S.C 18&794 (b): "Whoever, in time of war, with intent that same shall be communicated to the enemy, collects, publishes, or communicates... ...any other information related to the public defense, which might be useful to the enemy, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any number of years or for life." Time to round up some folks at the LA Times, and perhaps agree to spare their lives in exchange for the names of whatever congress persons or government employees that comitted this treason.
View Quote
Damn fine idea. I have no doubt that this was given to congress with the knowledge that one of these commsymps would do just that. Seems like a great opportunity to kill two birds with one stone as they say.
Link Posted: 3/10/2002 10:08:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MickeyMouse: There is little doubt in my so called mind that the vermin either have, or soon will, nukes. They need no action from us to decide to use them. Our only hope is to destroy them first. The enemy is Islam and we need to recognize that and deal with it.
View Quote
Your right maybe right now they don't have any. But a few years down the road they might. Also we may piss someone off that does have nukes like Palatine, China , Russia or they could just buy one.
Link Posted: 3/10/2002 10:57:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/10/2002 10:58:17 AM EDT by cc48510]
[img]http://noreno.no-ip.com:800/nuke.png[/img]
Link Posted: 3/10/2002 11:01:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By cc48510: [img]http://noreno.no-ip.com:800/nuke.png[/img]
View Quote
Why nuke Japan?And what are all thous white parts?
Link Posted: 3/10/2002 11:42:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MickeyMouse: 15 of the 19 a**holes that did the 9/11 outrage were from Saudia Arabia. They provide much of the money to these idiots. They are one of the most corrupt governments on the planet. There human rights record is horrible. I sincerely believe a number of "enhanced radiation devices" (or neutron bombs) carefully applied would eradicate the infestation of vermin in SA yet leave the oil facilities operational so we could pump the place dry - for free. Should have happened on Sept 12 2001 at the latest!
View Quote
One word...Activation.
Link Posted: 3/10/2002 11:59:18 AM EDT
Since does a policy imply a plan to use? Just because I have an AR, doesn't mean I plan on shooting a group of people like some anti-gunners would claim. You study the situation so that if something does happen, you're not caught unprepared and make a rash move.z
Top Top