US Moves for Preemptive Use of Nukes

[grandpa]

The slightest acquaintance with history shows that powerful republics are the most warlike and unscrupulous of nations.
– Ambrose Bierce



US Moves for Preemptive Use of Nukes:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...001053_pf.html

Isn't it odd how the same types who say I hate America give me more and more reasons to do just that?

Grandpa h.

[RickSp]

Imperialism apparently breeds insanity.

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.

Imagine if this policy had been in effect prior to the invasion of Iraq. Bush, Cheney and Rice all claimed Saddam had WMD and intended to use them. Think of the potential for mass murder to "protect" us against non-existent weapons.

[Osborn F Enready]

I hate to be pithy, but welcome to the New World Order.

[RickSp]

Code phrases degrade toward the meaningless very quickly. The NWO is a good example.

[rmnunez]

Based on the brief note (haven’t found any more yet) if this becomes “doctrine” the first condition will be ex profeso presidential authorization. A second condition is knowledge of enemy stockpiles of WMDs at the target. I'd expect this change will have impact and result in revised nuclear doctrines elsewhere. I’d anticipate Britain to annouce a similar revision and France to be invited to do so under some EU/NATO arrangement.

Its hard to picture a situation with terrorists and a nuke justifying the resort to a nuclear weapon. It would require certainty of location within a huge radius and incapacity to reach the target before detonation, but conventional missiles are as fast as nuclear ones, the only advantage is blast radius. There are substantial drawbacks though, all that radioactivity for all those half-lives.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: grandpa US Moves for Preemptive Use of Nukes: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...001053_pf.html

Having in mind, that Iran - with its actual governing body oscilating towards some archaic and extreme Islam-based dogmas - would continue to develope its nuclear ambitions, U.S. may seek the ways to prevent these potential outcomes.
That news indicates that U.S. is "clearing the ground" - with a reference to a use of nuclear weapons - for future decisions.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Rainbow Having in mind, that Iran - with its actual governing body oscilating towards some archaic and extreme Islam-based dogmas - would continue to develope its nuclear ambitions, U.S. may seek the ways to prevent these potential outcomes. That news indicates that U.S. is "clearing the ground" - with a reference to a use of nuclear weapons - for future decisions.

Nut who is being protected if we launched nukes against a country like Iran? Certainly not innocent Iranians, who would surely suffer the consequences. The irony is obvious: The warmongers in our government launch attacks claiming to defend the innocent, yet we also end up killing thousands (or over a million, counting the Iraq sanctions) in the process.

RickSp made an excellent point--what if we used nukes to take out Saddam's imaginary weapons? Who is made safer when America's reputation gets even more deeply damaged by this Administration?

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

Who is made safer? Every organization, cult or nation against us.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Who is made safer? Every organization, cult or nation against us.

And that's what America is slow to realize, apparently. I seriously think anyone who supports the Iraq War lack critical thinking skills.

Grandpa h.

[rmnunez]

I don't think the doctrine is intended to have a dissuasory effect on terrorists and it is unlikely to have such an effect. Instead I imagine the governments of non-nuclear states, especially Muslim ones with documented terrorist presence, will substantially improve their efforts to erradicate them -particularly upon indicia of any terrorist effort to acquire a WMD.