US: Nukes are no longer a defensive weapon

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/local/wnews/11bush.html

 

U.S. may use nukes in pre-emptive strikes

Bush policy calls for using 'all of our options' to prevent chemical, biological or nuclear attacks, or to retaliate

December 11, 2002

By SANDRA SOBIERAJ

Associated Press Writer

 

WASHINGTON -- In a warning to Iraq and other hostile countries, the United States says it is prepared to use "overwhelming force" -- including nuclear weapons -- in response to any chemical or biological attack.

 

The threat was contained in a White House document, called the "National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction," to be delivered to Congress on Wednesday.

 

The six-page statement underscores long-standing policy that the United States "reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force -- including through resort to all of our options -- to the use of WMD (weapons of mass destruction) against the United States, our forces abroad and friends and allies."

 

That passage intends to threaten U.S. nuclear retaliation as a deterrent to hostile governments, said senior administration officials who briefed journalists about the document Tuesday.

 

The officials emphasized that the strategy, developed jointly by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and homeland security adviser Tom Ridge, is an overall statement of the Bush administration's overarching principles. Its timing, however, coincides with other muscle-flexing by President Bush designed to show Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that the United States is serious about seeing him disarmed.

 

Also on Tuesday, Bush used a private White House meeting with Turkish political leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan to press for permission for U.S. troops to use Turkish bases, arguing that such a display of solidarity could persuade Saddam to give up his weapons peacefully.

 

The White House document gathers into one comprehensive whole several doctrines for prevention, deterrence and defense that Bush has enunciated since taking office, including a commitment to boost programs aimed at containing the damage of any chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attack.

 

The strategy said some unspecified states that support terrorists already have weapons of mass destruction and seek even more "as tools of coercion and intimidation."

 

"For them, these are not weapons of last resort, but militarily useful weapons of choice intended to overcome our nation's advantages in conventional forces and to deter us from responding to aggression against our friends," the document said.

 

"We must accord the highest priority to the protection of the United States, our forces and our friends and allies" from weapons of mass destruction, it continued.

 

The broadly worded strategy does not speak with any specificity to the priorities it asserts, nor does it assign them any budget numbers. Instead, those details were contained in classified directives, described as "substantial taskings," issued to relevant federal departments a couple of months ago, officials said.

 

The strategy's priorities will be reflected in the new budget Bush submits to Congress in February.

1. This just gives all our enemies reason to want to attack us as quickly and strongly as possible if they fear we're going to wipe them off the face of the earth without warning anybody.

 

2. The last 40 years have been a shaky-but-peaceful existance because Russia and the US point nukes at each other but nobody has the gall to fire first. Now, firing first is the new idea of the day.

 

Bush = Friggin' nuts.

[Guest Downhome]

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/local/wnews/11bush.html

 

U.S. may use nukes in pre-emptive strikes

Bush policy calls for using 'all of our options' to prevent chemical, biological or nuclear attacks, or to retaliate

December 11, 2002

By SANDRA SOBIERAJ

Associated Press Writer

 

WASHINGTON -- In a warning to Iraq and other hostile countries, the United States says it is prepared to use "overwhelming force" -- including nuclear weapons -- in response to any chemical or biological attack.

 

The threat was contained in a White House document, called the "National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction," to be delivered to Congress on Wednesday.

 

The six-page statement underscores long-standing policy that the United States "reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force -- including through resort to all of our options -- to the use of WMD (weapons of mass destruction) against the United States, our forces abroad and friends and allies."

 

That passage intends to threaten U.S. nuclear retaliation as a deterrent to hostile governments, said senior administration officials who briefed journalists about the document Tuesday.

 

The officials emphasized that the strategy, developed jointly by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and homeland security adviser Tom Ridge, is an overall statement of the Bush administration's overarching principles. Its timing, however, coincides with other muscle-flexing by President Bush designed to show Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that the United States is serious about seeing him disarmed.

 

Also on Tuesday, Bush used a private White House meeting with Turkish political leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan to press for permission for U.S. troops to use Turkish bases, arguing that such a display of solidarity could persuade Saddam to give up his weapons peacefully.

 

The White House document gathers into one comprehensive whole several doctrines for prevention, deterrence and defense that Bush has enunciated since taking office, including a commitment to boost programs aimed at containing the damage of any chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attack.

 

The strategy said some unspecified states that support terrorists already have weapons of mass destruction and seek even more "as tools of coercion and intimidation."

 

"For them, these are not weapons of last resort, but militarily useful weapons of choice intended to overcome our nation's advantages in conventional forces and to deter us from responding to aggression against our friends," the document said.

 

"We must accord the highest priority to the protection of the United States, our forces and our friends and allies" from weapons of mass destruction, it continued.

 

The broadly worded strategy does not speak with any specificity to the priorities it asserts, nor does it assign them any budget numbers. Instead, those details were contained in classified directives, described as "substantial taskings," issued to relevant federal departments a couple of months ago, officials said.

 

The strategy's priorities will be reflected in the new budget Bush submits to Congress in February.

1. This just gives all our enemies reason to want to attack us as quickly and strongly as possible if they fear we're going to wipe them off the face of the earth without warning anybody.

 

2. The last 40 years have been a shaky-but-peaceful existance because Russia and the US point nukes at each other but nobody has the gall to fire first. Now, firing first is the new idea of the day.

 

Bush = Friggin' nuts.

What is your point exactly? We have said that IF someone uses weapons of mass destruction against us, we will THEN unleash the big guns, and I would be all for it. If they was to hit us as hard as a weapon of mass destruction would be, then I see no reason at all to repay them in as harsh a way as possible.

 

It would very much be a defensive move also by the way, as you will NEVER see the US use such a weapon unless either one of two things happen...

 

1) They hit us in a HUGE way.

 

2) We get to the point where the safty of the entire world would depend on us taking such drastic action.

 

...we will never use such a weapon first, as on the offense.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

They're threatening to use this kind of stuff if an enemy country could be acquiring WMD.

 

The timing of this with the Iraq thing is so obvious it could hit you in the face, and to trot out this puppy over a do-nothing country like Iraq is insane. Sorry.

 

I agree that WMD should be used as a last resort when our backs are against the wall. What I'm saying is it seems like Bush knows nothing except force.

[Guest LooseCannon]

I don't see anywhere in the article where it says the U.S. would strike first.

[Guest Downhome]

They're threatening to use this kind of stuff if an enemy country could be acquiring WMD.

 

The timing of this with the Iraq thing is so obvious it could hit you in the face, and to trot out this puppy over a do-nothing country like Iraq is insane. Sorry.

 

I agree that WMD should be used as a last resort when our backs are against the wall. What I'm saying is it seems like Bush knows nothing except force.

No, it is NOT saying we would use it if someone just AQUIRES the weapon. It says we would use it if they used a WMD against us, as a retaliation to that event. Nowhere in the article does it say we will ever use such a weapon first...

 

...and we never will, period.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Ahh. I forgot to post the other one.

 

(Conservative warning: Well known lefty paper link ahead)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...11/MN191206.DTL

 

A version of the strategy that was released by the White House said the United States will "respond with overwhelming force," including all options, to the use of biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear weapons on the nation, its troops or its allies.

 

However, a classified version of the strategy goes further.

 

It breaks with 50 years of U.S. counterproliferation efforts by authorizing pre-emptive strikes on states and terrorist groups that are close to acquiring weapons of mass destruction or the long-range missiles capable of delivering them.

 

EDIT: I guess he could also be bluffing/saber rattling, but pointing out heavyhandedly that we allow for us to strike people with nukes as well as saying we'll now take first dibs at anyone getting WMD is not a happy combo. It's certianly not going to make friends and it will likely rile up enemies. The guy certainly isn't a smooth operator and the UN thing showed he has no patience. Kinda freaky.

[Guest DrTom]

They're threatening to use this kind of stuff if an enemy country could be acquiring WMD.

No, they're not. Here:

 

the United States says it is prepared to use "overwhelming force" -- including nuclear weapons -- in response to any chemical or biological attack.

and

The six-page statement underscores long-standing policy that the United States "reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force -- including through resort to all of our options -- to the use of WMD (weapons of mass destruction) against the United States, our forces abroad and friends and allies."

THe document clearly states, twice, that the US will use all available options in response to a WMD attack. Considering the death and devastation a WMD attack would inflict on the US and/or its allies, I expect our President to blow the guilty parties off the goddamn map when they do something like that. Anything less would be disappointing.

[Guest The Metal Maniac]

So the US is prepared to use WMD in response to a attack by WMD.

 

This is something NEW? That's the whole POINT of having WMD - no one is gonna use them on you if you have some.

 

Did this need to be stated? I thought this has been understood since the USSR built a bomb...

[Guest El Satanico]

So what are you guys going to be doing during the nuclear winter?

[Guest MrRant]

So what are you guys going to be doing during the nuclear winter?

Cross Stitching

[Guest Vern Gagne]

So what are you guys going to be doing during the nuclear winter?

Cross Stitching

Hey Mr.Rant Ed O'Neill was one of the Hollywood Leftist that signed that Letter to the President. Looks like Al Bundy is a leftist

[Guest MrRant]

Sonofabitch

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Sonofabitch

Was that directed at me, or Ed "The Bleeding Heart" O'Neill?

[Guest MrRant]

You for bringing to my attention ;-) and Ed for being a liberal bastard. But at least there is the character of Al Bundy.

[Guest SP-1]

I don't see where this is big news or anything. I mean, really. If somebody has a nuke and they are a threat to you and your security and you have a Nuke, you're going to let them know that if they nuke you you're going to nuke them.

 

it's understood stuff, IMO. You hit us hard, we'll wipe you off the face of the planet. It goes back to a mentality learned on playgrounds around the world.

[Zorin Industries 0]

I miss the USSR.

 

At least you knew where you stood.

[Guest Ram]

I don't think we'd actually use a nuke, we're just trying to add a scare-factor.

 

If we actually do use a nuke though, ugh..

[Guest nikowwf]

This is non news. US has NEVER had a no nukes first policy. Its always been considered an option.