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.

[Publius]

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.

[bedolido]

Holy Crap!!!

[vannrox]

"MIke" 10.4MT H-Bomb
Operation Ivy 1952

[jerseygirl]

"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?

[rwfromkansas]

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.

[Real Cynic No More]

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.

[Amerigomag]

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?

[PISANO]

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.

[Woahhs]

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.

[mlbford2]

Time to drop the hammer and light em' up.

[kinghorse]

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.

[Spirited]

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.

[Paraclete]

Is that sunrise or sunset?

[Porterville]

Bluff, we wouldn't do it unless they nuked a US city, and even then I don't buy it.

[kinghorse]

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

[DittoJed2]

I agree. The Bush Admin doesn't leak, unless it is deliberate.

[Howlin]

Now my head REALLY hurts.

[duk]

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.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

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.

[vannrox]

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