Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pentagon recommends nuclear retaliation
Kyodo (no url, taken off Bloomberg) | 9/18/01

Posted on 09/18/2001 9:43:21 AM PDT by NativeNewYorker

WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 Kyodo -- The Defense Department has recommended to President George W. Bush the use of tactical nuclear weapons as a military option to retaliate for last week's terrorist attacks in the United States, diplomatic sources said Tuesday.

It is unknown whether Bush has made any decision. But military analysts said the president is unlikely to opt for the use of nuclear weapons because doing so would generate rebuke from the international community and could even trigger revenge from the enemy involving weapons of mass destruction.

But the Pentagon's suggestion shows the determination of U.S. officials to retaliate for the first massive terrorist attacks on the U.S. mainland, the analysts said.

The recommendation appears intended to deter terrorists, they said.

On ABC television's THIS WEEK program Sunday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld refused to rule out the use of tactical nuclear weapons. He avoided clearly answering a simple question on whether their use can be ruled out. To a similar question, a Pentagon official also replied, ''We will not discuss operational and intelligence matters.''

According to the diplomatic sources, the Pentagon recommended using tactical nuclear weapons shortly after it became known that an unprecedented number of civilian casualties resulted from the terrorist attacks.

On Sept. 11, hijackers seized four commercial U.S. aircraft. Two of the planes slammed into the twin towers of New York's World Trade Center, while a third hit the Pentagon near Washington. The fourth plane crashed outside Pittsburgh. More than 5,000 people were left dead or missing in the attacks.

Tactical nuclear weapons have been developed to attack very specific targets. The military analysts said Pentagon officials are apparently thinking of using weapons that can reach and destroy terrorists hiding in an underground shelter, limiting damage to non-targets.

In 1986, the U.S. conducted an air raid on Libya, attempting to target Col. Muammar Qaddafi. In 1998, Washington fired a cruise missile into Afghanistan in an attempt to kill Osama bin Laden, whom the U.S. sees as behind last week's terrorist attacks.

The analysts said that since these attempts failed, it may be assumed that U.S. officials are mulling the use of tactical nuclear weapons, which can cause much greater destruction.

Declassified official documents show that since the mid-1990s, the U.S. has indicated that it does not rule out the use of nuclear weapons if a country attacks the U.S., its allies, or its forces with chemical or biological weapons.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-193 next last

1 posted on 09/18/2001 9:43:21 AM PDT by NativeNewYorker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker
".....Declassified official documents show that since the mid-1990s, the U.S. has indicated that it does not rule out the use of nuclear weapons if a country attacks the U.S., its allies, or its forces with chemical or biological weapons...."

Hmmmm....would tons and tons of flaming kerosene be considered "chemical" enough?

2 posted on 09/18/2001 9:49:27 AM PDT by Victor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker
I've read many places that Saddam Hussein refrained from the use of biological weapons in the Gulf War because he was convinced that George Bush would use nukes in retaliation.
3 posted on 09/18/2001 9:49:30 AM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker
He avoided clearly answering a simple question on whether their use can be ruled out. To a similar question, a Pentagon official also replied, ''We will not discuss operational and intelligence matters.''

Depends on what the meaning of "simple" is. I'd really start worrying if our leaders started strugling with what "is" is.

4 posted on 09/18/2001 9:49:57 AM PDT by VoodooEconomist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker
because doing so would generate rebuke from the international community and could even trigger revenge from the enemy involving weapons of mass destruction.

If they had them, they'd have used them a week ago.

5 posted on 09/18/2001 9:50:05 AM PDT by Physicist (sterner@sterner.hep.upenn.edu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker
Over the years charges have been leveled that our decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan was racially motivated. I suspect, particularly with a President whom is viewed as racist by some, that similar charges would be made and Bush would suffer accordingly, regardless of the merits.
6 posted on 09/18/2001 9:50:47 AM PDT by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Victor
Hmmmm....would tons and tons of flaming kerosene be considered "chemical" enough?

Yeah...what about fuel-air explosives?

7 posted on 09/18/2001 9:51:31 AM PDT by Physicist (sterner@sterner.hep.upenn.edu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker
The headline of this article is misleading. Of course, the Pentagon is going to recommend nukes as an option. That is a far cry from recommending nuclear retaliation.
8 posted on 09/18/2001 9:51:43 AM PDT by independentmind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monocle
Maybe. But none of this is about Bush or his political fortunes.
9 posted on 09/18/2001 9:52:38 AM PDT by Physicist (sterner@sterner.hep.upenn.edu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker
The time has come for us to use all our options, the nuclear phobia has run it's course.
10 posted on 09/18/2001 9:53:10 AM PDT by boomop1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Well, I was thinking about what they did to us.

Fuel-air bomb them? Sounds good to me.

11 posted on 09/18/2001 9:54:18 AM PDT by Victor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker
Screw the international community. Do what it takes to eliminate these animals.
12 posted on 09/18/2001 9:54:51 AM PDT by wny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
The word is that at the meeting between Jim Baker and Tariq Aziz (a Catholic btw) at Geneva's Intercontinental Hotel, Baker handed Aziz a letter with promises of what would happen if Iraq used weapons of mass destruction. I myself am not completely unconvinced that Iraq didn't use minor quantities nonetheless later on in the war.
13 posted on 09/18/2001 9:56:28 AM PDT by a history buff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker
I just want to Nuke two guys ... Sadam and Osamin - let's get them both on an island first and then send it to them ...


14 posted on 09/18/2001 9:56:45 AM PDT by AgThorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker
No, no, not nukes. We need to shuttle a couple large, multi-ton rocks into orbit and then drop them on ashcanistan. Same effect without the fallout, and NO ONE can claim we used nukes on a non-nuclear country.
15 posted on 09/18/2001 9:56:53 AM PDT by ScreamingFist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: independentmind
The headline of this article is misleading. Of course, the Pentagon is going to recommend nukes as an option. That is a far cry from recommending nuclear retaliation.

In another interview SECDEF Rumsfeld appeared to suggest that the tactical nuclear option would be reserved for retaliating against terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction (particularly biological agents) against population centers in this country.

16 posted on 09/18/2001 9:58:35 AM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: monocle
that similar charges would be made and Bush would suffer accordingly, regardless of the merits

Suffer how? His feelings would be hurt? He would suffer politically? These are meaningless intangibles. After last Tuesday, we live in the world of the tangible - fire, blood, destruction and death. Those who have been concerned with someone calling them names so longer have that luxury. Sticks and stones, my friend.

17 posted on 09/18/2001 9:59:20 AM PDT by Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Not necessarily. Terrorists are in this for the long haul, if we don't eradicate them. As such, the program of ratcheting up may be their plan, seeking to hit us harder than we hit them with our initial retaliation, but wanting to convey the notion to the Moslem world that we actually ratcheted things up. These fanatics are seeking to achieve a worldwide Jihad.
18 posted on 09/18/2001 10:01:12 AM PDT by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Victor
Hmmmm....would tons and tons of flaming kerosene be considered "chemical" enough?

Not sure, but if they unleash poison gas, or anthrax, that wipes out a city, watch the nuclear weapons fly then.

19 posted on 09/18/2001 10:01:18 AM PDT by Mark17
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I've read many places that Saddam Hussein refrained from the use of biological weapons in the Gulf War because he was convinced that George Bush would use nukes in retaliation.

I believe you are right.

20 posted on 09/18/2001 10:02:16 AM PDT by Mark17
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-193 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson