EastBayDave
Needs a job
Posts: 2245
|
posted February 07, 2003 07:51 AM
Nuke's ok'ed against Iraq
Bush approves nuclear response
By Nicholas Kralev
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
A classified document signed by President Bush specifically allows for the use of nuclear weapons in response to biological or chemical attacks, apparently changing a decades-old U.S. policy of deliberate ambiguity, it was learned by The Washington Times.
"The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force including potentially nuclear weapons to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies," the document, National Security Presidential Directive 17, set out on Sept. 14 last year.
A similar statement is included in the public version of the directive, which was released Dec. 11 as the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction and closely parallels the classified document. However, instead of the phrase "including potentially nuclear weapons," the public text says, "including through resort to all of our options."
A White House spokesman declined to comment when asked about the document last night and neither confirmed nor denied its existence.
A senior administration official said, however, that using the words "nuclear weapons" in the classified text gives the military and other officials, who are the document's intended audience, "a little more of an instruction to prepare all sorts of options for the president," if need be.
The official, nonetheless, insisted that ambiguity remains "the heart and soul of our nuclear policy."
In the classified version, nuclear forces are designated as the main part of any U.S. deterrent, and conventional capabilities "complement" the nuclear weapons.
"Nuclear forces alone ... cannot ensure deterrence against [weapons of mass destruction] and missiles," the original paragraph says. "Complementing nuclear force with an appropriate mix of conventional response and defense capabilities, coupled with effective intelligence, surveillance, interdiction and domestic law-enforcement capabilities, reinforces our overall deterrent posture against [weapons of mass destruction] threats."
Before it released the text publicly, the White House changed that same paragraph to: "In addition to our conventional and nuclear response and defense capabilities, our overall deterrent posture against [weapons of mass destruction] threats is reinforced by effective intelligence, surveillance, interdiction and domestic law-enforcement capabilities."
The classified document, a copy of which was shown to The Washington Times, is known better by its abbreviation NSPD 17, as well as Homeland Security Presidential Directive 4.
The disclosure of the classified text follows newspaper reports that the planning for a war with Iraq focuses on using nuclear arms not only to defend U.S. forces but also to "pre-empt" deeply buried Iraqi facilities that could withstand conventional explosives.
For decades, the U.S. government has maintained a deliberately vague nuclear policy, expressed in such language as "all options open" and "not ruling anything in or out." As recently as last weekend, Bush administration officials used similar statements in public, consciously avoiding the word "nuclear."
"I'm not going to put anything on the table or off the table," White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. said on NBC's "Meet the Press," adding that the United States will use "whatever means necessary" to protect its citizens and the world from a "holocaust."
But in the paragraphs marked "S" for "secret," the Sept. 14 directive clearly states that nuclear weapons are part of the "overwhelming force" that Washington might use in response to a chemical or biological attack.
Former U.S. officials and arms control experts with knowledge of policies of the previous administrations declined to say whether such specific language had been used before, for fear of divulging classified information. But they conceded that differences exist.
"This shows that there is a somewhat greater willingness in this administration to use a nuclear response to other [non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction] attacks, although that's not a wholesale departure from previous administrations," one former senior official said.
Even a slight change can make a big difference. Because it is now "official policy, it means that the United States will actively consider the nuclear option" in a military conflict, said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association.
"This document is far more explicit about the use of nuclear weapons to deter and possibly defeat biological and chemical attacks," he said. "If someone dismisses it, that would question the entire logic of the administration's national security strategy against [weapons of mass destruction]."
Mr. Kimball said U.S. nuclear weapons "should only be used to deter nuclear attacks by others."
A senior official who served in the Clinton administration said there would still have to be a new evaluation before any decision was made on the use of nuclear weapons.
"What this document means is that they have thought through the consequences, including in the abstract, but it doesn't necessarily prejudge any specific case."
Baker Spring, a national security fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said the classified language "does not undermine the basic posture of the deterrent and does not commit the United States to a nuclear response in hypothetical circumstances. In a classified document, you are willing to be more specific what the policy is, because people in the administration have to understand it for planning purposes."
Both former officials and arms control analysts say that making the classified text public might raise concerns among Washington's allies but has little military significance. On the other hand, they note, the nuclear deterrent has little value if a potential adversary does not know what it can expect.
They agree that there must have been "good reasons" for the White House to have "cleaned up" the document before releasing it. They speculated on at least three:
Although responding to a non-nuclear attack by nuclear weapons is not banned by international law, existing arms-control treaties call for a "proportionate response" to biological and chemical attacks. The question is, one former official said, whether any nuclear response is proportionate to any non-nuclear attack.
Second, naming nuclear weapons specifically flies in the face of the "negative security assurances" that U.S. administrations have given for 25 years. Those statements, while somewhat modified under different presidents, essentially have said the United States will not use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state unless that state attacks it together with a nuclear ally.
Finally, publicly and explicitly articulating a policy of nuclear response can hurt the international nonproliferation regime, which the United States firmly supports. That sets a bad example for countries such as India and Pakistan and gives rogue states an incentive to develop their own nuclear capabilities.
William M. Arkin, a military analyst, wrote in the Los Angeles Times earlier this week that the Bush administration's war planning "moves nuclear weapons out of their long-established special category and lumps them in with all the other military options."
Mr. Arkin quoted "multiple sources" close to the preparations for a war in Iraq as saying that the focus is on "two possible roles for nuclear weapons: attacking Iraqi facilities located so deep underground that they might be impervious to conventional explosives; and thwarting Iraq's use of weapons of mass destruction."
He cited a Dec. 11 memorandum from Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to Mr. Bush, asking for authority to place Adm. James O. Ellis Jr., chief of the U.S. Strategic Command, in charge of the full range of "strategic" warfare options.
NSPD 17 appears to have upgraded nuclear weapons beyond the traditional function as a nuclear deterrent.
"This is an interesting distinction," Mr. Spring said. "There is an acknowledgment up front that under the post-Cold War circumstances, deterrence in the sense we applied it during the Cold War is not as reliable. I think it's accurate."
____________
Enjoy the ride!
02' ZRX1200
00' ZX12R sold
  
|
Hells Dark Lord
Needs a life
living life, and loving it.
Posts: 7981
|
posted February 07, 2003 08:15 AM
oh great now i get to dodge Saddams chem, and our nukes.....yippie....
____________
When in doubt, lean farther and go faster....
|
blkrnbow
Expert Class
Posts: 115
|
posted February 07, 2003 01:54 PM
Why no just go preemptive strike, dont leave anyone over there to hate us anymore.
 
|
Zhooligan
Moderator
Post Whore Extraordinaire!
Posts: 3829
|
posted February 07, 2003 02:10 PM
Must complete the touchy feely stuff first you know!
|
deathpulse
Pro
Posts: 1688
|
posted February 07, 2003 04:33 PM
BOOM. 'nuff said.
Try hiding in a bunker now punk... let me introduce you to the B61 - 11:
http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Usa/Weapons/B61.html
|
Hells Dark Lord
Needs a life
living life, and loving it.
Posts: 7981
|
posted February 07, 2003 08:58 PM
lol, he lets not use thsoe to start with....I have to go through that area...and I dont care to wade in after the mushroom cloud goes up.....ok....lol
____________
When in doubt, lean farther and go faster....
|
kzz1
Zone Head
"Show me whatcha workin with"
Posts: 908
|
posted February 08, 2003 05:39 AM
Just make sure when you go in that you start from one end of the country that you make a clean sweep to the other end of the country and don't forget to put a "Land For Sale" sign out when you guys leave 
|
zx12zx11
Expert Class
Posts: 471
|
posted February 08, 2003 07:55 AM
I have been to the Nevada Nuclear Test Site and some of the shit they did there is incerdible. I would hate to be on the receiving end of one of thoes Nukes. A good site for info on nukes is http://fas.org/
|
Hells Dark Lord
Needs a life
living life, and loving it.
Posts: 7981
|
posted February 09, 2003 04:45 AM
who in hell is gonna buy it after the cloud clears.....I just hope all the oil wells stay intact, so we can atleast get that out of the deal....
____________
When in doubt, lean farther and go faster....
|
deathpulse
Pro
Posts: 1688
|
posted February 09, 2003 05:48 AM
The oil should be OK - its deep underground  . Now, it might be difficult to walk around on the surface... but thats what lead lined suites are for!!
Seriously though, I wonder how this mess will clear itself up?
|
Hells Dark Lord
Needs a life
living life, and loving it.
Posts: 7981
|
posted February 09, 2003 08:36 PM
they dont issue us those Death....and I dont know where to buy one.....lol
____________
When in doubt, lean farther and go faster....
|
swft
Needs a life
Full throttle!
Posts: One MEEEEEELLION
|
posted February 10, 2003 04:44 AM
First of all, the chance of nukes being deployed are very remote. That being said, this is a small theater of operations. The weapons deployed would likely also be limited in size. Ie; a B61 airdrop would be an unlikely choice. Yes, it's a dial-a-yield weapon, but still, it's like swatting a fly with a Buick. Besides, you've got no standoff capability with this weapon. You have to wait for the atmospherics to settle, then do recon and if needed, schedule another mission. Move a trident to a position off the coast (Remember, SLBMs are the only delivery vehicle not limited to a single warhead under START/START II) and let the satellite recon determine the traffic. Since nothing's that mobile, you don't have to worry about RLUTCs, you can just build a fairly static targeting package and pick and choose. The trident would be virtually undetectable until launch, and with enough traffic in the water over there, could easily fade into the background noise after. RBs have a peak apogee of 135 miles, reenter at approx Mach 26, and are utterably, undeniably, unstoppable.
|
EastBayDave
Needs a job
Posts: 2245
|
posted February 10, 2003 06:15 AM
...uh...bout half of that was japanese to me; but hoooorah! Why not just load up a few of these deteriorating ICBM's we got in the states with standard high explosive? Give a few of those to Saddam & see how he likes those apples...
We'd have to notify the neighbors of course... 
____________
Enjoy the ride!
02' ZRX1200
00' ZX12R sold
|
swft
Needs a life
Full throttle!
Posts: One MEEEEEELLION
|
posted February 10, 2003 06:22 AM
Well, an ICBM is very, very expensive. And we got lots of great options for deploying conventional explosives.
|
Hells Dark Lord
Needs a life
living life, and loving it.
Posts: 7981
|
posted February 10, 2003 06:33 AM
conventional munitions have come a long way in the past few years. We have arty rounds that are 99.9% accurate when guided with lasers...and Minefields that are deployable with arty....not to mention all the guided, dropped munitions....am not worried about Saddam and his ridiculous threats.....he is in for an ass whoopin, and isnt smart enough to know it..
____________
When in doubt, lean farther and go faster....
|
EastBayDave
Needs a job
Posts: 2245
|
posted February 10, 2003 06:40 AM
Yeah I know, but the intimidation factor from an ICBM launched from Kansas or someplace in the mid-west would be awesome. Make other rogue states (N. Korea, etc.) think twice bout messin' with us...
____________
Enjoy the ride!
02' ZRX1200
00' ZX12R sold
|
Hells Dark Lord
Needs a life
living life, and loving it.
Posts: 7981
|
posted February 10, 2003 08:38 AM
they arent smart enough to think twice, if they were they wouldnt have to....lol
____________
When in doubt, lean farther and go faster....
|
deathpulse
Pro
Posts: 1688
|
posted February 10, 2003 10:21 AM
Hey Swft - ICBM's are cool, but I was thinking of the B61-11 because it is specifically designed to destroy deeply burried bunkers (where Sadam hides during war time). The surface burst/atmosphere burst nukes are good for most shallow bunkers, but unless you select a megaton class (or high KT class) nuke, deeply burried bunkers actually have SOME chance for survival (not that you'd want to come out and see what was left after the burst) vs. say an ICBM. Thats why I picked out the 'ol B61 varient 11. It may only bury to about 20 feet or so, but then it translates a LOT of its engergy to moving earth above AND BELOW the blast - hehehe WATCH OUT BURRIED TARGETS! ... of course the DRAWBACK is that it also lifts high amounts of neutron bombarded dirt into the atmosphere (along with the traditional fision byproducts like strontium 90 - YICK). For a good idea of what this actually means... checkout the US "plowshare" test.. hehehe:
BOOM:
http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Usa/Tests/Sedan2.jpg
Whats left:
http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Usa/Tests/Sedan3.jpg
|
swft
Needs a life
Full throttle!
Posts: One MEEEEEELLION
|
posted February 10, 2003 05:35 PM
Deathpulse - No doubt, the B61 is an oldie-but-goodie. Don't forget, it also had a life as a nuclear depth charge. I used to work with a guy named Ron Simms while I was at FCTCLANT, he took part in several tests including 'BOXCAR'. At the age of about -2 months, I took part in Operation Nougat. That's right, my parents were driving through the downwind area while I was still 'in the oven' and I can remember my mother telling me about having to go get screenings and see 'special doctors'. What's your background, in any case? I was in the FBM program for about 16 years.
|
nedragr
Zone Head
Posts: 504
|
posted February 10, 2003 06:44 PM
What ya say we just bring you guys home and send Saddam a few of our extra ones. http://www.theonion.com/onion3904/north_dakota.htmlJust a little satire about last weeks UN/Blix trip, but if you read the article, the numbers are correct. We have a couple of extra!!
____________
Real racebikes run premix!!
http://www.bikepics.com/members/nedragr/
|
Hells Dark Lord
Needs a life
living life, and loving it.
Posts: 7981
|
posted February 10, 2003 07:32 PM
dam that explains alot SWFT......
____________
When in doubt, lean farther and go faster....
|
deathpulse
Pro
Posts: 1688
|
posted February 10, 2003 09:11 PM
My background? I'm just an average zx-12r rider from Nuke Jersey . Don't think I was ever (at least to my knowledge) radiated from fallout - but HEY, I DO live in NJ after all, and my parents keep telling me that they dropped me on my head a few times  .
|
Hells Dark Lord
Needs a life
living life, and loving it.
Posts: 7981
|
posted February 10, 2003 09:16 PM
lmfao.......no further explanation needed Death.....
____________
When in doubt, lean farther and go faster....
|
bagster
Zone Head
Posts: 630
|
posted February 12, 2003 08:58 PM
President Bush and Colin Powell are sitting in a bar. A guy walks in and
asks the bartender, "Is that Bush and Powell sitting over there?"
The bartender says, "Yep, that's them." So the guy walks over and says,
"Wow, this is a real honor. What are you guys doing in here?"
Bush says, "We're planning WW III ." And the guy says, "Really? What's going
to happen?" Bush says, "Well, we're going to kill 140 million Iraqis this
time, and one blonde with big breasts. The guy exclaimed, "A blonde with big
breasts? Why would you want to kill a blonde with big breasts?
Bush turns to Powell, punches him on the shoulder and says, "See, smart ass?
I told you no one would worry about the 140 million Iraqis!"
|
Hells Dark Lord
Needs a life
living life, and loving it.
Posts: 7981
|
posted February 12, 2003 09:14 PM
too fukin funny...lmao
____________
When in doubt, lean farther and go faster....
|
|
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC