Them thar nukes in them hills President Dubya!

Well at least the Bush Administration is consistent ! :roll:

The Bush Administration has dramatically raised tensions in the Iraq crisis by stating that it would respond with nuclear weapons against any country that used weapons of mass destruction against the US or its allies.

The nuclear threat is contained in a newly-declassified document called the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction, the release of which follows repeated warnings from President George Bush to Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and his generals not to use chemical or biological weapons against the US. “The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force - including through resort to all our options - to the use of WMD against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies,” the document says.

However, a classified version of the strategy, reported in The Washington Post, goes even further: it breaks with 50 years of American counter-proliferation efforts by authorising 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. The policy aims to prevent the transfer of weapons components, or to destroy them before they can be assembled.

In a top-secret appendix, the directive names Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya among the countries of central focus in the new American approach.

Administration officials said that did not imply that Mr Bush intended to use military force, covert or overt, in any of those countries. He was determined, they said, to stop transfers of weapons components in or out of their borders.

The strategy was released as Spanish special forces, with US intelligence support, stopped a North Korean ship bound for Yemen with Scud missiles.

The six-page strategy released by the White House was a declassified extract of a top-secret directive signed by Mr Bush in May.

It does not repudiate “traditional measures” of diplomacy, multinational arms-control agreements and export controls.

But, in its classified form, the directive is premised on a view that “traditional non-proliferation has failed, and now we’re going into active interdiction”, according to one participant who spoke without authority from the White House.

The US threat to use nuclear weapons in the case of a biological or chemical attack is not new policy. George Bush senior, the president’s father, made similar threats to Saddam before the 1991 Gulf War. The new strategy paper, however, is designed to establish a single policy across all arms of the US government on weapons of mass destruction, covering both containment of attacks and coping with them.

The timing of the new White House statement also underscores the tense mood in Washington as the Administration attempts to discredit Iraq’s report to the United Nations Security Council on the destruction of its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The US has insisted that the report, delivered last weekend and being examined by UN experts, will be found to be false.

This isn’t news unless you’re trying to fill a 24 hour news channel with programming. We’ve talked about it in another thread. This is a long standing policy, one I fiugured most people knew about. Well, at least people who read Tom Clancy knew.

Again, at least to me, it’s not the fact that it exists, it’s the fact that Bush is A) Bringing it to light now, and B) Bush is speaking about it period.

I don’t fucking trust that man with such power.

You think they gave him the real button? Nah, they rewired the Oval Office when he came on. It turns on a lava lamp in the kitchen now.

Again, at least to me, it’s not the fact that it exists, it’s the fact that Bush is A) Bringing it to light now, and B) Bush is speaking about it period. [/quote]

Every administration since Truman’s has stated the exact same thing at one time or another. Clinton said the exact same thing, in 1998, specifically referring to Iraq. Bush Sr. also said it in reference to Iraq. It’s been a fundamental principal of deterrence since weapons of mass destruction were created.

And it’s a great policy. I mean, is the US supposed to sit back and let rogue states launch gas attacks on major cities without the threat of reprisal on a similar scale? How does just saying that you’re going to defend yourself appropriately ratchet up the tension? I’m more worried about Israel doing something extreme in this regard, if Tel Aviv is hit by something from Iraq.

Chances are this will never come to anything, anyhow. If the US is ever hit with a WMD, it’ll most likely be by a suitcase nuke or something similar by a terrorist group with bases in numerous countries. You can’t respond to that with nukes. Well, you could, but you’d make so many enemies that a lot of US cities would end up incinerated as well before too long. The only way to make the world a safer place is to bring down the tension and the resentment by doing something about dictatorships, government corruption, and poverty in Muslim countries. If the situation isn’t eased in the next decade or so, look for an Israeli city to go up in smoke, followed by an American one. We’re on the edge of a very long, very destructive world conflict.

That isn’t the main point. The main point is the small print about PRE-EMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKES against nations whom we believe are acquiring chemical or biological weapons. Acquiring, not using.

That isn’t the main point. The main point is the small print about PRE-EMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKES against nations whom we believe are acquiring chemical or biological weapons. Acquiring, not using.[/quote]

‘However, a classified version of the strategy, reported in The Washington Post, goes even further: it breaks with 50 years of American counter-proliferation efforts by authorising 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. The policy aims to prevent the transfer of weapons components, or to destroy them before they can be assembled.’

You’re misreading. As quoted, it breaks with counter-proliferation precedent by adding the policy of pre-emptive conventional strikes against groups to keep them from obtaining WMD, comparable to Israel’s 1981 strike on Iraq’s near-functional nuclear reactor.

comparable to Israel’s 1981 strike on Iraq’s near-functional nuclear reactor.

Which they were roundly criticized for at the time, but which, in retrospect, turns out to have been a pretty goddamn fucking good idea.

You know what is the point of the US government even publicly admitting they might use nukes. The US would have to be absolutely crazy to ever launch a nuke. There would be worldwide condemnation. The US would become a focal point for every terrorist on this planet.

I am still amazed that the US would even admit such a policy. Does the US population really know that Colonel Jack Ripper is actually running their country ?

Fucked up doesn’t even begin to describe it.

You know what is the point of the US government even publicly admitting they might use nukes. The US would have to be absolutely crazy to ever launch a nuke. There would be worldwide condemnation. The US would become a focal point for every terrorist on this planet.

I am still amazed that the US would even admit such a policy. Does the US population really know that Colonel Jack Ripper is actually running their country ?

Fucked up doesn’t even begin to describe it.[/quote]

I disagree. I want other countries to know they can’t just fuck with us and we will take it. If someone uses a WMD on us and we know who it is, nuke away. I hope and pray it never comes to that but that is the way it has to be. What are we going to do just sit here and wait for them to hit us again? That would be fucked up.

– Xaroc

No the US shouldn’t just sit there and take it. But mentioning nukes brings it to a whole new level. Such talk is simply dangerous and makes the US even more of a terrorist target.

No the US shouldn’t just sit there and take it. But mentioning nukes brings it to a whole new level. Such talk is simply dangerous.[/quote]

Why? It just shows that we are serious. They need to know we are not messing around. They can’t be led to believe there might be a chance we won’t respond because if they get that impression then that is when something happens.

– Xaroc

Look up the concept of mutually assured destruction sometime.

So let’s hypothesize on the outcome :

The US uses a nuke because Iraq launches a chemical weapons attack against US troops or even Israel. The US is then expelled from the United Nations (well they don’t pay their fees anyway). Japan breaks off all ties with the US. The European Union refuses to have any dealings with the US both economically and politically.

The US adopts a bunker mentality. World stock markets plumment. Middle East nations ration oil supplies.

Thousands of terrorist cells are activated throughout the world. Prime target is of course the US. Doesn’t this scenario worry anyone ?

The US doesn’t even need to spell out they will use nukes - everyone knows they have the capability. Just who the hell runs foreign affairs in the US - Mickey Mouse ?

Sean Tudor, you ought to read sometime.

This is a fairly standard announcement of proportionate response.

Bush is not warning Saddam that he will be nuked in the event of a chemical attack on forward-deployed U.S. soldiers.

Bush is saying: “Saddam, just on the off-chance that you’ve got some sort of biochem surprise attack ready to go against homeland America, I’d like to remind you that I’d incinerate you, all your sons, and your hometown of Tikrit in response. Thank you, sir, and good day.”

I can’t seem to find the speech Carter gave for accepting his Nobel (is it me or is there a notable lack of media coverage on this?), but I did see a little of it. He had a great line: “We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other’s children.”

He’s got a point.

Ah, found a copy of it: http://www.s-t.com/daily/12-02/12-12-02/a19op077.htm

And you don’t think this is a problem ?

“We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other’s children.”

I’m sure Saddam’s heart’s growing two sizes too big at this very moment.

You can make jokes all you want. This is coming from a man who was able to broker a lasting peace between Israel and Egypt. I mean, what would your solution to the middle east crisis be?