Skip to comments.Bush approves nuclear response
Posted on 01/30/2003 10:45:58 PM PST by kattracksEdited 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 ...
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?
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.
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.
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?
And remember to pass it on to your kids, Clinton, a democrat, sold them the technology to do it simply to win an election.
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.
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.
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).
I prefer Rush's nickname for the little twerp, namely, "the Potbellied Pinko" :-)
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?
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
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.
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 . .
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.