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

Skip to comments.

Bush approves nuclear response (If Allied forces are attacked by Chemical Weapons)!
The Washington Times ^ | January 31, 2003 | By Nicholas Kralev

Posted on 03/25/2003 1:17:01 PM PST by vannrox

Edited on 07/12/2004 4:01:59 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

A classified document signed by President Bush specifically allows for the use of nuclear weapons in response to biological or chemical attacks. Apparently changing a decades-old U.S. policy of deliberate ambiguity, it was learned by The Washington Times.

The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force including potentially nuclear weapons to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies, the document, National Security Presidential Directive 17, set out on Sept. 14 last year.


(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: bush; bushdoctrineunfold; chemical; dontmesswithtexas; germ; guard; hate; illegalweapons; iraq; iraqifreedom; islam; nuclear; saddam; terror; use; warfare; warlist; wnd; wtc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-175 next last
A classified document signed by President Bush specifically allows for the use of nuclear weapons in response to biological or chemical attacks.

Seeing the continued discussion that Iraq fully intends to use CHEMICAL Weapons on our troops, it is important that this little article be read again. Only this time in the contex of certainty.
1 posted on 03/25/2003 1:17:01 PM PST by vannrox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Tikrit is toast.
2 posted on 03/25/2003 1:18:04 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Time to bomb Saddam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Makes sense to me. The nukes do us no good if we go into a conflict announcing that we won't use them, no matter what.
3 posted on 03/25/2003 1:18:37 PM PST by Coop (God bless our troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Well, I'd say that is kickin' it up a notch. Tactical nukes on a division, let allah sort em' out.
4 posted on 03/25/2003 1:19:37 PM PST by The Vast Right Wing (Some drink from the fountain of knowledge, the French and Germans only gargle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coop
Right, regardless of whether we will actually use them, we must make it known that we are prepared to used them.
5 posted on 03/25/2003 1:20:44 PM PST by Truthsearcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Excellent.
6 posted on 03/25/2003 1:20:48 PM PST by backhoe ("Time to kick the tires & light the fires-- Let's Roll!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coop
Authorized in first Gulf war,too.
7 posted on 03/25/2003 1:21:11 PM PST by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Coop
I suspect this was purposely leaked to the press.


8 posted on 03/25/2003 1:21:47 PM PST by Mihalis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: vannrox; *war_list; W.O.T.; *Bush Doctrine Unfold; randita; SierraWasp; Carry_Okie; okie01; ...
Holy cats!

Bush Doctrine Unfolds :

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below:
  click here >>> Bush Doctrine Unfold <<< click here  
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)



9 posted on 03/25/2003 1:22:00 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (Where is Saddam?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Bump.
10 posted on 03/25/2003 1:22:06 PM PST by k2blader (If one good thing can be said about the UN, it is that it taught me how to spell “irrelevant.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Being only "50 miles" within the city limits, how does this nuclear option help us?

Someone please explain this clearly.
11 posted on 03/25/2003 1:22:20 PM PST by LibFreeUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
But in the paragraphs marked S for secret, the Sept. 14 directive clearly states that nuclear weapons are part of the overwhelming force that Washington might use in response to a chemical or biological attack.

And why are documents labelled as 'Secret' in the press? If I published various clearance information I have been cleared with, I'd be in jail for the rest of my life. De-classify and publish, no problem. But, never, ever should 'Secret', 'Classified', or 'Top-Secret' documents be published in the press. Once we have tolerated this breach, why not publish everything else?

12 posted on 03/25/2003 1:22:28 PM PST by Hodar (With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Oh my, the peace protestors are going to be very peeved.
13 posted on 03/25/2003 1:22:53 PM PST by Anamensis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
That's ONE way to up the pucker factor 'round these parts...
14 posted on 03/25/2003 1:23:06 PM PST by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Chemical weapons? But Saddam hasn't any chemical weapons. That's what all the cool and groovy people think, anyway...
15 posted on 03/25/2003 1:23:15 PM PST by Mortimer Snavely (More Power to the Troops! More Bang for the Buck!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth; Grampa Dave; Dog Gone; blam; NormsRevenge
ping!
16 posted on 03/25/2003 1:23:16 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (Where is Saddam?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: vannrox

"Can anybody in class tell me how this promotes love and understanding?"
17 posted on 03/25/2003 1:24:07 PM PST by shadowman99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Everybody should have seen this coming. The use of nukes in response to an WMD attack has been a standing policy of the US for years. Different wording, same result...
18 posted on 03/25/2003 1:24:44 PM PST by Ebony-Patriot (Freedom isn't Free.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lodwick; Cuttnhorse; operation clinton cleanup; Servant of the Nine; catpuppy; null and void; ...
Big Ping
19 posted on 03/25/2003 1:24:52 PM PST by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Yikes, I agree the threat of nuclear weapon use is well for lack of a better word, useful. However I hope to God that we do not have to employ such weaponry.
20 posted on 03/25/2003 1:24:55 PM PST by amused (Republicans for Sharpton!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
This is a sanctioned leak. It's a way of warning Iraq what we're prepared to do without stating it in front of the world. It's good geopolitics.
21 posted on 03/25/2003 1:25:27 PM PST by Publius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Holy Crap!!!
22 posted on 03/25/2003 1:25:30 PM PST by bedolido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
"MIke" 10.4MT H-Bomb
Operation Ivy 1952

23 posted on 03/25/2003 1:25:50 PM PST by vannrox (The Preamble to the Bill of Rights - without it, our Bill of Rights is meaningless!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
"DEBKAfile’s military sources: Saddam’s Fedayeen around Baghdad armed with super-gun capable of firing chemical, biological and nuclear shells. Al Medina Division known to be armed with chemical weapons.

Saddam’s WMD “red line” for Baghdad is Iron Triangle enclosing Special Republican Guards positions around city – as revealed in earlier reports" from Debka 3/25/03. Where exactly is this Iron Triangle and are our people near this point?
24 posted on 03/25/2003 1:26:08 PM PST by jerseygirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
There is a very very slight chance that perhaps we might use tactical nukes.

There is literally NO chance we will use any nukes bigger than that, even if our troops would not be in the area where they would pose a danger to our side as well.
25 posted on 03/25/2003 1:27:03 PM PST by rwfromkansas (Soli Deo Gloria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
This appears to be setting the stage for use of the new MOAB, which may have the destructive capacity of a tactical nuke, but without the follow-on radiation.
26 posted on 03/25/2003 1:27:18 PM PST by Real Cynic No More
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
I find it interesting that none of the text is in quotes.

Is this for legal reasons or is this just another liberal, DOD leak?

27 posted on 03/25/2003 1:27:34 PM PST by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
How do we intend to drop a NUKE and still minimize civilian casualties? I do believe GW has the nads to do this. However I see the entire world REVOLTING against us if this happens. Hence..... I think we will take the HIGH ROAD even if the worst happens.
28 posted on 03/25/2003 1:27:52 PM PST by PISANO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Not a chance. You think we have diplomatic problems NOW?

There's no way we are going to be the only country ever to use nukes in the history of man unless our territorial integrity, or the existence of a first tier ally is threatened.
29 posted on 03/25/2003 1:28:09 PM PST by Woahhs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Real Cynic No More
Time to drop the hammer and light em' up.
30 posted on 03/25/2003 1:28:42 PM PST by mlbford2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Real Cynic No More
bob marley wrote a lot of songs about this. of course his songs where merely adaptations of what he read from his Bible.

Chant down Babylon.
31 posted on 03/25/2003 1:29:12 PM PST by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mortimer Snavely
Since Saddam has no chemical weapons according to all the con-war people, this is not a concern to anyone.....

I am consoled by this response to Saddam's supposed intentions.

There are other things I devoutly wish they would also do to stop some of the other bilge going on.
32 posted on 03/25/2003 1:29:29 PM PST by Spirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Is that sunrise or sunset?
33 posted on 03/25/2003 1:30:19 PM PST by Paraclete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Bluff, we wouldn't do it unless they nuked a US city, and even then I don't buy it.
34 posted on 03/25/2003 1:30:19 PM PST by Porterville (Screw the grammar, full posting ahead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: amused
What would it matter to the Baathists. They are dead men walking anyway. Bad scene.
35 posted on 03/25/2003 1:30:27 PM PST by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mihalis
I agree. The Bush Admin doesn't leak, unless it is deliberate.
36 posted on 03/25/2003 1:30:47 PM PST by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: k2blader
Now my head REALLY hurts.
37 posted on 03/25/2003 1:31:15 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: The Vast Right Wing
Well, I'd say that is kickin' it up a notch. Tactical nukes on a division, let allah sort em' out


This might be for the Iranians and North Koreans.
38 posted on 03/25/2003 1:32:06 PM PST by duk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Real Cynic No More
I doubt the MOAB has the destructive capacity of any kind of nuke weapon. Tactical nukes are rated in terms of kiloton yields, right? What's a MOAB rated at? A fraction of a kiloton is my bet.
39 posted on 03/25/2003 1:32:23 PM PST by PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Publius
Notice the date on the article.
I imagine that this was known by everyone at the UN... including FRANCE.
Which makes me think that they don't think the US has the BRASS to use these weapons.

8.9 Mt H-Bomb.
Detonation "OAK" test firing.
"Hardtack I" 1958
40 posted on 03/25/2003 1:32:24 PM PST by vannrox (The Preamble to the Bill of Rights - without it, our Bill of Rights is meaningless!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: vannrox

41 posted on 03/25/2003 1:32:51 PM PST by two23
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Woahhs
With so many rogue countries either having or developing nukes, I doubt we'd set a precedent for them.

I read something on the "E" bomb suggesting we're reluctant to set the precedent of using it because ultimately, we are the most vulnerable to its destruction, since we are so dependent on technology.
42 posted on 03/25/2003 1:33:20 PM PST by Paraclete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Comment #43 Removed by Moderator

To: Bisesi
We don't nuke Baghdad. We deliver low yield (10-15kt) tac nuke on RG formations if Iraq deploys WMD. It's an option.
44 posted on 03/25/2003 1:34:30 PM PST by USMA83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Real Cynic No More
Does anyone know how many MOABS we might have in our arsenal. Are they one the assembly line? Can they be put
together quickly?
45 posted on 03/25/2003 1:34:53 PM PST by Renatus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
I support use of nuclear weapons as President Bush deems necessary.
46 posted on 03/25/2003 1:34:56 PM PST by yonif
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Great!

That's what this war is all about. Low tech bugs and germs have completely neutered our nuclear arsenal, as everyone knows that we won't use them.

If someone fired off a nuke, they would immediately be toast, the threat would end, and a million or so would be dead in an uninhabitable small area of the earth. Dire, but controllable.

If a madman reintroduced smallpox to the world, billions could die, and even if the madman was nuked, the smallpox would still be spreading. Human interaction would become very risky, and the world economy would grind to a halt, while the smallpox continued to spread. Dire, and uncontrollable.

The madman must be stopped!

47 posted on 03/25/2003 1:35:14 PM PST by aShepard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kinghorse
What would it matter to the Baathists. They are dead men walking anyway. Bad scene.

That's the thing. They don't care...in fact our enemies would love to use that as an excuse to attack us. I am all for protecting our troops from attack but a nuclear response could escalate this into a world wide conflict....a world wide nuclear conflict. These are hypothetical roads I would rather the US not travel.

48 posted on 03/25/2003 1:35:19 PM PST by amused (Republicans for Sharpton!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
THIS IS THE ISRAELI POSITION AS WELL.
49 posted on 03/25/2003 1:35:47 PM PST by yonif
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Woahhs
I disagree. I don't think anybody will have the balls to say anything. Kim Jeng(sp?) will never be heard of again. Iran will haul all of its WMDs out into the parking lot for their removal w/o even us having to ask. Russia and China might yelp a little but not much. I am convined that civilization can only be as civilized as its LEAST civiliized link. IMHO
50 posted on 03/25/2003 1:35:52 PM PST by mlbford2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-175 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