Bush approves nuclear response (If Allied forces are attacked by Chemical Weapons)!

The Washington Times ^ | January 31, 2003 | By Nicholas Kralev

[vannrox]

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.

[vannrox]

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.

[Paleo Conservative]

Tikrit is toast.

[Coop]

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.

[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.

[Truthsearcher]

Right, regardless of whether we will actually use them, we must make it known that we are prepared to used them.

[backhoe]

Excellent.

[MEG33]

Authorized in first Gulf war,too.

[Mihalis]

I suspect this was purposely leaked to the press.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

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)

[k2blader]

Bump.

[LibFreeUSA]

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

Someone please explain this clearly.

[Hodar]

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?

[Anamensis]

Oh my, the peace protestors are going to be very peeved.

[mhking]

That's ONE way to up the pucker factor 'round these parts...

[Mortimer Snavely]

Chemical weapons? But Saddam hasn't any chemical weapons. That's what all the cool and groovy people think, anyway...

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

ping!

[shadowman99]

"Can anybody in class tell me how this promotes love and understanding?"

[Ebony-Patriot]

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...

[Mo1]

Big Ping

[amused]

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.