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 previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-106 next last
To: kattracks
Aside from the content of the document, and the editorials listed by FR members regarding it's content (most of which I concur) - the release of a "secret" document that has yet to be declassified is a felony, and in times of war should carry the penalty of treason.

Was the source of this leak a member of the executive branch?
Did a member of congress, or one of their staff just commit treason?

61 posted on 01/31/2003 6:21:27 AM PST by PokeyJoe (Saddam is MABUS (nostradamus))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Rogues states are working overtime to gain nuclear strike capability. N.Korea already has it - and can unleash megadeath on Japan (and possibly our West Coastal cities as well).

This disclosure is not only for the benefit of Saddamn Hussywawa, but also for the little maggot in Pyongyang.

China will eventually hit us with nukes - but not until they have sufficient land and sea-based launch platforms on par with those of the U.S. (We are actually funding this via record trade inbalances predicted to last another twenty years - by which time it will be too late.)

I see the unfolding scenario and greater need to use nuclear response as the beginning of the end of the world structure as we now know it.

The problem is not necessarily with us retaliating with nuclear force, but unstable nations such as Pakistan will undoubtebly capitalize on such a precedent and justify their own use of them from it.

I boldly support the use of nuclear force on the likes of Saddam Hussein, and would push the button myself if sitting in the proper seat.

"In the year 2510, if man is still alive by then . . "

62 posted on 01/31/2003 6:23:08 AM PST by Happy2BMe (It's All About You - It's All About Me - It's All About Being Free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
You're just reiterating our old policy. Yes it was a very moral appraoch, Very Carteresque, yet it didn't protect us from attack. Why? Because the terrorists knew our policy of no first strike. Once an enemy realizes that we don't have the will to use our weapons, they lose all deterent value. I personally dont think it was wrong to use the A-bomb in Japan. It was swift and just, It was moral. It saved hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides and liberated millions in the region. The Japanese would have fought till the last man. Our overwhelming use of force allowed them to "save face" and surrender to a extremely worthy and powerful opponent.
63 posted on 01/31/2003 6:23:22 AM PST by ffusco (sempre ragione)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

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

Focus on the "un" part of that word!

The opposite of ambiguous (undecided, uncertain) is positively certain.

I'm positively certain President Bush had decided to use nuclear force at the right time, in the right place, and on the right enemy.

64 posted on 01/31/2003 6:28:25 AM PST by Happy2BMe (It's All About You - It's All About Me - It's All About Being Free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: PokeyJoe
the release of a "secret" document

LOL. I noticed that, and wondered how, if it's top secret or "classified", do they really know? Another Democrat politician on the arms comittee selling secrets again for campain contributions?

65 posted on 01/31/2003 6:29:46 AM PST by concerned about politics (Democrats are NOT deep thinkers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
China will eventually hit us with nukes

And remember to pass it on to your kids, Clinton, a democrat, sold them the technology to do it simply to win an election.

66 posted on 01/31/2003 6:32:15 AM PST by concerned about politics (Democrats are NOT deep thinkers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: ffusco
" I personally dont think it was wrong to use the A-bomb in Japan."

I personally and staunchly agree with you.

The use of nuclear force in WWII accelerated the end of that horror by at least six months, saved countless lives (on both sides) and brought peace to a world ravaged by the worst onslaught to the survival of mankinid since the dawn of history.

The problem we face now is that these deadly-powerful devices have now come into the hands of those who no longer consider their role and use of them to "protect" - but to "destroy."

And that is the difference.

67 posted on 01/31/2003 6:32:48 AM PST by Happy2BMe (It's All About You - It's All About Me - It's All About Being Free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: ffusco
You're just reiterating our old policy. Yes it was a very moral appraoch, Very Carteresque,

This makes no sense at all. Carter had nothing to do with formulating a "no first strike" policy,and in fact,NO SUCH FORMAL POLICY EXISTED. Yes,the US refused to commit herself to a "no first use" policy all during the Cold War.

yet it didn't protect us from attack. Why? Because the terrorists knew our policy of no first strike.

We didn't have any such policy. It was the Soviet Union and others who signed a formal declaration of "no first strikes",and the US did NOT sign this or agree to it.

As for the terrorists,even if we had of had a "no first strike" policy it wouldn't have affected them because they don't represent a country that can be nuked. They represent political and religious ideas,not a country. You can't nuke what isn't there.

I personally dont think it was wrong to use the A-bomb in Japan.

Me,either. So what? What does that have to do with what will be happening in Japan? We were not only at war with Japan,but they attacked us first,AND they had a base of operations (home country)that we could nuke. Iraq did NOT attack us,that was Saudi Arabia behind that. We are not going to go to war against Saudi Arabia regardless of what they do because too many elite political and corporate families are in business with them.

68 posted on 01/31/2003 6:34:11 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
"It sounds like this guy is saying "Oh goodie, goodie, goodie! Ben and Jerry's ice cream for everyone!. We've got Bush now. He he he." Stupid liberals. Every country prepares the same way during a war. Even their God Clinton did it."

Er - Hum!

Correction please - Clinton never had a clue. His military prowess managed to kill a camel, deny imprisoning bin Ladin (who was already captured and offered to Clinton free gratis), kill some of America's finest by his ambiguous use of American military force(ever heard of "Black Hawk Down?), and destroy two very large buildings in N.Y.C.

Clinton was the worst-case nightmare for anyone wearing a United States Uniform (except maybe for his clones on the JCS during his rein of terror).

Hell NO! - I Will Not Take Bin Ladin!
And All You Troops Be Friendly To My Queers - Or Else!
Emperor Ambiguous Speaks To His Clones

This is the cone of fire created by an AC-130 Spectre ship's laser guided, computer controlled cannon. It is visible because every fifth shell is a tracer round. An AC-130 gunship was requested by the U.S. military in Mogadishu, Somalia, along with Bradley armored personnel carriers, for use in the October 2, 1993, raid to capture lieutenants of Mohamed Farrah Aidid. The request was turned down by then Secretary of Defense Les Aspin and President Bill Clinton. The result was Blackhawk Down and the needless death of eighteen of America's finest.

Bill Clinton's Lies and Promises - Did He Cause 9/11/01?

69 posted on 01/31/2003 6:51:12 AM PST by Happy2BMe (It's All About You - It's All About Me - It's All About Being Free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
...but also for the little maggot in Pyongyang.

I prefer Rush's nickname for the little twerp, namely, "the Potbellied Pinko" :-)

70 posted on 01/31/2003 6:56:39 AM PST by COBOL2Java
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
"Iraq did NOT attack us,that was Saudi Arabia behind that."

Do you have proof of this - that the government of Saudi Arabia organized, planned, funded, manned, approved, and executed the attack on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon.

Do you have proof of this?

71 posted on 01/31/2003 6:57:26 AM PST by Happy2BMe (It's All About You - It's All About Me - It's All About Being Free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
I used Carteresque to imply a moral position which is ineffectual. Our enemies absolutely know our nation does not have the will to use our vast arsenal or this would not be news. I appreciate your revulsion to nuclear war but that won't protect us in the long run.
72 posted on 01/31/2003 6:58:36 AM PST by ffusco (sempre ragione)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
Looks like it might be "extra warm" this year in Iraq.....
73 posted on 01/31/2003 7:01:17 AM PST by b4its2late (Keep your weapons and your clothes (in that order) where you can find them in the dark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
Do you believe terrorist cells in the US, Europe and the Mid East are just random acts by sick individuals or the result of a deliberate foriegn policy of nations waging passive/aggressive war on us? I believe the latter.
74 posted on 01/31/2003 7:02:01 AM PST by ffusco (sempre ragione)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: sonofatpatcher2
thanks!
75 posted on 01/31/2003 7:06:07 AM PST by ffusco (sempre ragione)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
Spooky BUMP
76 posted on 01/31/2003 7:08:11 AM PST by ffusco (sempre ragione)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
No doubt. Bush put out word several months ago that all options are on the table (including nuclear) if Iraq wants to pull a stunt with WMD. He even used the word "annihilation" with regard to Iraq.
77 posted on 01/31/2003 7:08:43 AM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Nuclear weapons are useless as a deterrent unless the enemy believes that you will use them. Perhaps it is time we reminded them that we can and will. The world believes we are weak, and we were, but not anymore. Tactical use of Nukes (caves, bunkers, palaces) would be a reminder to the world that we are strong again and have the resolve to deal with threats, proactively. NK will take note.
78 posted on 01/31/2003 7:21:20 AM PST by Search4Truth (Rebellion to tyrants, is obedience to God -Thomas Jefferson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late
"Looks like it might be "extra warm" this year in Iraq...."

U.S. AIR LAUNCHED CRUISE MISSILE

WARHEAD - NUCLEAR W-80 NUCLEAR WARHEAD 250 KILOTON YIELD

CONVENTIONAL 1,000+ LB. FRAGMENTARY OR BUNKER

BUSTER WARHEAD WITH ROCKET ASSIST PENETRATION

RANGE - 750 MILES A VERSION

1,500 MILES B VERSION

WING SPAN - 9 FT. 5 IN. A VERSION

12 FT. B VERSION

LENGTH - 14 FT. A VERSION

20 FT. 9 IN. B VERSION

DIAMETER - 25 IN. WEIGHT - 1,900 POUNDS A VERSION

2,825 POUNDS B VERSION

ENGINE - ONE F-107-WR-100 WILLIAMS TURBOFAN 600 LBS. THRUST

GUIDANCE - GPS, TERCOM AND IR/RADAR IMAGING SYSTEM WITH ACCURACY OF +/- 1 METER

SPEED - CRUISE MACH .65 - TERMINAL MACH 1.1 B VERSION

AGM-86B - rocket assisted bunker "buster"

The Boeing air launched cruise missile (ALCM) uses the same engine and similar guidance systems as the BGM-109 Tomahawk. The USAF originally intended the ALCM as a nuclear strike weapon but has since modified the A model into conventional warhead B models.

The new B models have extended range fuel tanks and larger warhead capacity than the older nuclear A models. The B model is 30% longer and has a 25 degree wing sweep. The B model can be equipped with a variety of conventional and unconventional warheads including non-lethal energy warheads such as High Frequency RF, EMG, or microwave generators designed to knock out enemy electronics.

The variety of warheads has also served to confuse USAF target planners. One 1997 strike of "fragmentary" warhead equipped AGM-86Bs was targeted at an Iraqi hardened bunker. The fragmentary warheads exploded harmlessly outside the bunker, causing no damage. A second strike of a bunker buster 1,000+ pound AGM-86B had to be targeted against the Iraqi bunker to destroy it.

The U.S. used about 90 AGM-86B Air Launched Cruise missiles (ALCM) during Desert Fox. All the USAF launched ALCM cruise missiles were Block 1 types equipped with heavy conventional warheads for bunker busting. The bunker busters are equipped with a rocket assisted booster for added penetration.

The U.S. military is scrambling to replace the highly valuable robot missiles but the Air Force has opted not to purchase new units. Instead, the USAF is upgrading leftover inventories of nuclear B models.

The USAF bought only 200 of the heavy conventional ALCM missiles and has only enough on hand for one more Desert Fox like attack. The firing of 90 for Desert Fox has left the Air Force little choice but to convert 90 more of a remaining 130 formerly nuclear tipped missiles into bunker busters.


79 posted on 01/31/2003 7:39:56 AM PST by Happy2BMe (It's All About You - It's All About Me - It's All About Being Free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
"GUIDANCE - GPS, TERCOM AND IR/RADAR IMAGING SYSTEM WITH ACCURACY OF +/- 1 METER"

Now let's see - if the accuracy of a 250 Kiloton Nuclear explosion is to within 1 meter (3 feet) and . . .

And certain "pre-established" positive targets are locked on and . .

The United States President is unwilling to tolerate mass WMD BIO or CHEM casualties at the hands of the enemy and . .

The U.N, France, Germany, Hillary Clinton, Patty "Taliban" Murray and all their clonses continue to aid and abet the enemy . .

Yep!

LAUNCH CONDITION IS:

* * LAUNCH * *

80 posted on 01/31/2003 7:49:22 AM PST by Happy2BMe (It's All About You - It's All About Me - It's All About Being Free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-106 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