Pentagon draft plan calls for preemptive use of

[scoobysnack]

The Bush doctrine calls for preemptive strikes with nuclear weapons to show that we are not afraid to use WMDs against those countries who also posess WMDs. We have to make war in order to keep the peace. Bush is pushing world leaders to create the New World Order that can only be accomplished by way of preemptive strikes. And to show a display of force we are going to use nukes on other countries to show them we mean buisness, even if they have never attacked us in the past.

Bush who is just a puppet by the way, is following the globalist plan of creating WWIII so that the end result will be the creation of the final world government.

HALIFAX, Nova Scotia — President Bush challenged international leaders to create a new world order, declaring pre-September 11 multilateralism outmoded and asserting that freedom from terrorism will come only through pre-emptive action against enemies of democracy.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/200412...22549-7793r.htm

Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan

Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons

By Walter Pincus

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, September 11, 2005; A01

The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

Titled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" and written under the direction of Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the draft document is unclassified and available on a Pentagon Web site. It is expected to be signed within a few weeks by Air Force Lt. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, director of the Joint Staff, according to Navy Cmdr. Dawn Cutler, a public affairs officer in Myers's office

One reason for the delay may be concern about raising publicly the possibility of preemptive use of nuclear weapons. (Ya think :?: :!: )

To deter the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, the Pentagon paper says preparations must be made to use nuclear weapons and show determination to use them "if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use."

The draft says that to deter a potential adversary from using such weapons, that adversary's leadership must "believe the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective." The draft also notes that U.S. policy in the past has "repeatedly rejected calls for adoption of 'no first use' policy of nuclear weapons since this policy could undermine deterrence."

source Washington Post

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Pentagon's nuclear wish

According to a March document by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that was recently posted to the Pentagon's website, Washington will not necessarily wait for potential adversaries to use what it calls "weapons of mass destruction" before resorting to a nuclear strike against them. The document, entitled Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, has yet to be approved by Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld.

The new document is the first to spell out various contingencies in which a preemptive nuclear strike might be used, including:

• If an adversary intended to use weapons of mass destruction against the US multinational or allied forces or a civilian population

• In cases of an imminent attack from an adversary's biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy

• Against adversary installations, including weapons of mass destruction; deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons; or the command-and-control infrastructure required for the adversary to execute a weapons of mass destruction (WMD) attack against the US or its friends and allies

• In cases where a demonstration of US intent and capability to use nuclear weapons would deter weapons of mass destruction use by an adversary.

The previous doctrine, promulgated under the Clinton administration in 1995 made no mention of the preemptive use of nuclear weapons against any target, let alone describe scenarios in which such use would be considered.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GI14Aa01.html

REUTERS -  Other scenarios envisioned in the draft doctrine include nuclear weapons use to counter potentially overwhelming conventional forces, for rapid and favorable war termination on US terms, to demonstrate US intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter enemy use of weapons of mass destruction, and to respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction supplied by an enemy to a "surrogate." The document said "numerous non-state organizations (terrorist, criminal)" and about 30 countries have programs for weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/200...0-dod-nukes.htm

This is right along the with what Philip Giraldi said, if you read one of my earlier threads: Bush plans: Nuke Iran after next 9/11 type terrorist attack

According to Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, and member of cannistaro associates (an international security consultancy), in the August 2005 issue of The American Conservitive, page 27:

"In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran.  The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections."

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html

:shock:

Would someone please tell George Bush the squirrels are looking for him, they think he's nuts! thanx stixx

[Dowdy]

So then the 'real' terrorist will be fighting the 'so-called' terrorists

[thebarman]

•  In cases of an imminent attack from an adversary's biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy

846148[/snapback]

You gotta love that paragraph, now I'm the first one to admit my knowledge of Nuclear Weapons is fairly basic but maybe someone can shed some light on this.

What exactly is SAFELY destoyed by a nuclear bomb? Because it seems to be a bit of a contradiction to me

[Richdog]

What exactly is SAFELY destoyed by a nuclear bomb? Because it seems to be a bit of a contradiction to me 

846501[/snapback]

Well the heavy radiation kills the biological agents so instead of getting some horrible toxic disease we only get cancer instead! Wait a minute...

[thebarman]

Oh I see, thanks for clearing that up mate it's all so much clearer to me now

So basically this is how I understand it, please correct me if I'm wrong. If a threat from biological weapons is perceived a nuclear bomb will be dropped on the supposed target, thereby wiping out all traces of the biological agent.

Genius

So what happens to any innocent civillians in the surrounding area of the "terrorists"? Not to mention anyone downwind

Is that what's meant by the term "expendable" or is it a "calculated loss"?

[Mekorig]

What exactly is SAFELY destoyed by a nuclear bomb? Because it seems to be a bit of a contradiction to me 

846501[/snapback]

Well the heavy radiation kills the biological agents so instead of getting some horrible toxic disease we only get cancer instead! Wait a minute...

846502[/snapback]

or the biological agents mutate and we got a more horrible bug...."the attack of the 50 foot Antrax spore".

[Conspiracy]

world war 3 here we come

[Thanato]

YAH!!! Finaly a plane to destroy them evil biological agents, YAH!!!!

To bad it might kill thousands or hundreds of thousands in the process, Oh well i gues they would rather die from a nuke then a virus or biological agent, and what about all thoughs poor people who survive the initial blast but have there insides melt away by radiation, oh well its a better death then dieing from a virus. Yah

*End sarcasim*

****in idiots,

~Thanato

[Celumnaz]

why even use the word tactical if nobody can understand it? Why'd we even spend the money on tactical nukes if all people think of are little boy and fat man.

[thebarman]

I'm well aware of what tactical means, but the only time that was mentioned was:

The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons.

...and as you can see, it includes conventional nukes as well.

As I understand it, tactical nukes are the smaller variety with only a few megaton blast range, the idea being that you deploy several of these "small" nukes to create the same level of destruction as a larger nuke but without the fallout and high radiation levels and nuclear winter that comes after.

Conventional nukes are the ones that will eventually lead to the end of the world, right?

[Celumnaz]

Well now I don't know... when I read Conventional it didn't have the word Nuclear after it, so I assumed they meant... Conventional non-nuclear, and tactical nuclear.

Not that I'd ever want to tell a potential enemy "yeah, sure, we'll hold our punches."

Edited September 16, 2005 by Celumnaz

[thebarman]

I see what you mean, now that I read it again it could be interpreted either way.

As I understand it, tacticle nukes have a shorter shelf life, some thing to do with using a smaller amount of plutonium or something means they don't last long.

Maybe they made a load that are almost past there sell by date and thought "Hey, may as well use them now, it'd be a shame to waste them".

Or maybe I'm wrong, either way with tactical or conventional the whole thing sounds dodgy to me. It all sounds like laying the legal groundwork before you get going just so you've got an excuse if it all goes to pot like it did with Iraq.

[bboy]

I'm well aware of what tactical means, but the only time that was mentioned was:

The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons.

...and as you can see, it includes conventional nukes as well.

As I understand it, tactical nukes are the smaller variety with only a few megaton blast range, the idea being that you deploy several of these "small" nukes to create the same level of destruction as a larger nuke but without the fallout and high radiation levels and nuclear winter that comes after.

Conventional nukes are the ones that will eventually lead to the end of the world, right?

846781[/snapback]

There is no such thing as a conventional nuke. The word conventional is given to regular bombs, not of the nuke variety.

[zephyr]

Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections

Why should they pose objections? They know better than anybody else that such cynical plans drawn up by short-sighted back-room politicians like Cheney will only stay on the drawing board and in computer war-games. They also know that talking about such illogical plans is in reality a bad bluff in a propaganda war more than anything else.

[Blizno]

Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections

Why should they pose objections? They know better than anybody else that such cynical plans drawn up by short-sighted back-room politicians like Cheney will only stay on the drawing board and in computer war-games. They also know that talking about such illogical plans is in reality a bad bluff in a propaganda war more than anything else.

847159[/snapback]

I hope, I hope, I hope you're right and this is a bluff. With Bush, there's no way of knowing. He's crazy enough to think this is a good idea. He probably wants to hasten the end of the world anyway so his Savior will come down to pick up the pieces.

If this is real, I hope that the people who will actually shoot the weapons have the sanity to refuse to do so.

[Stixxman]

What exactly is SAFELY destoyed by a nuclear bomb? Because it seems to be a bit of a contradiction to me 

846501[/snapback]

Well the heavy radiation kills the biological agents so instead of getting some horrible toxic disease we only get cancer instead! Wait a minute...

846502[/snapback]

hahahahahhahahaha hahahahahahahaha haha ha hahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Blizno]

What exactly is SAFELY destoyed by a nuclear bomb? Because it seems to be a bit of a contradiction to me 

846501[/snapback]

Well the heavy radiation kills the biological agents so instead of getting some horrible toxic disease we only get cancer instead! Wait a minute...

846502[/snapback]

hahahahahhahahaha hahahahahahahaha haha ha hahahahahahahahahahahaha

847557[/snapback]

For chemical weapons it's questionable. For biological weapons, a direct hit will almost certainly kill any and all organisms in the bioweapons. Nukes are very, very good at killing organisms. A hit that's not dead on could conceivably blow some of the organisms or their tough spores along the shock wave without killing all of them. The inevitable radiactive fallout from a nuke of any size will be very bad for everything downwind whether the bioweapon is fully destroyed or not.

[Hmm]

All I have to say is about time....

[Dr_Strangelove]

What exactly is SAFELY destoyed by a nuclear bomb? Because it seems to be a bit of a contradiction to me 

846501[/snapback]

Well the heavy radiation kills the biological agents so instead of getting some horrible toxic disease we only get cancer instead! Wait a minute...

846502[/snapback]

hahahahahhahahaha hahahahahahahaha haha ha hahahahahahahahahahahaha

847557[/snapback]

For chemical weapons it's questionable. For biological weapons, a direct hit will almost certainly kill any and all organisms in the bioweapons. Nukes are very, very good at killing organisms. A hit that's not dead on could conceivably blow some of the organisms or their tough spores along the shock wave without killing all of them. The inevitable radiactive fallout from a nuke of any size will be very bad for everything downwind whether the bioweapon is fully destroyed or not.

847625[/snapback]

Since I've sort of earned a reputation for my fondness for nuclear weapons it would only be proper for me to add a couple of points about this. There are some serious questions in the scientific community about the feasibility of a 'sanitation' strike. If the target has their biological agents stored in a nice concentration in a surface facility then a nuke might be able to destroy the agents. Of course this also means a surface blast or air burst with all the nasty fallout and blast effects.

The real problem is that the target will probably not be in any such concentration or location. It will probably be dispersed into deep, highly fortified bunkers. They will also force you into a sort of nuclear shell game; build a hundred bunkers and try to figure out which one you need to bomb.

There have also been a lot of questions about what type of 'Bunker-Buster' it would take to eliminate such a bunker. The Air Force has been working on this sort of scenario for quite awhile now. So far the field results have not been exactly optimal. Once you start using these weapons you will want to be sure of destroying their WMDs. The problem is that once you start shooting so will they.

Here are some links about this whole discussion:

http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAc...7&contentId=394

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/rnep.htm

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/index.php?id=460

Now I will hold open the possibility that the United States pulls a nuclear rabbit out of it's hat and we could have RNEP device capable of doing this. We have done some amazing things before on short notice with our military-industrial complex.

The sad fact is, as I see it now, I wouldn't want to bet the fate of nations on this strategic denial idea right now.

What would I do? The same thing I've said here before; inform anybody who decides to use any WMD against us that we would annilate them with a few dozen good-old high yield fusion bombs. Nothing complicated about that.

[Blizno]

"What would I do? The same thing I've said here before; inform anybody who decides to use any WMD against us that we would annilate them with a few dozen good-old high yield fusion bombs. Nothing complicated about that."

That's fine if your enemy is concentrated in a single nation with as few innocent civilians as possible. If your enemy is dispersed among most or all nations of the world, there's only so much you can nuke. If your enemy is utterly fanatical and thinks that a glorious death for themselves, while killing you, is an excellent outcome, nuking nations won't solve the problem.

[Dr_Strangelove]

"What would I do? The same thing I've said here before; inform anybody who decides to use any WMD against us that we would annilate them with a few dozen good-old high yield fusion bombs. Nothing complicated about that."

That's fine if your enemy is concentrated in a single nation with as few innocent civilians as possible.  If your enemy is dispersed among most or all nations of the world, there's only so much you can nuke.  If your enemy is utterly fanatical and thinks that a glorious death for themselves, while killing you, is an excellent outcome, nuking nations won't solve the problem.

847944[/snapback]

True but the whole Pentagon idea that sparked this discussion seems to be aimed at the scenario of the 'rogue state' developing WMDs.

[zephyr]

Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections

Why should they pose objections? They know better than anybody else that such cynical plans drawn up by short-sighted back-room politicians like Cheney will only stay on the drawing board and in computer war-games. They also know that talking about such illogical plans is in reality a bad bluff in a propaganda war more than anything else.

847159[/snapback]

I hope, I hope, I hope you're right and this is a bluff. With Bush, there's no way of knowing. He's crazy enough to think this is a good idea. He probably wants to hasten the end of the world anyway so his Savior will come down to pick up the pieces.

If this is real, I hope that the people who will actually shoot the weapons have the sanity to refuse to do so.

847221[/snapback]

I think it takes more than just Bush's wishes to implement such catastrophic plans and I'm not sure he's really wishing for that much trouble in his remaining time in office. In fact that particular plan against Iran is too rediculous to be serious since going through with such a scenario would not only involve(militarily, politically and economically) Iran and the US but a good part of the world.

[Blizno]

I think it takes more than just Bush's wishes to implement such catastrophic plans and I'm not sure he's really wishing for that much trouble in his remaining time in office. In fact that particular plan against Iran is too rediculous to be serious since going through with such a scenario would not only involve(militarily, politically and economically) Iran and the US but a good part of the world.

848324[/snapback]

I suspect that the cost of recovering from the pounding USA took from hurricane Katrina will sidetrack some of the grand schemes of Bush and his owners. The US is very, very rich but The Bush Wars and the huge tax cuts for Bush's super-rich owners has bankrupted the nation. There's only so much money that USA can borrow. We're getting close to the limits now. If that means stopping the growing cascace of Bush Wars - GREAT!

[Dr_Strangelove]

I think it takes more than just Bush's wishes to implement such catastrophic plans and I'm not sure he's really wishing for that much trouble in his remaining time in office. In fact that particular plan against Iran is too rediculous to be serious since going through with such a scenario would not only involve(militarily, politically and economically) Iran and the US but a good part of the world.

848324[/snapback]

I suspect that the cost of recovering from the pounding USA took from hurricane Katrina will sidetrack some of the grand schemes of Bush and his owners. The US is very, very rich but The Bush Wars and the huge tax cuts for Bush's super-rich owners has bankrupted the nation. There's only so much money that USA can borrow. We're getting close to the limits now. If that means stopping the growing cascace of Bush Wars - GREAT!

848898[/snapback]

Bankrupted the nation? Sure seems like news to me.