Bush approves nuclear response

Washington Times ^ | 1/31/03 | Nicholas Kralev

[kattracks]

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.

[TrappedInLiberalHell]

Bush approves nuclear response

Now that's a sensationalistic headline if ever I've read one.

[Mo1]

Is it me .. or does it seem like the they keep recycling old news??

[Grampa Dave]

Somethings need to be repeated!

The disclosure of the classified text follows newspaper reports that the planning for a war with Iraq focuses on using nuclear arms not only to defend U.S. forces but also to "pre-empt" deeply buried Iraqi facilities that could withstand conventional explosives.

For decades, the U.S. government has maintained a deliberately vague nuclear policy, expressed in such language as "all options open" and "not ruling anything in or out." As recently as last weekend, Bush administration officials used similar statements in public, consciously avoiding the word "nuclear."

"I'm not going to put anything on the table or off the table," White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. said on NBC's "Meet the Press," adding that the United States will use "whatever means necessary" to protect its citizens and the world from a "holocaust."

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.

Ernest, would you say this make the n in pre-empNt, a capital n even if pre empt is not spelled that way?:)

[sonofatpatcher2]

If it comes down to it, I'm for nuking Iraq if they use WMDs on our troops or anyone else.

Okay, it is easy to write this on a computer screen, but I've been on the receiving end of a bullet and I've smelt the bad breath of a man I just killed with my K-Bar, so I feel I have a small right to speak.

So, to hell with world opinion! If by using our nukes to save lives (both ours and theirs) in the long run was the right thing to do to end WW2, then I say do it to end the War on Terror.

[First_Salute]

For the record, nuclear weapons have always been regarded as a deterrent in "N.B.C. Warfare," without finessing the connections of N to N, B to B, and C to C.

[Joe 6-pack]

"...apparently changing a decades-old U.S. policy of deliberate ambiguity..."

Frankly, I'm proud and honored to have a President who is deliverately unambiguous.

[Joe 6-pack]

ooops..."deliberately."

[garandgal]

Agree wholeheartedly...thank you for your service to our great country.

P.S. Loved your homepage....

[Quix]

Seems sensible to me.

Horrid but sensible, necessary.

[sonofatpatcher2]

Thanks, your kind comment is appreciated.

[Orion78]

Russia May Expand Nuclear Doctrine (4/28/00)

[Orion78]

Nuclear Strategy and Small Nuclear Forces: The Conceptual Components (6/22/00)

[ffusco]

The old MAD doctrine is being replaced. Nuclear deterrence is maintained by the possibility that they could be used. Smaller tactical nukes will almost certainly be deployed in case Saddam uses WMDs. Personally I think the US should have asked Afghanistan for permission for an underground test of a thermonuclear device of say 5 kilotons at Tora Bora. With practically no collateral damage it would have been expediant, humane and cheap and it would have given our enemies a reason to think twice.

[Aric2000]

When I was in the military, this doctrine was a given.

If President Bush wants to make it clear as day, MORE power to him. These terrorists do not respond to ambiguity, you have to hit them in the head with a hammer, and the threat of a nuke in response is an awfully big hammer.

[sonofatpatcher2]

Re: Personally I think the US should have asked Afghanistan for permission for an underground test of a thermonuclear device of say 5 kilotons at Tora Bora. With practically no collateral damage it would have been expediant, humane and cheap and it would have given our enemies a reason to think twice.

Smart idea. Very smart, I like it!

[sneakypete]

For the record, nuclear weapons have always been regarded as a deterrent in "N.B.C. Warfare," without finessing the connections of N to N, B to B, and C to C.

I suspect the purpose of this article is to send a message to certain interested parties and individuals in Iraq.And maybe even other places. There are FAR too many people who refuse to take the US seriously because we have a history of not abusing our power. These people are making a serious and fatal mistake if they take this to mean we won't respond in a unbelievably violent manner to any attack on our people that used chemical or bio weapons. Just because we work hard at being nice doesn't mean we can't be world-class nasty when it's called for.

[The Great Satan]

Well boys, I reckon this is it. Nuclear-biological combat, toe-to-toe with the Iraqis.

[The Great Satan]

Memo to the people of Baghdad: Get out now, while there is still time.

[sneakypete]

These terrorists do not respond to ambiguity, you have to hit them in the head with a hammer, and the threat of a nuke in response is an awfully big hammer.

The prime problem with that being that it is too big a "hammer". The terrorist leadership don't really worry about it because THEY are the only ones in their groups who have the intel coming in to warn them of a pending attack,and who have the mobility and ability to haul ass before the strike hits. Hell,since most of THEM won't be the doing the dying,they would probably welcome something like this because they would turn it into a recruiting tool. Nope,to REALLY get the message to them,you have to put it on a more primitive and personal level. You have to make it known that THEY PERSONALLY will be tracked down to anywhere in the world they go,and that one fine morning they will wake to to the feeling of a knife blade sliding across their throats. You are neither a martyr or a hero when you die in your sleep. A few examples of THAT happening will send a message they can't miss.

[txhurl]

No, no, no. No nukes.

Dude, the EMP- and carbon filament-type stuff is much cleaner, and at least as devastating, yet with no unnecessary destruction of terra firma.

[Orion78]

Report: Military Plans Nuke Hits on 7 Countries (3/9/02)

[sneakypete]

Smart idea. Very smart, I like it!

I don't. We lose the moral high ground when we are the first ones to resort to using WMD,and the terrorists would make VERY effective propoganda out of this to justify them using WMD in attacks on US cities. Let THEM be the first ones to use these methods,and us be the last ones.

[Orion78]

Nuclear experts warn against implementation of START II Treaty and US Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament (2/6/01)
Russian Defector Warns US against Planned Unilateral Disarmament Measures (7/19/01)

[Orion78]

DoD News: Special Briefing on the Nuclear Posture Review (1/15/02)

[sneakypete]

Memo to the people of Baghdad: Get out now, while there is still time

The problem is they can't. The only ones who have the means and the ability to do this are the elites whose conduct over the years is bringing this about. You can believe they are already sending or making plans to send their children and other relatives to places like France,Spain,or other safe havens,leaving the innocents to do all the suffering and dying.

[ImphClinton]

I understand we have a bunker buster nuke. This would have worked great in Afganistan. It produces very little above ground radiation.

There could be some use for these in Iraq at certin palaces.

I would hope we would use them if Sadam uses any WMD. We might just take him and his family out.

[justa-hairyape]

If our troops are committed to the battlefield, to enforce the cease fire conditions from the first Gulf War, and Saddam starts lobbing Biological and/or Chemical weapons on them, tactical nuke strikes on everyone of his palaces and everyone of his bunkers should be an automatic. This would be the most humane thing to do for our troops and the Iraqi people. Think of the damage that Saddams firing of chemical and biological weapons at our troops will also have to the citizens of Iraq

We should also assume that any biological and/or chemical attack on the home soil of any of the Nations United in the physical enforcement of the terms of Saddams previous gulf war surrender, that occurs during our military actions to enforce the surrender terms, is related to the military actions against Saddam. Such chemical and biological attacks should also be responded to with the tactical nuking of every single one of Saddams Palaces and his bunkers.

[Lion's Cub]

The only ones who have the means and the ability to do this are the elites whose conduct over the years is bringing this about. You can believe they are already sending or making plans to send their children and other relatives to places like France,Spain,or other safe havens,leaving the innocents to do all the suffering and dying

I think the point here is that we might use them to take out known stores of WMDs. If these happen to be under buildings occupied by civilians, I suspect we would send some special ops or members of the resistance in to evacuate them before the weapons hit.

[Dark Knight]

If God Hadn't Wanted Fully Automatic Weapons, He Wouldn't Have Made All Those Armadillos!

ROFLMAO

DK

[NetValue]

"Memo to the people of Baghdad: Get out now, while there is still time."

Get him out now, while there is still time!

[snopercod]

I think that the public needed to be reminded of the policy considering the that - in response to a CBR attack - the previous administration would have held an encounter group and sat around a campfire in the destert singing Kum-ba-ya with the Iraqis.

[snopercod]

We lose the moral high ground...

I think you might want to consider whether not responding to a CBR attack with the best weapons in our arsenal is moral or not.

Morarality is the third branch of philosopy, and is simply the sum total of the decisions people make to achieve "the good".

Now ask yourself whether allowing American soldiers to die to maintain your image is moral.

[ASA Vet]

the threat of a nuke in response is an awfully big hammer.

This enemy doesn't respond to threats. They only respond to actual action.
It's like telling someone that's pestering you, "stop, or I'll punch you in the nose."
If you repeat it enough times, they will not believe you, because a threat doesn't hurt.

[metesky]

I agree with you, sir. The countries that sponsor the terrorist scum and asymetrical warfare have always depended on our being duped into believing that the terror groups are unaffiliated and amorphous. If they think the hammer can and will drop on them, they will rapidly rethink their options.

Unless they really do have a death wish.

[Nayt2]

...unless there was a scandal to deflect attention from.

[kabar]

Secretary Baker conveyed a similar message to Iraq prior to the Gulf War letting them know that any WMD attack us would be met with devastating force including the use of nuclear weapons. Just a shot across the bow to let them know what the consequences will be should they be foolish enough to launch a chem/bio attack. North Korea should also heed this message.

[ASA Vet]

(initials NK or P) ?

Ok, I give up, the North Korea reference is easy, but I can't think of a "P" nation which is a threat.

[Menkenspiel]

Ok, I give up, the North Korea reference is easy, but I can't think of a "P" nation which is a threat.

Uh, how about Pakistan?

[ASA Vet]

Well that certainly was one of my "duh" moments.
I hate it when that happens.

[elfman2]

”Somethings need to be repeated!

The disclosure of the classified text follows newspaper reports that the planning for a war with Iraq focuses on using nuclear arms not only to defend U.S. forces but also to "pre-empt" deeply buried Iraqi facilities that could withstand conventional explosives. ”

No, This is already just repetition. The LA Times came out with this unsubstantiated fear mongering claim last week and now someone at the WT chose to reference it. It wasn’t worth repeating then or now. It’s like the preverbal lie that makes it half way around the world before the truth gets off the ground.

Preemptive use of nukes is too big a policy change to be undertaken like this. This story is either the LA Times playing games or the Pentagon doing the same with Saddam’s people.

[ASA Vet]

So you have a clear vision

I don't have visions at all. That was banned poster spiritoftruth.

[BOBTHENAILER]

The classified document, a copy of which was shown to The Washington Times, is known better by its abbreviation NSPD 17, as well as Homeland Security Presidential Directive 4.

Well Dave, I believe NSPD 17 puts the N in the doctine quite sufficiently.

It's about time.

[ewing]

I think this is referring to the small load bunker busting nukes were tested lately in Nevada.

[Semper Paratus]

Interesting the timing of this release.
Sadaam may need to reinforce his bunkers a bit.

[Man of the Right]

"I will defend the American people." -- George W. Bush

He isn't just whistling "Dixie."

[sneakypete]

I suspect we would send some special ops or members of the resistance in to evacuate them before the weapons hit.

I would hope not,as this would not only be a sure death sentence for these troops,but a warning to the Iraquis that that site was going to be hit.

[MeekOneGOP]

bttt for later read.

Mornin' !