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 1-5051-100101-106 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]

To: The Great Satan
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.

21 posted on 01/31/2003 12:15:17 AM PST by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Report: Military Plans Nuke Hits on 7 Countries (3/9/02)
22 posted on 01/31/2003 12:16:15 AM PST by Orion78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonofatpatcher2; ffusco
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.

23 posted on 01/31/2003 12:17:34 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
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)
24 posted on 01/31/2003 12:17:46 AM PST by Orion78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
DoD News: Special Briefing on the Nuclear Posture Review (1/15/02)
25 posted on 01/31/2003 12:19:03 AM PST by Orion78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Great Satan
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.

26 posted on 01/31/2003 12:20:32 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ffusco
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.
27 posted on 01/31/2003 12:34:07 AM PST by ImphClinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ImphClinton
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.

28 posted on 01/31/2003 2:26:45 AM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
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.

29 posted on 01/31/2003 2:39:33 AM PST by Lion's Cub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sonofatpatcher2
If God Hadn't Wanted Fully Automatic Weapons, He Wouldn't Have Made All Those Armadillos!

ROFLMAO

DK
30 posted on 01/31/2003 2:53:04 AM PST by Dark Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

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

Get him out now, while there is still time!

31 posted on 01/31/2003 3:06:49 AM PST by NetValue (Orwell was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: First_Salute
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.
32 posted on 01/31/2003 3:16:42 AM PST by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
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.

33 posted on 01/31/2003 3:22:47 AM PST by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
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.

34 posted on 01/31/2003 3:41:50 AM PST by ASA Vet ("Hardcore wackjob segment" of FR member.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
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.

35 posted on 01/31/2003 3:50:07 AM PST by metesky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
...unless there was a scandal to deflect attention from.
36 posted on 01/31/2003 3:52:11 AM PST by Nayt2 (this must be new)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
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.
37 posted on 01/31/2003 3:52:33 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #38 Removed by Moderator

To: Karl B
(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.

39 posted on 01/31/2003 4:04:15 AM PST by ASA Vet ("Hardcore wackjob segment" of FR member.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator

To: ASA Vet
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?

41 posted on 01/31/2003 4:10:34 AM PST by Menkenspiel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Menkenspiel
Well that certainly was one of my "duh" moments.
I hate it when that happens.
42 posted on 01/31/2003 4:16:28 AM PST by ASA Vet ("Hardcore wackjob segment" of FR member.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: 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. ”

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.

43 posted on 01/31/2003 4:16:46 AM PST by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Karl B
So you have a clear vision

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

44 posted on 01/31/2003 4:19:41 AM PST by ASA Vet ("Hardcore wackjob segment" of FR member.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
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.

45 posted on 01/31/2003 4:42:18 AM PST by BOBTHENAILER (Vaporize Saddam's Smoking Gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I think this is referring to the small load bunker busting nukes were tested lately in Nevada.
46 posted on 01/31/2003 4:46:05 AM PST by ewing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Interesting the timing of this release.
Sadaam may need to reinforce his bunkers a bit.
47 posted on 01/31/2003 5:11:10 AM PST by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

He isn't just whistling "Dixie."
48 posted on 01/31/2003 5:14:15 AM PST by Man of the Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lion's Cub
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.

49 posted on 01/31/2003 5:20:00 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
bttt for later read.

Mornin' !

50 posted on 01/31/2003 5:22:19 AM PST by MeekOneGOP (9 out of 10 Republicans agree: Bush IS a Genius !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-106 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