U.S. Works Up Plans for Using Nuclear Arms

rjrjr writes: "The L.A. Times reports on the DoD's new stance on the use of nukes, including such comforting notions as nuclear bunker busters. What it all means is well explored in this cogent commentary."

Hmm..

[epsalon]

Don't they know that nukes generate 8 squares of pollution, and make the entire world hate you?

Guess I've been playing too much CIV ][...

Uh oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I'll have to go blow the dust off the bomb shelter blueprints...again...

11:53

[Deanasc]

I guess this is why the clock just moved a little closer to midnight. If it were up to me I'd move the clock to 11:59. I have a bad gut feeling about all of this.

On the otherhand I'd kind of like to see a 1 megaton burst from 30 miles away just once. Aside from being the last thing I'd ever see if I didn't wear goggles, it's probably spectacular.

Please don't think I'm a war mongerer. I don't mean we should use it on anyone. It's just that I'm part of a generation which grew up expecting a nuclear war. Imagine my surprise when we never had one. A little grotesque disapointment that I have to actually get a day job instead of wander the desert looking for canned dog food and gasoline.

And I bet you thought that Reganite Nihilism was a thing of the 80's. Well After reading the above I realize it's alive and well living inside my subconcious. Just waiting to rear it's ugly little head. Does this mean I get to do cocaine again?

Re:"in the event of surprising military developmen

[L.Torvalds]

"make crystal clear the situations where the nuclear option would be considered"

So where the fuck is the deterrence value, fucky?

If I am Achmed the Arab, and I want to know America's response to a given situation, in your world, I would look it up in 'Fuckys book of America's responses'

In MY world, motha-fucka step lightly, because any attack on us MAY be answered with nuclear force. Nobody will front.

Time to go?

[gnovos]

So what countries are there out there that accept expatriot Americans fleeing the madness of thier government? Preferably island countries.

Re:Time to go?

[flacco]

So what countries are there out there that accept expatriot Americans fleeing the madness of thier government? Preferably island countries.

Costa Rica is beautiful, hospitable, and affordable.

Perhaps you've seen their new advertising campaign:

"Costa Rica - You'll come for the absence of a national nuclear policy. But you'll stay for the sun, the beaches, and the people!"

Advice

[baywulf]

From: George W. Bush
Bcc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject:I send you this file in order to have your advice...

Re:Ugh

[Mike1024]

Hey,

I have to ask... what has North Korea and Russia been doing lately to deserve this?

And why isn't France on the list?...

(That was a joke, son.)

-M

Re:Ugh

[pengwen2002]

why isn't France on the list?...

Because it would have made us proud of it ...

Plan of Action

[Bobba Mos Fet]

Dear fellow citizens,

it is painfully obvious that the US of A is being attacked from all sides. Russia and China have finally showed their true face - they are clear targets in the war against terrorism. And are Germans really our friends now? Make no mistake - they could go Nazi on us any second. And what about the French? Don't even get me started on the French.

Our plan of action is clear. We have to preemptively nuke the entire world (except US, of course). It is the only way to be safe from the terrorist menace. All we need is a National "Defense" Shield. We will also need some kind of a National Fallout Shield. A giant glass dome will do.

With God's help fellow citizens,

Mr. Chimp

Re:Ugh

[Not The Real Me]

France isn't on the list because of their fine wines and cuisine.

Yes, it's the wine and the food that has spared France.....this time.

Japan

[t_allardyce]

Maybe America should find a couple of cities that al'qaeda recognize as sacred, and then nuke them killing millions of civilians. Then they could say "give up now, or we bomb 2 more cities". I mean, it worked in Japan, and we all know the American government has the PR capability to turn it all around and make it seem like they are the good guys. :)

Re:Didn't you ever see Dr. Strangelove?

[talonyx]

The only situation I see the US nuking Canada is if we beat you Yanks at hockey again four years from now.....

Re:Didn't you ever see Dr. Strangelove?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Under what circumstances would the USA nuke Canada"

Don't sweat it, we would only ever nuke the frenchy part. The rest of you guys are a-ok.

Re:Didn't you ever see Dr. Strangelove?

[Alsee]

The biggest threat Canada ever had of getting nuked was if an ICBM ran out of fuel on the way to Moscow.

-

Re:Didn't you ever see Dr. Strangelove?

[DickBreath]

Under what circumstances would the USA nuke Canada? (Keeping in mind that Canada doesn't have nukes, or any other weapons of mass destruction.)

In case of terrorist acts, such as violating the DMCA.

Re:Didn't you ever see Dr. Strangelove?

[s20451]

Contigency nuke plans for Canada?!?

Well, it always pays to cover your ass. In the 1920s, the Canadian government prepared a secret plan for invading the United States, should the need ever arise. Canadian army officers posing as tourists scouted out several cities for possible attack; the plan called for quick occupation of large cities close to the border, such as Seattle and Detroit, in the hope that they could be fortified before reinforcements arrived.

Thanks, I feel so much better now

[CleverNickName]

the weapons that the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Russia and China have now are too big and thus unusable from a political point of view. A smaller weapon that is actually usable from a tactical standpoint would actually be more humane than many of the systems in use now.


So you mean that we're moving away from weapons that we could never possibly use, to weapons that we can?

*whew*

I know that I'm going to sleep better tonight.

Anyone want to get together and watch "Duck and Cover"?

Re:As a reaction to 9/11?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly #5 isn't technically possible: Trying to use explosive charges to destroy an inhabited bunker would violate the first rule of robotics (being that a robot must never kill a human being, or by inaction, allow harm to one), and so building robotic mining equipment to do it is technically impossible.

Nice try though.