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

Skip to comments.

Bush approves nuclear response
Washington Times ^ | 1/31/03 | Nicholas Kralev

Posted on 01/30/2003 10:45:58 PM PST by kattracks

Edited on 07/12/2004 4:00:37 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

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.


(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bushdoctrineunfold
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-106 next last

1 posted on 01/30/2003 10:45:58 PM PST by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Bush approves nuclear response

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

2 posted on 01/30/2003 10:51:19 PM PST by TrappedInLiberalHell (I'm against tags -- that is, I'm antagonistic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Is it me .. or does it seem like the they keep recycling old news??
3 posted on 01/30/2003 10:52:55 PM PST by Mo1 (I Hate The Party of Bill Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mo1; Shermy; BOBTHENAILER; Dog; Dog Gone; MadIvan; Miss Marple; hchutch; Ernest_at_the_Beach
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?:)

4 posted on 01/30/2003 11:03:08 PM PST by Grampa Dave (Stamp out Freepathons! Stop being a Freep Loader! Become a monthly donor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kattracks; imhere
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.

5 posted on 01/30/2003 11:05:00 PM PST by sonofatpatcher2 (If God Hadn't Wanted Fully Automatic Weapons, He Wouldn't Have Made All Those Armadillos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snopercod; joanie-f; kattracks; JeanS; mommadooo3; brityank
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.
6 posted on 01/30/2003 11:05:55 PM PST by First_Salute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
"...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.

7 posted on 01/30/2003 11:07:48 PM PST by Joe 6-pack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
ooops..."deliberately."
8 posted on 01/30/2003 11:09:23 PM PST by Joe 6-pack (Who put those keys so close together?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sonofatpatcher2
Agree wholeheartedly...thank you for your service to our great country.

P.S. Loved your homepage....

9 posted on 01/30/2003 11:13:02 PM PST by garandgal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Seems sensible to me.

Horrid but sensible, necessary.
10 posted on 01/30/2003 11:21:07 PM PST by Quix (21st FREEPCARD FINISHED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garandgal
Thanks, your kind comment is appreciated.
11 posted on 01/30/2003 11:32:02 PM PST by sonofatpatcher2 (If God Hadn't Wanted Fully Automatic Weapons, He Wouldn't Have Made All Those Armadillos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Russia May Expand Nuclear Doctrine (4/28/00)
12 posted on 01/30/2003 11:36:19 PM PST by Orion78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Nuclear Strategy and Small Nuclear Forces: The Conceptual Components (6/22/00)
13 posted on 01/30/2003 11:36:42 PM PST by Orion78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonofatpatcher2
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.
14 posted on 01/30/2003 11:37:55 PM PST by ffusco (sempre ragione)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
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.
15 posted on 01/30/2003 11:40:07 PM PST by Aric2000 (Are you on Grampa Dave's team? I am!! $5 a month is all it takes, come join!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ffusco
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!

16 posted on 01/30/2003 11:49:45 PM PST by sonofatpatcher2 (If God Hadn't Wanted Fully Automatic Weapons, He Wouldn't Have Made All Those Armadillos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.

17 posted on 01/31/2003 12:07:32 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Well boys, I reckon this is it. Nuclear-biological combat, toe-to-toe with the Iraqis.
18 posted on 01/31/2003 12:08:52 AM PST by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Memo to the people of Baghdad: Get out now, while there is still time.
19 posted on 01/31/2003 12:09:56 AM PST by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
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.

20 posted on 01/31/2003 12:14:22 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-106 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