Posted on 09/12/2005 3:51:50 PM PDT by LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget
A PRESIDENT of the United States would be able to launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes against enemies planning to use weapons of mass destruction under a revised “nuclear operations” doctrine to be signed in the next few weeks. In a significant shift after half a century of nuclear deterrence based on the threat of massive retaliation, the revised doctrine would allow pre-emptive strikes against states or terror groups, and to destroy chemical and biological weapons stockpiles.
Presidential approval would still be required for any nuclear strike, but the updated document, the existence of which was confirmed by the Pentagon at the weekend, emphasises the need for the US to adapt to a world of worsening proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in which deterrence might fail. In that event, it states, “the United States must be prepared to use nuclear weapons if necessary”.
The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, last revised ten years ago, extends President Bush’s doctrine of pre-emptive war to cover a US nuclear arsenal that is expected to shrink to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads by 2012.
It was drafted by the Pentagon in March and posted on the internet, but did not attract widespread attention until a report on it in The Washington Post yesterday. It has since been removed from the Department of Defence website.
It came to light as Iran insisted, in defiance of the European Union, that it would continue processing uranium at its Isfahan reactor. The US has called on the UN Security Council to impose sanctions on Tehran for failing to shelve its nuclear programme.
Referring repeatedly to “non-state actors” — parlance for terrorists — the doctrine is designed to arm the White House and US forces with a new range of threats and sanctions to counter the situation of threatened nuclear attack by al-Qaeda or one of its affiliates.
The document’s key phrase appears in a list of pre-emptive nuclear strike scenarios, the first of which is against an enemy using “or intending to use WMD”.
Elsewhere it states that “deterrence of potential adversary WMD use requires the potential adversary leadership to believe that the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective”.
The 1995 version of the doctrine contained no mention of pre-emption or WMD as legitimate nuclear targets.
Bring it on.
Perhaps those terrorist a-holes shouldn't f' with then eh?
Well SHIAAT wasnt 9/11 enough of a strike to authorize such response? I am sick of our panty waist politicians.
See that is why i like him he is saying what i been thinking for years since 9/11. Let the terrorist reap what they sow.
Boom ~ Bump!
Actually, I think the conventional strike against Afghanistan, who shielded Bin Laden, was appropriate.
There's the problem of who really did it (yeah it was the Saudis, but not directly, and we need their oil). I wouldn't go nuke unless we were either nuked or badly bio-ed ourselves. In that case, I'd take out all of the usual suspects, of course, because I would just "settle all family accounts" (Godfather I).
Bad as 9/11 was, I wouldn't have used nukes. It would have set the whole world against us--not just the Muzzies. But, given a nuke here, all bets would be off.
...KEWL! LOL!..make the Terrorists/Liberals sweat.
Boom.
Suppose a dirty bomb goes off in an American city...who do we nuke?
The DNC?
All you gotta do is
put your mind to it
knuckle down, buckle down
do it do it do it!
or France. Same difference.
Start with Mecca and Medina. Then make Syria go away, just because. If we see anybody celebrating on television, they're next, thus allowing us to finally give France what they deserve. ;)
First, I think that should be, "Well, Shi'ite! Wasn't 9/11 enough of a strike to authorize such response?
There's the problem of who really did it...
Maybe to civilized nations there is, but we are dealing with uncivilized terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. If I remember the scenes from the Palestinian camps to 9/11 correctly, we know they sympathize with and are willing to support bint Ladin. If we simply haul out some neutron bombs and use them on the Palestinian Authority and Mekkah and Medina, the problem will go away fast. My thinking is 1,000,000 dead Sheetheaded goatf'ers dead in such a preemptive attack would only qualify as "a good start".
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.