Pentagon Plans Strike-first Nuclear Policy

[Gumby]

A doctrine allowing the US pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons in the event of a WMD threat to the country is under development and is awaiting confirmation by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

The option for the use of nuclear weapons would be open if an enemy was using or about to use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against its forces or civilian population, or as a way to destroy the WMD threat.

The philosophy would be designed to work with tactical nuclear weapons whose primary use is underground WMD bunkers. Congress has yet to endorse the warheads because they say it would make it more likely that such weapons would be used or proliferated.



End to ALOT of lives, mark my words.

[Bone_Vulture]

The neo-cons probably figured that they'll never get to start another conventional war in the Middle East after the botched campaign in Iraq, so now they're looking for an excuse to go nuclear.

Remember how well the neo-con scare mongering about WMD's panned out in the end? Next time, there won't be any evidence left in the nuclear fallout to verify whether these mythical weapons actually existed.

[Captain Colon]

I find it hard to believe

[Gumby]

Great thing about Nuclear is, after you launch em it destroys all evidence.

[Bone_Vulture]

Great thing about Nuclear is, after you launch em it destroys all evidence.

Luckily all the oil is safe below the ground. ;)

[siddy]

Can I have a link please?

But if it's true, i'd like to see how North Korea and Iran react.

[Gumby]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10345189

[Toastar]

that is some AMAZING logic...wait....no, it really isn't

[siddy]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10345189

hrm, quite interesting. I wonder if the news'll break this side of the border.

Btw Gumby, nice link in your sig.

[Gumby]

thanks, putting another one in there right now.

[Enders]

The neo-cons probably figured that they'll never get to start another conventional war in the Middle East after the botched campaign in Iraq, so now they're looking for an excuse to go nuclear.

Remember how well the neo-con scare mongering about WMD's panned out in the end? Next time, there won't be any evidence left in the nuclear fallout to verify whether these mythical weapons actually existed.
exactly
"I swear! They were about to fire!"
This basically says that anyone who attempts ANY hostile action against the US will get nuked

[Gumby]

i'd like to see a vote of how many people in america support this, i bet i can count the percentage with my fingers.

[-V-]

Wow, can they get any more moronic. I guess without the USSR posing a nuclear threat any more, it might be as good time as any to start flexing that nuclear muscle, least it atrophy :rolleyes:.

[Daywalker]

that is some AMAZING logic...wait....no, it really isn't


indeed, I think saying that the U.S. would nuke anyone that launched an WMD attack on the U.S. is just as good. Theres no one out there that would be able to knock out our nuclear capablities before we were able to launch a world of pain on them.

Pre-emptive strikes are bad and messy

[DunNa]

after the botched campaign in Iraq

WTF!?!? so it wasn't publically popular after say the first few weeks but I would say as a war on a country can go that was a pretty damn good one. I don't think it even took a whole month to basicly get control of most everything. Honestly it was like a blitzkreig+2 or something.

I can see uses for this policy in all honesty and I can see some downsides to go with it. I see it kinda as a situation with a masked man with a gun in a gas station. Are you going to wait for him to possibly shoot you, just go along with whatever he does or wait until after your shot/killed? To have the option to strike first is always good if you ask me just don't be overly hasty to use it.

[Agent Law]

hrm, quite interesting. I wonder if the news'll break this side of the border.

Btw Gumby, nice link in your sig.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053.html

Two days ago.

[Toastar]

WTF!?!? so it wasn't publically popular after say the first few weeks but I would say as a war on a country can go that was a pretty damn good one. I don't think it even took a whole month to basicly get control of most everything. Honestly it was like a blitzkreig+2 or something.

hahaha

yeah, sure the beginning, now look as the body count rises

[GoatChomper]

A deliberately-chosen and misleading title, to say the least.

[marty]

Pre-emptive strikes aren't always bad. Israel did it to survive, why shouldn't anyone else?

Now, a nuclear pre-emptive strike, that's a really really bad-sounding idea.

[BlindSite]

I still fail to see the problem here. Someone places me in immeadiate harm, I cease them to exist... I still don't see the problem. Why cry?

[StandingCow]

Interesting... I mean, and we all saw with this war... we were so sure iraq had WMDs...

This is scary. Although I would like to know more details about this... any links?

[siddy]

I still fail to see the problem here. Someone places me in immeadiate harm, I cease them to exist... I still don't see the problem. Why cry?

Apparently Iraq was an 'imminent threat'. What if we launched a pre-emptive nuclear strike against them? That would be a big blunder. And honestly, it really doesn't look too good for the US internationally (read Iran and N. Korea)

[StandingCow]

Yea, thats what I was leaning toward saying siddy...

I mean... if they are like seconds away from launching and have said that they are planning to attack us or someone with nukes.. go for it... but it would have to be 100% without a doubt..

[BlindSite]

Based on the evidence I have seen and that has been supported the war in Iraq was justified, at the very least the people of Iraq are now free.

Aside from this, for those of you who feel it was a debarcle, what makes you think that the USGov is doomed to repeat past mistakes?

[kreket]

Blindsite, there still is the issue of proving to the people of Iraq that they are indeed free. There are some areas without state control and those are hot beds of remnant, foreign and rebel resistance. You've freed them from the Baath at the cost of American lives, but you haven't freed them from death, suffering and terror. The hearts and minds are satiable by bread and safety, but they don't have safety jet.

NATO has had a declared first-use policy of nuclear weapons, possibly as a deterrent against a Soviet non-WMD invasion of anywhere really important. (Such as a NATO country being overrun by Soviet armor.) This is somewhat different, but only with the pre-emptiveness and targeting of WMD.

Why a nuclear strike when the USA has such a huge arsenal of more conventional weapons? The administration already have very powerfull and precise weapons at their discretion.

[Toastar]

Aside from this, for those of you who feel it was a debarcle, what makes you think that the USGov is doomed to repeat past mistakes?

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

ever read a history textbook?

[Stig]

This is... interesting... but I think ultimately useless.

[Lord Kelvin]

Hmm... but what's to stop some sorta madman from sending an expertly forged video saying that (insert country here) has WMDs and plans to use them on the US?

[siddy]

Hmm... but what's to stop some sorta madman from sending an expertly forged video saying that (insert country here) has WMDs and plans to use them on the US?

good point. I don't think many people would like another 'intelligence failure' with Iraq. Especially if we nuked some country...but on the other hand...who would know? all the evidence would be vaporized.

[SWATJester_os]

The anti-us overtones disappear. Now.

[GoatChomper]

Why a nuclear strike when the USA has such a huge arsenal of more conventional weapons?
Always keep potential adversaries guessing and all one's options open.

[BlindSite]

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

ever read a history textbook?

Quite often, my point remains... Just because its happened before does not mean it'll happen again.

[FaKToR]

Always keep potential adversaries guessing and all one's options open.
Well thank you Niccolò Machiavelli.

[siddy]

Quite often, my point remains... Just because its happened before does not mean it'll happen again.

Because it's happened before, it has a good chance of happening again.

It's pretty easy to make a point like that.

Oh and Swat...I wasn't trying to make this an anti-US issue. I think given the US's track record with intelligence gathering lately, having an option open for a pre-emptive nuclear strike doesn't sound like the greatest idea. Hell, if it was the Russians, or the Chineese, I'd feel the same way.

[BlindSite]

Because it's happened before, it has a good chance of happening again.

It's pretty easy to make a point like that.


Correct me if I am wrong but I don't recall an ill advised nuclear strike launched by the US ever occuring in history. Don't attempt to say because they liberated Iraq they'd launch nuclear weapons, especially since Anihillation is decidedly different to a liberation misson.

[DunNa]

I think given the US's track record with intelligence gathering lately, having an option open for a pre-emptive nuclear strike doesn't sound like the greatest idea.


I honestly think this is more of a piece of paper thats going to help stop a nuclear launch than encourage one, well atleast on aginst the US. Right now it seems like almost every nation thinks the US are crazy warmongers or something and if we had a doctrine saying we'll nuke the hell out of your country if you even think of launching nukes at us it would act as a deterent. Thats just me though.

And as Blindsite said, theres a big difference between invading a nation and just nuking some country that you think might nuke you.

[Enders]

Correct me if I am wrong but I don't recall an ill advised nuclear strike launched by the US ever occuring in history. Don't attempt to say because they liberated Iraq they'd launch nuclear weapons, especially since Anihillation is decidedly different to a liberation misson.
there really is no way to explain anything to you, is there?

[siddy]

Correct me if I am wrong but I don't recall an ill advised nuclear strike launched by the US ever occuring in history. Don't attempt to say because they liberated Iraq they'd launch nuclear weapons, especially since Anihillation is decidedly different to a liberation misson.

I believe my point was about misinformation rather than the liberation of Iraq.

[solidsnake]

gg america. Now im gona have to start making a nuclear fallout shelter in my back yard because once we launch nukes the Russians are gona do it too.

[BlindSite]

there really is no way to explain anything to you, is there?

Actually there is, make a post containing evidence and a freaking logical conclusion instead of the continuation of plain old fashioned foolish diatribe of "government is stoopid theyd fire coz of past mistakes"

As of right now, there's no instance or proof that in recent history the United States government have completley and unilaterally attacked a nation, its people and its government based on misinformation. There's been a recent instance of liberation, freeing people, removing a government and pacifying a tyrannical military, part of the case of which was based on some misinformation but a lot of credible evidence which cannot be refuted...

[GoatChomper]

Well thank you Niccolò Machiavelli.
So nice of you always showing your hole cards to the other poker players at the table.

[FaKToR]

I think you mean just nonsensical. Don't bother asking what he's talking about, that indicates a defect with you which he will have no part in ratifying. GC you are one of the worst debaters I've ever seen. You don't make arguments, you make cryptic statements and then claim the inferiority of your opponent as if it's some appeal to truth. Stop with this stupid shit.

[Delta]

indeed, I think saying that the U.S. would nuke anyone that launched an WMD attack on the U.S. is just as good. Theres no one out there that would be able to knock out our nuclear capablities before we were able to launch a world of pain on them.

Pre-emptive strikes are bad and messy

The problem with that is that we're talking about striking the same people (group / type) that caused 9/11. We don't know where they are, necessarily, nor would the threat of a counter-attack to them necessarily deter them from doing whatever damage they intend to do.

Do the words 'suicide bomber' or 'suicide plane hijacker' mean anything to you?

A deliberately-chosen and misleading title, to say the least.

My thoughts exactly.

A doctrine allowing the US pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons in the event of a WMD threat to the country is under development and is awaiting confirmation by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

The option for the use of nuclear weapons would be open if an enemy was using or about to use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against its forces or civilian population, or as a way to destroy the WMD threat.

The philosophy would be designed to work with tactical nuclear weapons whose primary use is underground WMD bunkers. Congress has yet to endorse the warheads because they say it would make it more likely that such weapons would be used or proliferated.



End to ALOT of lives, mark my words.

It's a policy much the same in principle as the one employed during the entire cold-war. If history has shown us anything, it's that it repeats itself.

So why do you insist on trying to fix what obviously wasn't broken?

[Moe_Rahn]

It's a policy much the same in principle as the one employed during the entire cold-war. If history has shown us anything, it's that it repeats itself.

So why do you insist on trying to fix what obviously wasn't broken?
So the nuclear tension of the Cold War was a good thing? Hey, it worked, we didn't get nuked, so it must have been the perfect solution.

[FaKToR]

The problem with that is that we're talking about striking the same people (group / type) that caused 9/11. We don't know where they are, necessarily, nor would the threat of a counter-attack to them necessarily deter them from doing whatever damage they intend to do.

Do the words 'suicide bomber' or 'suicide plane hijacker' mean anything to you?
Then how would a pre-emptive nuclear attack work exactly?

It's a policy much the same in principle as the one employed during the entire cold-war.
We narrowly averted an all out nuclear conflict during the cold war. That's not very encouraging.

If history has shown us anything, it's that it repeats itself.
See above.

So why do you insist on trying to fix what obviously wasn't broken?
What's not broken here exactly? We didn't have a policy of pre-emptive nuclear strike in the cold war. MAD doesn't work then.

[DunNa]

Then how would a pre-emptive nuclear attack work exactly?

I honestly think this is more of a piece of paper thats going to help stop a nuclear launch than encourage one, well atleast on aginst the US. Right now it seems like almost every nation thinks the US are crazy warmongers or something and if we had a doctrine saying we'll nuke the hell out of your country if you even think of launching nukes at us it would act as a deterent. Thats just me though.

Now lets say it doesn't work like that and say a nation with nukes wants to bomb us to shit lets say N. Korea. So there all like fire ze missles!!!! The US would be like wtfmate and just shoot them before(hopefully) the missles are fired.

Though this would more than likely never really get used, since even if it doesn't work most any nation in the world will get fucked and then some if they even launch anything even remotely nuclear.

Simply put "I shoot you before you shoot me".

[siddy]

Actually there is, make a post containing evidence and a freaking logical conclusion instead of the continuation of plain old fashioned foolish diatribe of "government is stoopid theyd fire coz of past mistakes"

As of right now, there's no instance or proof that in recent history the United States government have completley and unilaterally attacked a nation, its people and its government based on misinformation. There's been a recent instance of liberation, freeing people, removing a government and pacifying a tyrannical military, part of the case of which was based on some misinformation but a lot of credible evidence which cannot be refuted...

Yes, liberation. Ok, I'll spell this out for you. Iraq is free from Saddam, that much is true, gg coalition. HOWEVER, it is well known that WMD's which were a very large part of the debate for invading Iraq did NOT pan out. What happened to the mobile biological weapon trucks? What happened to the imminent threat?

I'm sick and tired of this Iraq debate. There were no WMD's found, the whitehouse admitted it. I'm worried about what this misinformation could cause.

Misinformation helped start a war, with many deaths innocent and not on both sides. I don't want to see a nuclear strike based on flawed information.

[kreket]

If that administration had gone in ONLY in the Kurd and Shia areas, under the justification "to aid, train and protect" this would be a totally different scenario. I don't see how the world community could protest that and I don't see the Baathists daring to attack anyone in a US uniform.

But if they did attack, the retaliation and removal of a dictator and his now recently proven unreasonable regime would be much easier to legitimize than to do so by lies. There could even have been time to train some Kurd and Shia military forces to the standard of NATO or the US.

Keeping the no-fly zones, but with ground presence.


I don't see what targets would be selected for nuclear weapons. Whole cities is exclusively for major scenarios and hostile nuclear weapons to be pre-emptively destroyed are best removed by conventional means, rather than by WMD. The Israelis showed us how it could be done in Iraq. Other than that, it saves on the fallout, avoid civilians getting hit and you get to stand on higher moral ground than if you nuked them.

[BlindSite]

Yes, liberation. Ok, I'll spell this out for you. Iraq is free from Saddam, that much is true, gg coalition. HOWEVER, it is well known that WMD's which were a very large part of the debate for invading Iraq did NOT pan out. What happened to the mobile biological weapon trucks? What happened to the imminent threat?

I'm sick and tired of this Iraq debate. There were no WMD's found, the whitehouse admitted it. I'm worried about what this misinformation could cause.

Misinformation helped start a war, with many deaths innocent and not on both sides. I don't want to see a nuclear strike based on flawed information.


You're acting like the misinformation was the only reason for war... That is not the case. Therfore I do not believe this to be a threat or danger having the US employ this policy.

[siddy]

You're acting like the misinformation was the only reason for war... That is not the case. Therfore I do not believe this to be a threat or danger having the US employ this policy.

Ok. Seriously. Think. Where did I say that that was the only reason. It was substantial, and probably the best way to sell it to the american public, but (my thoughts aside) I stated that...

very large part of the debate

was WMD's. not the only part. But we're not even debating that! There WAS misinformation. Big No-No when starting a war, and big problem if you're thinking about pre-emptive nuclear strikes.

[pro kossu]

Pre-emptive nuclear policy could work as a deterrent or as a red flag to all the nations considering themselves likely targets (ie. N-Korea). Considering the track record of the US and how they're viewed in various countries I'd say it would do more to unstabilize the balance of terror, fueling arms races and building up tensions.

You cant really bully countries into submission.

[Walnut]

You cant really bully countries into submission.

Well, our nuclear policy and the USSR's nuclear policy prevented a war. The fact that both countries could have, and likely would have, launched nukes at the first signs of an invasion prevented either from attempting one.

[pro kossu]

Well, our nuclear policy and the USSR's nuclear policy prevented a war. The fact that both countries could have, and likely would have, launched nukes at the first signs of an invasion prevented either from attempting one.

That was because the terror of balance worked. I dont want to think what would've happened if either of the countries would've decided to pre-empt the cuban missile crisis by launching.

Basicly it boils down to this: If all parties are going to launch nukes only after they've been attacked with nukes first, then no one is ever going to launch one, logically.

[GoatChomper]

Stop with this stupid shit.
I assume no responsibility for your inability to comprehend common metaphors.

[DunNa]

Pre-emptive nuclear policy could work as a deterrent or as a red flag to all the nations considering themselves likely targets (ie. N-Korea). Considering the track record of the US and how they're viewed in various countries I'd say it would do more to unstabilize the balance of terror, fueling arms races and building up tensions.

Honestly why would most any country even try? I can't think of any nation out there that could stand a chance in an "arms race" aginst the US unless alot of countries got together and decided to do something about it. I don't think many nations have the economy to do something like that. Maybe China or if some middle eastern oil nations got together, but beyond that I don't think N. Korea would be able to keep up if it really came down to an arms race.

This could also promt smaller countries who are thinking about going nuclear to just invest in other things.

Though I do see the point of it pissing off alot of other countries, but its as simple as not pointing your nukes at us to not even be threatened by this. (oh and keep your neighbors nukes not pointed at us :P)

[StandingCow]

Ya know, I really dont think this policy is going to change anything...

If we are sure before or after this policy.. pass or not that someone is gonna nuke us... we are gonna nuke them.

[FaKToR]

I assume no responsibility for your inability to comprehend common metaphors.
We're not playing poker, we're not playing a game. There is no such thing as showing my cards if I have nothing to hide. It's totally fucking asinine to prattle on as if I'm somehow revealing my strategies when I'm not hiding anything. I was mocking your realist approach (in this case) to politics and your bombastic style of arguing as if you've made some great insightful statement in one sentence.

[GoatChomper]

I was mocking your realist approach (in this case) to politics.....
Yes, by all means let's use non-realist approaches to real situations.
.....and your bombastic style of arguing as if you've made some great insightful statement in one sentence.
Oh, yeah.....a one-liner to show that you read Il Príncipe once is such erudition.

Stop sniveling already. If you can't take the punches, then get out of the ring (and if you need someone to explain that metaphor to you as well, look elsewhere).

[kreket]

GC, old Nico is wellknown as a cynic and is the common pick for realist politics.

The boxing glow is mightier than the pen! All hail the boxing glow!

Is that the end of discussion or are you going to give us something with some more substance than darkly brown coloured drinks, served as wellsmelted solid arguments?

[FaKToR]

Well I posted a reply, but amazingly enough it seems GC doesn't have a very tough skin despite all the posturing.

[SWATJester_os]

oh ffs.

[SWATJester_os]

oh ffs..

[GoatChomper]

Well I posted a reply, but amazingly enough it seems GC doesn't have a very tough skin despite all the posturing.
Wrong.....I merely tired of you dragging it further off-topic.