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

Skip to comments.

**US MAY USE TATICAL NUKES IN IRAQ**
LA Times and Times of India ^ | January 25, 2003 | William Arkin

Posted on 01/25/2003 6:43:36 AM PST by ewing

The United States is quietly preparing for the use of tatical nuclear weapons in a war against Iraq and military planners have been actively studying lists of potential targets, the media reported Saturday.

The preparations include possible use of so called 'bunker buster' nuclear weapons against deeply buried military targets the Los Angeles Times reported on Saturday morning quoting William M. Arkin.

Defence officials have been focusing their plans on the use of tatical nuclear arms in retaliation for a strike by the Iraqis with chemical or biological weapons, or to preempt one, the daily said.

US Administration officials believe that in some circumstances, using nuclear arms may be the only way to destory deeply buried targets that may contain unconventional weapons, the report said.

Some officials have argued that the blast and radiation of effect of such strikes would be limited.

(Excerpt) Read more at timesofindia.indiatimes.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; Israel; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: boom; bunkerbusters; iraq; mindgames; newweapons; saddam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-155 next last
More psy ops on Saddam?
1 posted on 01/25/2003 6:43:36 AM PST by ewing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ewing
I think so - but I also think every word is accurate. We are surely prepared for any contingency... not the least likely of which is Saddam's use of WMD. Our response will be devastatingly precise and effective.
2 posted on 01/25/2003 6:46:24 AM PST by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ewing
Seems this same story was circulated almost word for word at the beginning of the Afghan Campaign also.

The LA SLIMES and company are doing their best to try and paint this as some startling and troubling development, when the fact of the matter is that Every campaign is designed with the use of ALL weapons factored in as contingencies.

Also, we have had a "Respond in Kind" policy for the use of WMD for years. You use a WMD on us, we drop a nuke on you - quid pro quo.

3 posted on 01/25/2003 6:48:30 AM PST by commish (Freedom Tastes Sweetest to Those Who Have Fought to Preserve It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ewing
I don't think that's psyops. I think the gov't is just letting the bad guys know that we are serious about retalliation.

If Iraq pulls a domestic attack through sleepers or hits our troops in the field with WMD, they are just reiterating our ability to field and to use a nuke.

After all, if we are hit with WMD, you would expect an escalation in our military response, but we don't use biologics or chemicals. So, tactical nukes are the only response.
4 posted on 01/25/2003 6:50:17 AM PST by bonesmccoy (Defeat the terrorists... Vaccinate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ewing
Good development. Try not to use them in densely populated areas unless Iraq uses WMD first.

Our enemies aren't afraid of us. Political correctness has rendered us impotent. This development is a nice move towards strikign fear in the hearts of Jihadists everywhere.

5 posted on 01/25/2003 6:50:20 AM PST by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: commish
Did we say 'pre emptive' strike during the beginning of the Afghan campaign as well?
6 posted on 01/25/2003 6:53:41 AM PST by ewing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ewing
Picture me using the E-Times (both LA and India) in my E-Birdcage and to wrap my E-Fish.
7 posted on 01/25/2003 6:54:30 AM PST by Mike Darancette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ewing
That should be used first I would think and we don't send any of our boys in just NUKE IRAQ!
8 posted on 01/25/2003 6:55:42 AM PST by TLBSHOW (Slamming the liberal bias media but GOOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ewing
Just GWB getting the word out to Saddam. It accomplishes several objectives with one stroke. It will smoke out more hidden aQ rats than we can imagine.

(Someone just tried to hack into my computer as I typed that last sentence .... amazing! Thank God I have good software. Think DNC hackers and crackers are lurking on Free Republic more and more now that they see the site flourishing. Gonna log off right now.)

9 posted on 01/25/2003 7:01:10 AM PST by ex-Texan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
we don't send any of our boys in just NUKE IRAQ!

Ditto that, the Islamists problem could been solved on 9-12-2001 if we had nuked the deserving nations.

10 posted on 01/25/2003 7:01:15 AM PST by putupon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bybybill
Nukes in response to WMD attack seems reasonable to me, eh Mr. Bill? :O)
11 posted on 01/25/2003 7:01:36 AM PST by Mad_Tom_Rackham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
We're not trying to slaughter Iraqi civilians. Just like Afghanistan, we'll attack surgically to minimize civilian casualties.
12 posted on 01/25/2003 7:03:09 AM PST by kristinn (HumanShieldAgainstTerrorists@WhiteHouse.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
I think the rest of the world would kind of frown on us nuking Saddam pre emptively.

We already have an EMT/Electromagnetic Pulse bomb that will destroy every computer and electronic circut in Baghdad and make it inoperable for the next 1,000 years..I would use that first!

13 posted on 01/25/2003 7:03:19 AM PST by ewing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ewing
I do believe this story broke last MArch that we would use nukes if needed!
14 posted on 01/25/2003 7:04:24 AM PST by TLBSHOW (Slamming the liberal bias media but GOOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ewing
The last paragraph of this article sounds good to me:

A White House spokesman declined to comment on Friday on Arkin's report, except to say that "the US reserves the right to defend itself and its allies by whatever means necessary."

15 posted on 01/25/2003 7:04:44 AM PST by kristinn (HumanShieldAgainstTerrorists@WhiteHouse.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ewing
The preparations include possible use of so called 'bunker buster' nuclear weapons...

It's my understanding that "bunker busters" are not nuclear weapons.

16 posted on 01/25/2003 7:06:05 AM PST by metesky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
I do have a even better plan ( Iraq surrenders)! But that would be a perfect world!
17 posted on 01/25/2003 7:06:11 AM PST by TLBSHOW (Slamming the liberal bias media but GOOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
The Nancies over at DUh.com are peeing their pants over this one.
18 posted on 01/25/2003 7:06:13 AM PST by Petronski (I'm not always cranky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
Im confused by that statement that we would use small nuke bunker busters to pre empt a chemical weapons strike.

Is our intel that good that we would know in advance that a massive bio attack is coming?

19 posted on 01/25/2003 7:06:40 AM PST by ewing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ewing
world would kind of frown on us

what is the world doing now? they hate us anyway.

20 posted on 01/25/2003 7:07:58 AM PST by putupon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ewing
hope this is yanked PRONTO from breakin news-IT AIN'T BREAKIN NEWS!!!!!! MODERATOR, PUL-LEEZE SHOW UP!!
21 posted on 01/25/2003 7:10:25 AM PST by 1234 (Border control or IMPEACHMENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ewing
Dunno, but it helps to make Saddam and his generals think so.
22 posted on 01/25/2003 7:10:57 AM PST by kristinn (HumanShieldAgainstTerrorists@WhiteHouse.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: metesky
These are new weapons, I read an article about them in the London papers during the Afghan Tora Bora attack.

The Allied US and British military ( they were designed in the UK) has been testing them in Nevada, it appears that they have a small kiloton load (1-5) to prevent widespread radiation and that they have a device that will dig into the ground to seek the target and destroy it.

Thankfully the caves in Afghanistan didn't require the use of these weapons the Daisy Cutters did just fine.

23 posted on 01/25/2003 7:11:09 AM PST by ewing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: 1234
This is 'breaking news' designed to get Saddam to pee in his pants..as I see it!
24 posted on 01/25/2003 7:13:47 AM PST by ewing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ewing
Weather forecast for Baghdad:
Cloudy, 2500 degrees.
25 posted on 01/25/2003 7:15:48 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ewing
Why is 'tactical' mispelled in the title and each time it is used? The source has it spelled correctly.

Just curious...

26 posted on 01/25/2003 7:19:56 AM PST by arkady_renko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ewing
Davey Crockett Mortar Platoon?
27 posted on 01/25/2003 7:20:03 AM PST by leadpenny (Probably not!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ewing; metesky
Not only does this new generation "bunker buster" carry a small nuclear warhead, it is designed to explode downward,
leaving little or no trace of radiation above ground, but totally destroying everything in the underground bunker.
28 posted on 01/25/2003 7:20:29 AM PST by TommyDale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: arkady_renko
Not enough coffee yet, my misspelling.
29 posted on 01/25/2003 7:20:56 AM PST by ewing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ewing
This is 'breaking news' designed to get Saddam to pee in his pants..as I see it!

YESSUH, i agree; but in our forum it ain't breakin info/fact: that's my only point, unless the elevation of our psy-ops/propaganda is to be considered in the 'breakin' category, which i think is a 'matter of debate'....

30 posted on 01/25/2003 7:21:07 AM PST by 1234 (Border control or IMPEACHMENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
The Nancies over at DUh.com are peeing their pants over this one.

For the life of me, I can't see why.

It has been the doctrine of the United States to respond to any attack using WMD with tactical nuclear weapons. Biowar and Chem weapons are in our inventory, but we do not use them. This has been our doctrine since the dawn of the Cold War.

So let's not get concerned about William Rivers Pitt and the goobers over at DU. Besides, they're too busy snapping up copies of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion to care. Gotta get mentally ready for all those Anti-War/Anti-Zionist rallies, dontchaknow.....

But in all seriousness, this is a big, spanking message to the Iraqi General Staff and the field grade Iraqi officers. "Don't Follow Orders, Or Else...".

This leak was necessary, and all to the good.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

31 posted on 01/25/2003 7:23:06 AM PST by section9 (John Edwards: The Other Empty Suit....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ewing
Yuppers. We MAY use anything at anytime against anyone. Personally unless there is an immenent threat against us, I would bet we'll see lots of stories like this just before the dark of the moon. In this case it we also have teh UN inspectors report.

Iraq will be on guard for all kinds of attacks, but we'll wait. Who know how long? Maybe next month, maybe March or beyond is the real attack date.

In the meantime Iraq (and others in the middle east), are expending resources to brace for the assault. And maybe the psychology will work, Saddam goes away one way or another,we get a foothold in a very strategic area and we can move on to the next towel head, terrorist supporting country.

It also sends a not to subtle message to all the other third world, worthless countries to get on board with us, or go your own way and keep away from us.

prisoner6

32 posted on 01/25/2003 7:24:04 AM PST by prisoner6 ( I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered! I am a FREE MAN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ewing
”Did we say 'pre emptive' strike during the beginning of the Afghan campaign as well?”

If you believe the left leaning LA time’s didn’t just throw the “preemptive” caveat in to scare moderates, sell papers, get the Pentagon to deny it etc…, then I have some magic beans you may be interested in.

33 posted on 01/25/2003 7:28:49 AM PST by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
But just so we know who we're reading here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/bio. htm

"About William Arkin

William M. Arkin, an Army veteran, author and consultant, was born in New York City and currently lives in South Pomfret, VT.

He served in the Army from 1974-1978, where he was an intelligence analyst assigned to the headquarters of the West Berlin command. After the Army, Bill worked for a number of not-for-profit think tanks and pressure groups in Washington.

During the 1980's, Arkin became an authority on nuclear weapons. He has written a column for The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists since 1985. He wrote his first book "Research Guide to Current Military and Strategic Affairs" in 1981. Since then, he has authored or coauthored eight more books and dozens of book-length monographs and studies on military affairs.

Arkin consults for a number of organizations, including the Natural Resources Defense Council and Human Rights Watch. He is also a military commentator for MSNBC.

Arkin went on the Internet in 1994 with his book, "The U.S. Military Online: A Directory for Internet Access to the Department of Defense." He has become expert on the national security dimensions of the Internet, lectures widely on the subject and conducts Internet training.

His DOT.MIL column, launched in November 1998, appears every other Monday at washingtonpost.com. "

Whoopdeedoo...4 years in the army in the 70s...didn't mention his rank....and I love the fact that during the 80s, he "became an authority on nuclear weapons"... would be nice to know how he managed that. And consulting for Natural Resources Defense Council, Human Rights Watch, and working for MSNBC doesn't impress me much at all. I suspect Arkin isn't "analyzing" as much as he is fear mongering the anti nuke crowd into action against President Bush. .

34 posted on 01/25/2003 7:29:49 AM PST by YaYa123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: section9
So let's not get concerned about William Rivers Pitt and the goobers over at DU...

Nah, Chris, I'm not concerned. I like to lurk there because it is so entertaining: a kind of hysterical sideshow to history.

35 posted on 01/25/2003 7:30:23 AM PST by Petronski (I'm not always cranky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ewing
If Iraq hits Israel with chemical or germ weapons, who doubts that Israel will make Iraq glow in the dark?
36 posted on 01/25/2003 7:32:10 AM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ewing
Freep this poll and ruin a DUer's day! Bwa ha ha ha ha!
37 posted on 01/25/2003 7:37:20 AM PST by Petronski (I'm not always cranky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
A reporter for the LALA Times and Compost furthering his leftist agenda through his reporting? Perish the thought.
38 posted on 01/25/2003 7:39:56 AM PST by kristinn (HumanShieldAgainstTerrorists@WhiteHouse.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 1234
If it helps our fighting boys, I am all for doing it.
39 posted on 01/25/2003 7:42:35 AM PST by ewing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ewing
I can't believe this administration would trust an important leak like this to a tree hugging, bleeding heart wienie.

But... except for that remote possibility... why would this aricle be written...why would it be published? I'm such a skeptic....but the LATIMES? nah...I'm not believing this article has any basis in fact.

40 posted on 01/25/2003 7:45:54 AM PST by YaYa123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
He has written a column for The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

It sounds like a technical publication but it is just a political dumping ground for greenies, socialist/communists and technophobes.

41 posted on 01/25/2003 7:49:43 AM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Well, the 'freep this poll' thread got pulled, I had that coming to me. But it is getting 54% yes votes already.

And the poll is on globalfreepress.com so I suppose it can't hurt to mention it here again.

42 posted on 01/25/2003 7:49:59 AM PST by Petronski (I'm not always cranky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ewing
"If the United States dropped a bomb on an Arab country, it might be a military success, but it would be a diplomatic, political and strategic disaster,"

Oh well, I guess sometimes you just have to make sacrifices.

43 posted on 01/25/2003 7:52:18 AM PST by Kerberos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Principled
devastatingly precise

That certainly describes a tactical nuke.

44 posted on 01/25/2003 7:53:33 AM PST by Tom Bombadil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ewing
If it helps our fighting boys, I am all for doing it.

agreed-jus thought we should be tryin to keep breakin news on FR site 'pure'....but, what is news anyway? for many of us it's got a big entertainment component-we are too removed from the facts to really know what the heck is reality at the gubmint level...

45 posted on 01/25/2003 7:54:46 AM PST by 1234 (Border control or IMPEACHMENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
Whoopdeedoo...4 years in the army in the 70s...didn't mention his rank....and I love the fact that during the 80s, he "became an authority on nuclear weapons"...

Excellent point, I too was an “intelligence analyst” for 4 years, but as an enlisted man, I spent as much time cleaning heads and policing cigarette butts as combing through top secret material. After 5 – 10 years, I forgot more than I still knew. I couldn’t imagine getting out and going on to “become an authority on nuclear weapons”. Lol!

46 posted on 01/25/2003 7:56:34 AM PST by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
LOL! 54% YES..
47 posted on 01/25/2003 7:57:34 AM PST by ewing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ewing; TommyDale
Thanks for the info, gentlemen.

Just another reason to love Free Republic.

48 posted on 01/25/2003 8:01:56 AM PST by metesky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ewing
Some officials have argued that the blast and radiation of effect of such strikes would be limited.

Neutron? A couple of them dropped in the middle of a few palaces might just do the trick if Saddam uses any WND during or prior to the conflict.

49 posted on 01/25/2003 8:03:22 AM PST by b4its2late
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW; putupon
”That should be used first I would think and we don't send any of our boys in just NUKE IRAQ!”

Sure, that wouldn’t pull the plug on anti- terrorism cooperation we're getting from Europe, Russia, Asia, Africa, South America and the Antarctic. Tens of millions of radioactive civies wouldn’t send the rest of the world scrambling to the UN’s world government vision for protection. That wouldn’t nations racing into covert WMD programs. Why is it that the Left is able to portray us as Kooks again?

50 posted on 01/25/2003 8:04:54 AM PST by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-155 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