Skip to comments.
SEC. OF DEFENSE DOES NOT RULE OUT NUKES AS LAST RESORT
US News via DRUDGE ^
| Sun Sep 16 2001 14:03:41 ET
| Editorial Staff
Posted on 09/16/2001 5:00:13 PM PDT by vannrox
SEC. OF DEFENSE DOES NOT RULE OUT NUKES AS LAST RESORT
Sun Sep 16 2001 14:03:41 ET
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this morning refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in America's coming battle with terrorists.
Appearing on ABC's THIS WEEK, Rumsfeld was asked if a possible tactical nuclear strike would be used.
"Can we rule out the use of nuclear weapons?" questioned ABC's Sam Donaldson.
RUMSFELD: You know, that subject--we have an amazing accomplishment that's been achieved on the part of human beings. We've had this unbelievably powerful weapon, nuclear weapons, since what 55 years now plus, and it's not been fired in anger since 1945. That's an amazing accomplishment. I think it reflects a sensitivity on the part of successive presidents that they ought to find as many other ways to deal with problems as is possible.
DONALDSON: I'll have to think about your answer. I don't think the answer was no.
RUMSFELD: The answer was that that we ought to be very proud of the record of humanity that we have not used those weapons for 55 years. And we have to find as many ways possible to deal with this serious problem of terrorism.
And if, Sam, you think of the loss of human life on Tuesday and then put in your head the reality that a number of countries today have other so-called asymmetrical threat capabilities--ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, cyber warfare--these are the kinds of things that are used in this era the 21st century. And a germ warfare attack anywhere in the world would bring about losses of lives not in the thousands but in the millions.
***
Also on Sunday, Sen. John McCain [R-AZ] did not rule out the use of nukes, but added that it would not be a "serious option".
FOX NEWS SUNDAY host Tony Snow: Would it be appropriate in some cases even to consider using tactical, that is low-grade nuclear weapons, in such a strike?
MCCAIN: I think that you can't absolutely rule out any option. But there are so many ramifications of the use of a nuclear weapon that I don't believe that that would be a serious option because I think there are so many other ways we could achieve the goals we seek.
MORE
TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 next last
No surprises here.
1
posted on
09/16/2001 5:00:13 PM PDT
by
vannrox
(MyEMail)
To: vannrox
Better to use them as a first resort and get this thing over with, pronto. Nuke the terror camps, then issue a 12-hour ultimatum to the Taliban to surrender bin Laden, and civil authority, to our occupation commander, or they get the same treatment. Can anybody see this not working?
To: vannrox
3
posted on
09/16/2001 5:08:04 PM PDT
by
backhoe
(Has that clinton "legacy" made you feel *safer* yet? ? ?)
To: vannrox
They're forgetting the NUKE trump card: The Neutron Bomb. No drifting radiation, can move into the area in 48 hrs, and won't destroy buildings or plants...only flesh. My father-in-law is a nuclear physiscist who knows Stephen Hawking personally. He says that one of the original designers of the first A-bomb is still around: TELLER. That guy also helped to create the neutron weapon and could make it even bigger. THAT'S the way to go!
4
posted on
09/16/2001 5:08:34 PM PDT
by
ExSoldier
(Formerly GunsUp!)
To: vannrox
I doubt nukes will be used to go after bin Laden for the simple reason that his death would not be verifiable with certainty. Once we have bin Laden, I think it is conceivable, but unlikely, that tactical nukes will be used in other contexts.
5
posted on
09/16/2001 5:08:56 PM PDT
by
Soren
To: ExSoldier
If I remember correctly, Teller may have participated in the development of the A-bomb(fission), but he is better known as the father of the H-bomb (fusion).
6
posted on
09/16/2001 5:11:20 PM PDT
by
Soren
Comment #7 Removed by Moderator
To: vannrox
I wouldn't rule them out, either, but I'd go to extreme lengths not to use them.
8
posted on
09/16/2001 5:13:38 PM PDT
by
xm177e2
To: vannrox
I don't think there's much chance of using nukes, unless this thing gets out of control and somebody identifiable nukes us first.
However, it's smart to leave the threat out there for our enemies to think about.
9
posted on
09/16/2001 5:27:29 PM PDT
by
Dog Gone
To: ExSoldier
Teller did far more than work on the A-bomb... he designed the hydrogen bomb.
To: Dog Gone
To: ExSoldier
I remember the Neutron bomb theory but I never thought we built it. Maybe we might find out now for sure, eh?
12
posted on
09/16/2001 5:34:56 PM PDT
by
AgThorn
To: vannrox
but added that it would not be a "serious option".On the contrary....it would be a most serious option.
To: vannrox
Hey Osama, duck and cover.
14
posted on
09/16/2001 5:35:04 PM PDT
by
dfwgator
To: AgThorn
Maybe we might find out now for sure, eh?Within weeks, I imagine.
To: Clinton's a rapist
For nearly 60 years we had a (relatively) peaceful world because (partly) we had active memory of Hiroshima & Nagasaki! NO ONE who saw that horror wished to see it again--especially visited on their countrymen!
The SH+T-for-BRAINS involved in our current conflict NEVER SAW--& have little reason to fear "The Old Man in the Cocked Hat!"
These evil slugs must learn to fear us; 'better we do it now, & STOP them, or wait, & STILL have to scare them!
We must make them fear us FAR MORE than we might fear them. Sadly, we must destroy what they value most in a manner that forever terrifies them--or we can NEVER be "rid of them!" Any lesser action will only be regarded as a sign of "weakness & decadence" by these psychopaths!
Doc
To: dfwgator
I think we should refer to him as Osama Bin Had.
To: vannrox
Of course he won't! The Sec of Defense just read the riot act to the press, gov't officials, and all Americans that "Loose lips sink ships." Why do you think he would divulge what weapons he will or won't use. Besides, the psych game is now on, so misleading the enemy is the name of the game. The Press become the useful idiots of the military as in the Persian Gulf War I.
18
posted on
09/16/2001 5:40:21 PM PDT
by
TheDon
To: joey'smom
"I think we should refer to him as Osama Bin Had." And his butt-buddy, Clinton, as Osama Bin Blown.
To: vannrox
Nor should he. The message should be clear. There are no limits to the horror we can unleash upon our enemies. It is a very bad choice to make to choose to be our enemy. Our friends live longer.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson