**US MAY USE TATICAL NUKES IN IRAQ**

LA Times and Times of India ^ | January 25, 2003 | William Arkin

[ewing]

More psy ops on Saddam?

[Principled]

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.

[commish]

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.

[bonesmccoy]

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.

[Thane_Banquo]

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.

[ewing]

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

[Mike Darancette]

Picture me using the E-Times (both LA and India) in my E-Birdcage and to wrap my E-Fish.

[TLBSHOW]

That should be used first I would think and we don't send any of our boys in just NUKE IRAQ!

[ex-Texan]

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.)

[putupon]

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.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Nukes in response to WMD attack seems reasonable to me, eh Mr. Bill? :O)

[kristinn]

We're not trying to slaughter Iraqi civilians. Just like Afghanistan, we'll attack surgically to minimize civilian casualties.

[ewing]

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!

[TLBSHOW]

I do believe this story broke last MArch that we would use nukes if needed!

[kristinn]

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."

[metesky]

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

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

[TLBSHOW]

I do have a even better plan ( Iraq surrenders)! But that would be a perfect world!

[Petronski]

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

[ewing]

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?

[putupon]

world would kind of frown on us

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