U.S. Envisions Using Nukes on Terrorists

Well I envisioned this a few years ago....

U.S. Envisions Using Nukes on Terrorists

By Associated Press

document.write(getElapsed("20050911T100233Z"));Sun Sep 11, 6:02 AMUPDATED 3 HOURS 2 MINUTES AGO

WASHINGTON - A Pentagon planning document being updated to reflect the doctrine of pre-emption declared by President Bush in 2002 envisions the use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies.

The "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," which was last updated 10 years ago, makes clear that "the decision to employ nuclear weapons at any level requires explicit orders from the president."

But it says that in a changing environment "terrorists or regional states armed with WMD will likely test U.S. security commitments to its allies and friends."

"In response, the U.S. needs a range of capabilities to assure friend and foe alike of its resolve," says the 69-page document dated March 15.

A Pentagon spokesman said Saturday evening that Navy Cmdr. Dawn Cutler, a public affairs officer for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has issued a statement saying the draft is still being circulated among the various services, field commanders, Pentagon lawyers and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's office, .

Its existence was initially reported by The Washington Post in Sunday editions, which said the document was posted on a Pentagon Internet site and pointed out to it by a consultant for the Natural Resorces Defense Council.

The file was not available at that site Saturday evening, but a copy was available at http://www.globalsecurity.org.

"A broader array of capability is needed to dissuade states from undertaking ... courses of action that would threaten U.S. and allied security," the draft says. "U.S. forces must pose a credible deterrent to potential adversaries who have access to modern military technology, including WMD and the means to deliver them."

It says "deterrence of potential adversary WMD use requires the potential adversary leadership to believe the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective."

It says "this will be particularly difficult with nonstate (non-government) actors who employ or attempt to gain use of WMD. Here, deterrence may be directed at states that support their efforts as well as the terrorist organization itself.

"However, the continuing proliferation of WMD along with the means to deliver them increases the probability that someday a state/nonstate actor nation/terrorist may, through miscaluation or by deliberate choice, use those weapons. In such cases, deterrence, even based on the threat of massive destruction, may fail and the United States must be prepared to use nuclear weapons if necessary."

It notes that U.S. policy has always been purposely vague with regard to when the United States would use nuclear weapons and that it has never vowed not to be the first to use them in a conflict.

One scenario for a possible nuclear pre-emptive strike in the draft would be in the case of an "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy."

The Bush administration is continuing to push for development of an earth-penetrating nuclear warhead, but has yet to obtain congressional approval.

However, the Senate voted in July to revive the "bunker-buster" program that Congress last year decided to kill.

Administration officials have maintained that the U.S. needs to try to develop a nuclear warhead that would be capable of destroying deeply buried targets including bunkers tunneled into solid rock.

But opponents said that its benefits are questionable and that such a warhead would cause extensive radiation fallout above ground killing thousands of people. And they say it may make it easier for a future president to decide to use the nuclear option instead of a conventional weapon.

The Senate voted 53-43 to include $4 million for research into the feasibility of a bunker-buster nuclear warhead. Earlier this year, the House refused to provide the money, so a final decision will have to be worked out between the two chambers.

 

I'm American and a "Cold War Warrior". this nuke'em policy is very flawed. There isn't an infrastructure to bomb, there aren't airplanes nor runways to bomb, there isn't even a "capitol" to bomb, nor is there even an "army" to take on head-to-head .. it is an idea. The Cold War's MAD (mutually assured distruction) policy doesn't apply to Islamic fundimentalist, they would be happy to destroy the "infidels" even if it meant their destruction.

Todays world is far different from what the pentagon has always prepaired for. It is going to take the USA to radically change its perception of the Islamic idea and far different approach to dealing with them before much can be changed. But I think things have gotten to far out of hand for there to be peace in the near term.

 

I just find it ironic that we invaded Iraq on the base that attacking a country unprovoked with nuclear weapons is wrong...and now the pentagon is openly ready to do just that.

 

Perhaps you were confused, my friend. It's isn't wrong for the UNITED STATES to attack people unprovoked - or for any of our benevolent "allies" to attack countries unprovoked" - it's only wrong for anyone ELSE to do so. And it's certainly only wrong for those "crazy mooslims" to have nuclear weapons - they just can't be trusted. Not like us, the only country on the planet to have EVER dropped a bomb that killed 100,000+ innocent people.

*sigh*

 

ooooooh ok thanks for clearing that up

 

All this complaining about terrorists having wmd's..

and yet there's been no use of them against America.

 

the whole thing is crazy. Ok, say terrorist do attack us with a WMD.. then what ? who do we nuke ? Afganistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Iran or even England (yanno they have Islamic radicals too) ... or how about a terrorist cell from Cleveland ? we gonna nuke Cleveland ? LOL

 

well, they've been just DYING to use these things for ages...

 

If and when it does happen, you can be sure of yet another Reichstag event by our own leaders.

 

Changintimes, just imagine the world without the internet or free talk radio, their plans would have all been achieved just from 9-11 alone. people are waking up and we have the truth on our side, during stalin there was no internet, during hitler there was no internet, but during bush there is, a gateway to the truth.

 

Al Queda is all funded by the house of saud which has, to say the least, very close ties with the bushies and Israel, if "Al Queda" attacks us with a nuke, expect that there is going to be a lot of funny money from people in positions of power funding that attack.

 

Al Queda is not funded by the house of Saud and how the hell does the House of Saud have "close ties with Israel"?

Its funny that Bush signed the largest nuclear arms reduction treaty in history and meanwhile Iran, a despotic theocratic state which executes gays and makes chanting "Death to America" a regular feature at public gatherings, is violating the Non Proliferation Treaty. The HipForums conclusion? America is bad!

 

Actually Pointbreak, I apologize, Saudi Arabi does not have ties with Israel, it's only their friend that does, america, and i don't mean that sarcastically or as like a snide remark, that was my bad...

BUT...I do believe the house of saud did have a big hand in the 9-11 attacks, along with Israel, as there is some evidence to them, and Personally, I do think the Bush Admin. did have a hand too but that's another topic...Check out this article from the BBC...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2507327.stm
"Saudi Arabia has denied allegations that it helped finance two of the hijackers involved in last year's 11 September attacks on the United States.
Nail al-Jubeir, an aide to Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler Crown Prince Abdullah, said reports that the wife of the Saudi ambassador to America sent money to the hijackers were "untrue and irresponsible".

Nail al-Jubeir, Saudi spokesman
Members of a US congressional committee probing the attacks have accused the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of not examining claims of a link between the Saudi Government and the hijackers closely enough.

According to US media reports, the two hijackers - Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi - received $3,500 a month from two students in the United States via an account in the name of Princess Haifa al-Faisal, the Saudi ambassador's wife.

Mr al-Jubeir said the money did not come directly from the princess.

"She wants her name cleared," he said.

US National Security spokesman Sean McCormack said on Saturday it was too early to jump to conclusions about the suspected money trail.

'Ulterior motive'

Mr al-Jubeir voiced surprise that the committee was investigating the possible existence of the money, saying he thought the issue was closed several months ago.


Most of the hijackers were Saudi


He said he believed that "the people who are behind this are more interested in scoring political brownie points than they are in arriving at the truth".

The Saudi official said his government was working closely with the United States and continued to "mercilessly" pursue suspected members of the al-Qaeda terror network.

Relations between the US and Saudi Arabia have cooled since last year's attacks.

Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens, and many American commentators have accused the Saudis of funding Muslim militant groups.

Intelligence 'failings'

The New York Times newspaper says a draft report by the congressional committee has concluded that the FBI and the CIA have not pursued aggressively enough leads that might link the hijackers to Saudi Arabia.

The two agencies have disagreed with the draft findings, saying they have been investigating all relevant information, the paper says.

The New York Times quotes a reply by the FBI to the committee, arguing that it was common for Saudis in the United States to receive financial support from their government.

The FBI also says an inquiry into the two students - who have since left the country - failed to produce evidence that they had links to the attacks, according to the paper.

There has been tension in the past between intelligence agencies and the congressional committee investigating the attacks.

A number of interim reports released in recent months have highlighted apparent intelligence failures."

 

If a weapon of mass destruction is used before 2008 then I fear we will not have another election. Citizens will not be allowed to "bunch up" during a "state of emergency".