Page 1 of 1

Pentagon's new strategy calls for offensive use of nukes.

Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 5:17 pm
by HM-PuFFNSTuFF
Well nevermind all the Depleted Uranium used currently by the U.S. military. Now they're planning more preemption (a la Iraq)...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 53_pf.html

The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.

At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States would "respond with overwhelming force" to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces or allies, and said "all options" would be available to the president.

The draft, dated March 15, would provide authoritative guidance for commanders to request presidential approval for using nuclear weapons, and represents the Pentagon's first attempt to revise procedures to reflect the Bush preemption doctrine. A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration, contains no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from weapons of mass destruction.

Titled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" and written under the direction of Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the draft document is unclassified and available on a Pentagon Web site. It is expected to be signed within a few weeks by Air Force Lt. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, director of the Joint Staff, according to Navy Cmdr. Dawn Cutler, a public affairs officer in Myers's office. Meanwhile, the draft is going through final coordination with the military services, the combatant commanders, Pentagon legal authorities and Rumsfeld's office, Cutler said in a written statement.

A "summary of changes" included in the draft identifies differences from the 1995 doctrine, and says the new document "revises the discussion of nuclear weapons use across the range of military operations."

The first example for potential nuclear weapon use listed in the draft is against an enemy that is using "or intending to use WMD" against U.S. or allied, multinational military forces or civilian populations.

Another scenario for a possible nuclear preemptive strike is in case of an "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy."

click for full article.

Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 5:21 pm
by Pext
nuclear pre-emptive strikes :dork:

thanks a lot, you fat yanks.

Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 5:31 pm
by bitWISE
Stanley: War? Who are we at war with?
Gabriel: Anyone who infringes on America's freedom. Terrorist states, Stanley. Someone must bring their war to them. They bomb a church, we bomb 10. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourist, we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that is becomes unthinkable to attack Americans.

Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 5:41 pm
by Mr.Magnetichead
No one saw that movie.

Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 5:42 pm
by R00k
Is that from the article, bit? That's just disgusting.

These assholes want to start the nuclear arms race all over again. Do they think the level of nuclear fear will be ratcheted up enough to save Bush's presidency? Or are they doing it for economic/financial reasons? Or are they really such complete nut-jobs that they think this is an appropriate and legitimate foreign policy?

More war-breeding horseshit from the chicken-hawks who finally got their say in government, thanks to GW Shrub.

Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 5:46 pm
by Scourge
R00k wrote:Is that from the article, bit? That's just disgusting.
From the movie Swordfish

Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 5:47 pm
by Guest
bitWISE wrote:Stanley: War? Who are we at war with?
Gabriel: Anyone who infringes on America's freedom. Terrorist states, Stanley. Someone must bring their war to them. They bomb a church, we bomb 10. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourist, we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that is becomes unthinkable to attack Americans.
That's not a bad idea...

Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 5:47 pm
by R00k
Ahh. Been meaning to watch that.

Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 5:48 pm
by Guest
It was ok, definitely worth seeing halley barry's tits though.

Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 5:52 pm
by seremtan
erm, i've known about this a couple of months or more now. why is it suddenly news to the washington post?

Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 6:04 pm
by bitWISE
Kracus wrote:It was ok, definitely worth seeing halley barry's tits though.
I thought it was pretty kickass. The whole hacking thing was utterly bullshit though :(.

Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 6:45 pm
by R00k
seremtan wrote:erm, i've known about this a couple of months or more now. why is it suddenly news to the washington post?
Is that really a surprise? lol

Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 6:49 pm
by Ryoki
R00k wrote:Ahh. Been meaning to watch that.
I thought it was absolutely awful :icon13:

Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 7:04 pm
by Guest
bitWISE wrote:
Kracus wrote:It was ok, definitely worth seeing halley barry's tits though.
I thought it was pretty kickass. The whole hacking thing was utterly bullshit though :(.
lol completely...

Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 8:08 pm
by hate
nukes instead of troops

Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 8:24 pm
by Guest
In Korea... yes.

Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 8:35 pm
by mjrpes
It's a pretty good policy when you think about it. If you know the terrorist is in some large city in the middle east but you can't find him, a nuke is a convenience way to terminate the threat with 100% success. There so many cities in the world anyway, it's not going to really affect America if one of them is deleted.

Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 8:59 pm
by dnoyc
about damn time.

Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 9:55 pm
by seremtan
R00k wrote:
seremtan wrote:erm, i've known about this a couple of months or more now. why is it suddenly news to the washington post?
Is that really a surprise? lol
normally it's the mainstream media who avoid a story by saying it's 'old news' *cough* downing street memo *cough*

Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 9:56 pm
by seremtan
mjrpes wrote:It's a pretty good policy when you think about it. If you know the terrorist is in some large city in the middle east but you can't find him, a nuke is a convenience way to terminate the threat with 100% success. There so many cities in the world anyway, it's not going to really affect America if one of them is deleted.
let's start with NooAwwlins. it's fucked up anyway :dork:

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 1:17 am
by Canidae
seremtan wrote:erm, i've known about this a couple of months or more now. why is it suddenly news to the washington post?
Americans are always the last to know what their government is doing.

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 1:26 am
by seremtan
it's well-timed whatever. smack bang in the middle of the NO story. it could get lost in the confusion so easily...

Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 1:50 am
by Iccy (temp)
All i ask is that this mess holds out for another 50 years. Ill be like 80 then and blowing ourselves up will matter less to me :p