U.S. Works Up Plans for Using Nuclear Arms 1253
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."
CNN has Pentagon article removing the scare factor (Score:2, Insightful)
Ugh (Score:4, Insightful)
I've got a lovely bunch of nuclears...
there they are all standing in a row...
big ones, small ones, ones the size of your head
Give em a twist, a flick of the wrist, that's what that monkey said.
I have to ask... what has North Korea and Russia been doing lately to deserve this?
most surprising thing about this... (Score:4, Insightful)
We need to plan ahead (Score:3, Insightful)
What's with the Bush Imperialist Strategy... (Score:1, Insightful)
"in the event of surprising military developments" (Score:3, Insightful)
On a more serious note such a reason is very dangerous as it could apply to anything.If your going to define a policy on when to use nukes then you should have the obligation to make crystal clear the situations where the nuclear option would be considered.
For any programmer out there could you imagine writing a functional spec using such loose and ambigious language?
Good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
It takes 2,200 warheads to cover what planners call "a full target list" (nice fluffy way of saying that we need 2200 little containers to end humanity). I'm hoping that we got those targets slected!
Bush-domination (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:We need to plan ahead (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm what can be done: Nuke them, nuke us.
Lets see.... outcome.... We dead, they dead.
Yes, thats just great, and those who survive get to live in a radiated world.
Time for you to watch a movie called "War Games" again
Re:some more links (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Ugh (Score:2, Insightful)
I have to ask, what makes you think you know everything that goes on in Russia, Korea or anywhere else behind closed doors?
Maybe people aren't as nice as you think.
Knunov
Just a little scared (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:"in the event of surprising military developmen (Score:3, Insightful)
On a more serious note such a reason is very dangerous as it could apply to anything.If your going to define a policy on when to use nukes then you should have the obligation to make crystal clear the situations where the nuclear option would be considered.
What's the point of that? If you follow that logic strictly then you simply give the enemy a road-map around the obstacle of nuclear retaliation. That catch-all phrase simply says "if you threaten our vital interests in a way we haven't anticipated, you are taking a huge risk." Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
For any programmer out there could you imagine writing a functional spec using such loose and ambigious language?
Or, even more shocking, can you imagine someone comparing national nuclear policy-making to writing the functional spec for a computer program?
Re:Ugh (Score:2, Insightful)
Right, as we all know, all nations other than the US and the UK are populated by fundamentally evil people with fundamentally diabolical master plans. They're not worrying about their incomes or their children like we are because they receive large block grants directly from Satan in order to allow them to concentrate on the destruction of white Christians.
As a reaction to 9/11? (Score:5, Insightful)
Stopping one person who is willing to die in an effort to do damage is a job for intelligence, not nukes.
Nuclear deterrence may not be at all effective against rogue nations and terrorist organizations. Do you think Hussien would actually give a crap if tens of thousands of Iraqis die simply because we bomb a place we think he's hiding. If Iraq sets off some kind of non-nuclear attack against the US, would we seriously nuke Baghdad in response? Would he care?
As for the likes of bin Laden, I would bet that if we promised to nuke him, he'd tell us where he is and setup a live television feed. This war would become US v Islam in the blink of an eye.
While we cannot put the nuclear genie back in the bottle, accepting this fact should not make the use of nuclear weapons desireable. We've had a solution for hardened fortifications for a couple millenia. While nukes might bust an unbustable bunker, so will a good old-fasioned siege.
Re:CNN has Pentagon article removing the scare fac (Score:2, Insightful)
several years after WWII and the use of The Bomb people began to lack in their attitudes towards the threat of nuclear war. Along came Castro and Kruschev and bam again the "scare" returned. It was quickly quelled by anti-nuclear weapons treaties, end of the Cuban Missile Crisis, etc.
Now we are in the "next millenium" and what the fuck are we doing. Promoting the threat of the use to return and we're not scared of that?
Just b/c it isn't US policy right now does NOT mean it doesn't increase the risk. Empty at this time or not, that statement moves us more towards fucking midnight than we want.
Trust me.
Re:most surprising thing about this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple. It's an intentional leak.
This is absolutly correct. Iraq is our next target in the "War on Terrorism" and GW wants to make it clear to Hussien that use of Chemical/Biological weapons against US Troops will be meant with a nuclear strike, or at the very least the possiblity of a nuclear strike. It seems to me, we are turning back the clock, returning to the Cold War era. Suggested reading to see where this MIGHT be going, read "Russian Spring" by Norman Spinrad.
It is a good plan (Score:3, Insightful)
It is called deterence.
World peace is a pipe dream. There are bad people in the world, and they don't always get nicer if we ignore them.
Appeasement is a failure. 1939 taught us that in a way that no one should ever forget.
Re:We need to plan ahead (Score:2, Insightful)
Not that big a deal... (Score:4, Insightful)
As to the specific recommendations, the only really worrying thing would be the insinuation that the DoD is investigating ways to utilize nuclear weapons in conventional tactical scenarios, but there's a hell of a lot of hurdles to clear before that can even be seriously considered, much less implemented. The nations listed in the LA Times report, the US' usual rogue's gallery of nations, were for the most part already included in the SIOP (Single Integrated Operational Plan, which is highly-classified even God needs SIOP-ESI clearance to see it) as smaller attack options (Selected/Limited), going back through the Clinton Administration, so that isn't really some kind of groundbreaking new policy.
Furthermore, an understated policy of the US since the Gulf War has been to keep the nuclear option open in the event of some other mass attack (biological/chemical) as deterrence, so again, this isn't terribly new. I do find interesting that the DoD is looking more closely at new ways of neutralizing agents besides blowing up the factories and spreading them to the four winds though...
Anyone else? (Score:5, Insightful)
The secret report, which was provided to Congress on Jan. 8, says the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. It says the weapons could be used in three types of situations: against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or "in the event of surprising military developments."
They are already on thin ice with 3/4 of the planet because of Bush's idiotic "axis of evil" statements and now they are threatening to start nuking people!?! Russia is going through enough trouble as it is. They're fighting internal difficulties and are still hot at the US over the olympics. A statement like this is just the excuse that hard line factions in any one of these countries (along with half the arab world) need to take power.
At a time when the US should be questioning, even for just a second, what they could have done that have convinced who knows how many terrorists that it is worth commiting SUICIDE as long as you die taking a shot at the US. When they should be thinking about why half the planet hates their guts and considers them pure evil? Maybe, just maybe they might have some legitimate beef to grind with the US. Now instead of trying to figure out what they've done wrong and trying to do better they invade and take over a nation. Remember that Afgahnistan, however repressive and unjust WAS a soveign nation who was attacked because they harboured an accussed terrorist who was never actually proven to be guilty, however obvious it seemed.
But now the US has bettered that, instead of just blowing the crap out of a third world nation (hey where have we heard that before) the US has just said that they're willing to nuke ~1.5 (a little on the low side) out of the 6 billion people on the planet!! At least two of the countries (China and Russia) are two of the most powerful countries on the planet and are supposedly on somewhat nice terms with the US. Now we all know Bush is a gun tolling, nuke happy, big buisness loving, illiterate moron but has his arrogance over the US as the worlds nice police man watching all the evil little bullies truly gotten this great?
Re:most surprising thing about this... (Score:2, Insightful)
That's an entirely different matter. I'm referring to American troops invading Iraq to get rid of Saddam.
If he uses biological or chemical agents against American troops, then America turns him into so much glowing dust. That's a more powerful deterrant then some may think.
The 9/11 issue was entirely different. If we went around and started blowing very large holes in Afghanistan, we not only would have had next to no idea who we were nuking, and would have destroyed all of the resulting evidence and information that was found. Nukes were not needed in that case, as the ground troops and airforce blew the hell out of them in short order. There was also nothing to deter-- they had already done what they had intended to do.
Besides, the point here is not that the US will use Nuclear Weapons. The point is that it CAN use them and that it WILL use them if chemical/bio/etc agents are used against its people.
The threat of force is not something to be taken lightly, least of all from the USA.
Re:Japan (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Justified Usage (Score:3, Insightful)
For fuck's sake wake up and smell the truth. The world is not , has never been, nor probably ever will be a nice place. Peace is purchased with superior firepower.
How about using firepower that does not contaminate the target area for a large time, nor rise up radioactive dust that does not honor country boundaries much and so on? That's what I hate about nuclear, chemical and biological weapons ; these will cause longer and more widespread suffering and damage than just to a certain spot for much smaller time. Isn't the point of military operations to harm the opposite military, not their descendants and people tens or hundreds of kilometers away?
Re:most surprising thing about this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Step back 20 years (Score:5, Insightful)
Now with this new release, other countries are not so sure that the US will be holding back on the use of nuclear weapons. The only smart thing that they can do knowing this news is to build up their current stockpile and for those that don't have it, acquire it. The result of this is that it leads to greater instability in the world
Let's think about it this way. Let's just say for example if "Australia" comes out tomorrow and announce that the US is a great terrorist nation and a part of the "Axis of Badpeople" and that at some point later on, the US has to be dealt accordingly. Do you think the US is going to sit back and wait until "Australia" attacks? No, the US will attack "Australia" preemptively because you pretty much know a battle is coming, why wait for the enemy to attack you.
In my personal opinion, the current administration has done a great amount of damage to the world in terms of lodging it off of the fragile stability that it once was. Just to name a few events, the refusal to sign the Kyoto Pact, the refusal of signing the ban on Biological Weapons and Chemical Warfare, the withdrawal from the ARMS Control treaty with Russia, etc. I mean, how can the US morally attack countries like Iraq for producing Chemical weapons if the US is also producing (or "researching") Biological warfare. [Again, I'm in no way defending Iraq or any other nation..but it's just something to think about]
Yes, September 11th was an horrible event. I live only 5 miles away from the WTC and unfortunately watched it happen. But what I find even more horrendous is the fact that the administration is using this as a scapegoat to attack people that were not directly involved, and along the way kill innocent civilians [time.com] and/or detain the thousands of innocent people in this country
Again, I am in no way condoning what was done on September 11th. But it is times like this that we have to step back and make sure that the people that are leading the nation are doing the right thing, and not just blindly follow like sheeps. That is what the core part of democracy is: the power of the people. Throughout history, we have seen situation where entire nations blindly followed the policies of its leaders (take WWII or Communism for example)
Re:Japan (Score:4, Insightful)
Where's the logic ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Face it - the U.S. is a superior military force today. Using bigger or smaller bombs is not going to make one bit of difference.
The way that other forces fight back, is naturally not by putting up their largest army, only to see it squashed by the bigger army. That would be silly. No, the way to conquor a larger state with your inferior army, is to strike them where they do not expect it. That is why someone used civil aircraft as bombs on Sept. 11th. Whether we like it or not, it's the rational choice (if you can talk about "rational" and "warfare" in the same sentence...).
Now before you condemn what I say here - think about it. If you were at war with a superior force, would you line up in rows and columns to be slaughtered by the superior force, or would you rather be smart and make a difference ?
One thing's certain; using bigger bombs is not going to make fewer people strike back. I fail to see the logic behind this escalation, should it pass.
And no, I do not applaud what's been happening in the world lately. If you think I do, read this post again. Re-iterate as you must.
Re:Japan (Score:3, Insightful)
2) The bombs were dropped as a show of force (that ended the war), but the idea that it was some form of scientific testing (other than incidental) is laughable. America had plenty of places to test nukes, and it used them.
2) A large number of Americans, who didn't happen to have started the war, would have died during the time the negotiation took.
3) The bombs worked to end a war that had killed millions, with only a couple hundred thousand casualities.
Re:11:53 (Score:2, Insightful)
No kidding. I was sure that at any moment during Reagan's presidency there would be a nuclear war. It went away (mostly) after the Soviet Union crumbled, but it's been nagging my brain since Sept. 11.
It's really hard to take a day job seriously anymore, or worring about retirement... it seems like such a joke now. If you're not going to be killed, then some asshole like Ken Lay will vaporize your 401K and you'll spend your retirement years scraping for change, working at McDonalds or something just to get by...
Does this mean I get to do cocaine again?
Well, this is the 21st century. Try Ecstacy, I think it's cheaper. (I admit to being clueless on this front -- I've never tried either...)
Re:It is a good plan (Score:3, Insightful)
You say that:
In the last couple years, Israel/Palestine and North and South Korea were at the table discussing. (It may or may not have actually developed a peace plan, but the important part was the ability to discuss)..
One popular view in conflict resolution is all that is required to end conflicts is to get both sides to talk until they recognize the humanity of each other, gain trust in their enemy, and moderate their own positions. This is the left-wing position - everyone has shared humanity, and if we just talk enough we can resolve our problems. There's an older, more conservative position, which disagrees. That position says that people stop fighting when one side beats the shit out of the other, or at least when there is enough violence that both sides gets tired of fighting.
Now, I admit that the left-wing position is nicer. But I am not convinced that it is always correct. The Palestinians for years did not just want their own state, but wanted to destroy Israel as well. It was Israel's military strength that made them change their goal - not frank discussions with Israelis that made them recognize shared humanity. Similarly, Israelis don't want to keep the territories any more because they know it will cost them too many lives.
Meanwhile, both Israelis and Palestinians hate the idea of a peace "process" now, because they see it as all "process" and no "peace." In other words, too much talking.
Re:11:53 (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:We need to plan ahead (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Pop quiz! 10 global awareness questions. (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Which is the only country on the planet that's used a nuclear weapon on civilians?
Ignoring the context of a war in which the aggressors (Japan and Germany) committed the most horrible atrocities ever witnessed, ignoring the fact that both sides had already attacked civilian populations, ignoring the fact that the firebombing of Dresden caused more deaths than those nuclear weapons, ignoring the fact that it was believed (and justifiably) that ending the war with two massive bombs would cause fewer deaths than a ground invasion.
2. Have more Americans been killed at the hands of Iraqis, or have more Iraqis been killed at the hands of Americans?
Ignoring the context of why there are sanctions, who is really responsible for those Iraqi deaths (in the northern region of Iraq, governed by the UN since the end of the war, infant mortality rates and so forth have gone down, not up, even though they are under the same sanctions regime), why other nations oppose the US removing Saddam Hussein and thereby removing a threat to other nations and allowing us to end the sanctions and return weapon inspectors.
3. Who's killed more innocent civilians? Al Quaeda in the United States, or the United States military in Afghanistan?
Ignoring the fact that the one study showing that the US has killed 4,000 in Afghanistan has been called into heavy question (Human Rights Watch and Reuters both came up with much lower number of casualties), ignoring the fact that Al Qaeda purposely targetted civilians and the US did not, ignoring the fact that Al Qaeda wants to create Islamic fundamentalist rule and the US has removed the Taliban and organized aid to Afghanistan, etc.
I could go into more detail on all these points, and also cover your other points, but I think you get the idea. The point is, don't accept bon mots or witticisms as replacements for actually thinking through the whole issue.
Re:Pop quiz! 10 global awareness questions. (Score:2, Insightful)
United States of America. Not the only country that has used Weapons of Mass Destruction against civilians though.
3. Who's killed more innocent civilians? Al Quaeda in the United States, or the United States military in Afghanistan?
I don't think anyone really knows the answer to this question. One of the problems is that many of the "documented" civilian deaths in the early days of the bombing capaign were propaganda by the Taliban, and no independant sources have verified their claims. I don't believe that you can trust either side for accurate numbers on this issue.
5. Who recently said that getting Bin Laden, the architect of the Sept 11th attacks, was no longer a primary military objective in Afghanistan?
Maybe he's no longer in Afghanistan. That would mean that he could no longer be a primary military objective there, right?
7. List the number of Americans being held in captivity by enemy forces even though they've had nothing to do with American foreign policy. Now, list the number of people of Arabic descent being held by American forces even though they've had nothing to do with the Sept 11th terrorist attacks.
The State Department figures that around 2,500 Americans [tribune.com] are arrested every year in Foreign nations. I haven't found a single documented case of someone of Arabic descent being held without them also being charged with a legitimate crime (usually immigration violations). I disagree with bringing in Arabs for questioning, which has been done without evidence linking them to crimes.
8. Any feasible pipeline built from the oil fields just off the Caspian Sea is going to need to go through Afghanistan. True or False?
False. It could also go through Iran.
9. Define the word "Terrorism" in absolute terms. Now, in 50 words or less, state whether or not the School of the Americas trains terrorists and why.
I don't believe that the School of the Americas trains soldiers to be terrorists. I believe that a few of it's graduates have committed terrorists acts, and probably would have with or without the training they received at SOA.
10. Afghanistan's Taliban regime was notorious in its poor treatment of women. Now, list all the countries that have a similar record of such treatment, but are still allies of the United States.
We didn't go in there with the intention to liberate women. Even though, I agree with you, I don't think that we should ally ourselves with foreign powers that don't provide their citizens with the same freedoms and protections that we provide ours with.
appalling. (Score:3, Insightful)
Even India and Pakistan testing their nuclear stuff was of less concern to me than this situation. They're developing countries, trying to posture against each other, and at least with them, you figure they're just using the weapons to compete and deter each other.
But in this case, we've got the world's superpower, announcing that it's ready (yes, what do you think a contingency plan means? it means they're ready to do it) to use nuclear weapons of all sizes against whomever they believe to be the enemy. On its own, without giving a damn about the rest of the world.
I know that the military is not directly linked to the administration in the White House, but you'd better believe that GW Bush made this attitude possible. This is unbelievable, and endangers all of our lives, seriously. How dare we say that we have the right to go around the world and root out our enemies, bombing the shit out of lands just because we believe that they're hiding somewhere.
This administration has destroyed our credibility and leverage among our neighbors and I'm not sure how big the repercussions will be in the long run for all of us. It's time to stop the childish attitudes and understand what our role in the world is. It's not just "whatever we want because they're the bad guys, and because we can".
If the content was disturbing enough... (Score:2, Insightful)
William M. Arkin is a senior fellow at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in Washington and an adjunct professor at the U.S. Air Force School of Advanced Airpower Studies. He is also a consultant to a number of nongovernmental organizations and a regular contributor to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Officials are looking for nuclear weapons that could help against a foe like Al Qaeda.
No, I don't understand the last sentence either...
No it's not. (Score:5, Insightful)
All this does is up the stakes in any conflict that the US gets involved in, and encourages people who don't like the US to develop their own nukes, and to deploy them in ways that will make deterrence irrelevant.
himi
may sound like a troll.. or off topic (Score:2, Insightful)
the united states coming to intervene on the side of israel, how kind. maybe we should just give the nukes to israel with the other weapons we supply them, so we dont feel as bad when they use them on the arabs, terrorist to you..freedom fighters to others, only trying to get back their homeland?
The secret report, which was provided to Congress on Jan. 8, says the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria
i do not believe that the united states would ever really drop nukes on russia, or china. but listing them out like that only fules the belief that the united states targets muslim countries...
Yet it acknowledges that the huge Russian arsenal, which includes about 6,000 deployed warheads and perhaps 10,000 smaller "theater" nuclear weapons, remains of concern.
The administration has proposed cutting the offensive nuclear arsenal by about two-thirds, to between 1,700 and 2,200 missiles, within 10 years.
does this baffle anyone else? why do we need several thousand?? why does anyone need several thousand... so after the first wave.. we'll keep bombing so we can try and kill the roaches too??
Cyber warfare (Score:4, Insightful)
It calls for improvements in the ability to "exploit" enemy computer networks, and the integration of cyber-warfare into the overall nuclear war database "to enable more effective targeting, weaponeering, and combat assessment essential to the New Triad."
No wonder why the germans are looking at open source from a national security perspective!
I know that U.S.A. is not an enemy of EU, but looking at the fascist direction things are taking in the U.S.A. (Bush said: you are with me or against me) and the fact that computer software comes from U.S.A., Europe should be careful.
Re:Didn't you ever see Dr. Strangelove? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sheezus, with friends like the USA, who needs enemies?
Re:It is a good plan (Score:4, Insightful)
i read a quote from Donald Rumsfeld in the paper today: "The terrorists who struck us on September 11 were clearly not deterred from doing so by the massive US nuclear arsenal."
honestly, i sometimes think that Donald Rumsfeld is overshadowed in stupidity only by George W. Bush himself. of course the terrorists weren't deterred by a Nuclear Arsenal, they were about to fly jet planes into skyscrapers and kill themselves in the process!
i'm fairly sure they weren't thinking "oh, i'd better not, otherwise i might get killed by a future US nuclear strike." Also, given their apparent religious fanatacism, i doubt they would have let a nuclear strike on their home country affect them either, that would have been brushed off simply as countrymen and family dying for the cause.
How can any number of any kind of devastating weapons of mass destruction be of any use whatsoever against people with that kind of mindset?
omtimes i wonder at how some people think, and i'm not just thinking of the terrorists here!
besides, having nuclear weapons and using them are two very different things.
imagine the global outcry if the USA detonated nuclear devices in combat. and given that as far as i'm aware, no-one has done that since 1945, it's also a possiblity that terrorists/bad people might think that america is all talk and no trousers in this regard. and personally i hope they're right.
Insanity. (Score:5, Insightful)
Worse, if the US were to drop "the" bomb on Baghdad specifically, it would also have every last Arab state aligned specifically against it as well; worldwide terrorism would increase 1000% and would be supported by all of the eastern nations either covertly or even explicitly. "The west" would suddenly find itself reduced to "US, Canada, UK" and positioned vs. The Entire East including most of Europe, as well as in a full-scale Protestant vs. Islam war which could last for centuries.
The fact that there are people out there who actually think that the US could *improve* international relations and world peace by using nuclear weapons demonstrates just how disconnected Americans are from reality.
what reactionary rubbish (Score:1, Insightful)
this statement alones shows what an idiot you are. The U.S. government always prepares for contingencies for using nukes. The only surprise is that this one is publicized. You don't want to show your hand to the enemy, so they can ante up or call your bluff. To compare this congressionally mandated review to 9/11 is just plain idiotic.
Even India and Pakistan testing their nuclear stuff was of less concern to me than this situation.
Christ almighty. India and Pakistan have fought 3 wars in the last 50 years, and are still fighting over Kashmir.
I'm not gonna waste any more time with this karma whoring nonsense. I just had to respond because a few idiot moderators upped it up.
Re:CNN has Pentagon article removing the scare fac (Score:2, Insightful)
These weapons are cleaner than anything used in World War Two, smaller than anything used in World War Two and very capable of being a good deterant to people that might use Biological or Chemical weapons against a nuclear armed foe.
The reason I say they might be deter a foe is, 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.
Had the Allies used a few small nuclear devices during the Gulf War in 1991 or Desert Fox in 1998 against hardened Iraqi facilites would have ended Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological dreams and allowed the United Nations to end the sanctions.
Small tactical nuclear devices DO NOT move the world closer to "midnight". SS-25 Satan's with 20 megaton warheads and Trident D-5s with 10 225 kiloton warheads do.
Re:most surprising thing about this... (Score:2, Insightful)
You're right. He's not a religious fanatic. Power hungry madman is more appropriate. That's the only way that I can describe someone who has used weapons of mass destruction [iraqwatch.org] against his political opposition.
Re:Japan (Score:1, Insightful)
Agreed. Thank heavens we didn't do this with Japan.
Y'know what's really disgusting? When the fucking nips wake you outta bed bombing the shit out of a us.
Despite being in peaceful negotiations at the time.
Japan is lucky we only nuked them twice. If I were in charge, Japan, China and Korea would be glass because frankly, I can't tell any of them apart.
You're welcome.
Re:No first use (Score:2, Insightful)
More importantly, when you've vaporized all the evidence, you won't have any pesky reporters claiming it was actually a factory producing penicillin instead of smallpox...
Re:No first use (Score:5, Insightful)
If you decide to nuke the nut's city to get the nut, how does that make you different from the nut?
Since George W Bush has repeatedly shown his contempt for the rest of the world, international law, the environment, the future of the planet, why aren't other governments justified in nuking Washington to get that nut who's threatening the rest of the world with nukes?
Simply because America happens to be the self-proclaimed "leader of the free world"?
Real leadership can only come if you build respect. The US has dissipated its goodwill in Europe astonishingly quickly -- all the sympathy after Sept 11 took just a few months to evaporate. If the US is to be different from the USSR and other "evil empires", it has to learn to be responsible.
Re:Japan (Score:3, Insightful)
The vast majority of deaths in that war were non-combatants... Nearly 100,000,000 total deaths by some estimates. If anything, the bombs took attention from the horrific attrocities which the Japanese military and government perpetrated, and which they have never even had to officially acknowledge.
Flawed Logic (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately your logic is flawed. When the US dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, it was to end a war begun by the Japanese government. Their goverment had the power to cease hostilities. Unfortunately, doing the same thing to an Afghan city will not cause the al Qaeda terrorists to end their violence against the West. If anything, this will only encourage them, as it will be perceived by the Islamic world that the US is fighting the Muslims. Thus, dropping nuclear bombs on Afghanistan will be counter-productive to American goals.
Watch the birdie (Score:5, Insightful)
America does not passively sit back and defend itself against enemies when they pop up, they spend billions not in defence, but in offence, creating a world where military might controls less powerful countries by force. The lapdog of the UK is no better - sent in where 'diplomacy' and 'peace keeping' would be more effective than direct action - loyal to the last, and the largest aircraft carrier on earth. They cannot be stopped - they are out of control.
America will never be safe as long as the current tyranny is in power.
Terror is defined as illegal use of force to effect foreign powers. In this technique, America reigns supreme.
Look beyond the details and the supposed motives. Look at how the world is controlled. Look at how the gap between rich and poor is getting wider. Look at why humanity is not moving forward. Read some Chomsky.
We are at a pivotal point in history. We now have the ability to clothe, house, feed and educate every human on the planet, bar none, yet we waste our energies bickering over who owns what and killing innocents. Instead of watching the birdie, look at how the puppetmasters are raping the world.
This wasn't a leak - it was a controlled threat made public to keep the people feeling scared and insecure. To keep the inertia of new oppressive laws going. To guarantee the flow of taxes from patriotic Americans to the backpockets of those in power. If Bush was really serious about dropping nukes on those who threaten world peace, he'd drop one on the whitehouse.
Re:As a reaction to 9/11? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think so. It's the inevitable response, given the tack we took.
A lot of people in the world hate the USA, and not all of them are insane. A lot of them quite rationally detest US foreign policy, because every time the USA steps in to a third party conflict, it makes a friend and an enemy (remember, in any conflict, both sides view themselves as the Good Guys, or the justified victims, or the Chosen of God). Making enemies is the cost of getting involved. Before this once again gets interpreted as justifying September 11th, take a clue check. The murderers who did that were stone cold evil motherfuckers. But just because they're Bad Guys doesn't automatically make us the Good Guys. That's kiddie matinee morality.
After September 11th, we had two choices. We could have said "Sorry for taking lives to save lives, we won't get involved again,", or we could have done what we did and said (effectively) "No more Mr Nice Guy. You will fear us more than you hate us."
When your foreign policies kill (or are perceived to have killed) all of someone's family, you have very little leverage left over them. You can't personally threaten a suicide attacker, nor can you enter a rational dialogue and explain why their family had to die to preserve Freedom. You can either humble yourself and say sorry, again and again and again, or you can escalate and say "Rain of fire on your entire nation, buddy. Just try us." and you have to keep escalating, in word and deed until it is quite clear what the consequences of fucking with you are.
Personally, I think we've taken the easy way, and the wrong way. Spending trillions of dollars on defence means never having to say you're sorry. Is saying sorry that high a price to pay?
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
North Korea, on the other hand, would love to destroy America if they could, but they can't. Should they develop that ability, then these plans might be necessary.
So, basically these plans specifically target those nations that either hate the US, or have the ability to attack us with nukes, but not necessarily both.
Re:No first use (Score:2, Insightful)
Since George W Bush has repeatedly shown his contempt for the rest of the world
...by saving it from Islamic fundamentalism and nuclear terrorism, right...
international law
There is no such thing as "international law". There are such things as treaty obligations, and GWB has broken no treaties. (Before you start whining about the ABM treaty, that treaty provided that the signatories could withdraw with six months notice. We gave our six months notice.)
the environment
By refusing to ratify the daffy Kyoto treaty, which would result in mass starvation and which other nations are now realizing they don't want to implement?
the future of the planet
As if this somehow were a meaningful statement.
why aren't other governments justified in nuking Washington to get that nut who's threatening the rest of the world with nukes?
... and, if you read the article, you'd see that the United States is not "threatening the rest of the world with nukes", it is assembling contingency plans for what happens if somebody attacks us.
Congratulations. You've won the troll pentathlon.
Moderation on this Thread is fucked (Score:1, Insightful)
the spies who helped the U.S.S.R was heroes? they only helped the most murderous regime of the 20th century.
.
Re:Justified Usage (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't forget that either.
Re:Yesterday's News (Score:2, Insightful)
So how do you know that, Anonymous Cowdung?
but in a political climate such as our current one, planning nuclear strikes against likely enemies is a sad necessity.
A) Anybody who even thinks about using nuclear weapons as tacticals, even if against countries who do not have ICBMs, is nuts.
B) Anybody who tells current allies that he considers nuking them is stupid.
C) Anybody who thinks .de stands for Denmark is -errm- "uninformed".
D) Anybody who thinks that nuclear weaapons are "simply faster and more effictve" must also think that four hijacked airplanes are "simply faster and more effictve" and cheaper weapons. You are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
You, sir, are appalling (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it wouldn't. If nukes were the only way to ensure no further attacks occurred, sure. But to wipe out an entire people, most of whom weren't responsible, purely for revenge? That's unworthy of a civilized human being, and were you the person that ordered such a thing (or carried out such an order knowing you were deliberately mass-murdering civilians) you would be the worst war criminal since Hitler (and, yes, the analogy is relevant for once).
Re:Watch the birdie (Score:1, Insightful)
Is it any coincidence that Bush's Daddy is knee-deep in the Carlyle group, a very quiet group of powerful people (John Major being one of them) which has fingers in lots of pies, notably United Defence, which would profit greatly from an escalation of military spending.
Don't you wonder at the fact that Bin Laden was originally funded by the CIA in the early 80s to create a fundamentalist Muslim guerilla army that would ensnare the Russians in a war they couldn't win. Once that war was faught and Bin Laden realised how he was manipulated to serve US foreign policy no wonder 9-11 happened. Now he's the devil trying to ruin the stability of the world. The only stabilty at stake here is US dominance of natural resources and the 'free' market.
Ever wonder how the supposedly 'free' press can be consored at the whim of the governments - a call to 'national security' is all it takes.
Since Bush has come into power the rest of the world has grown to hate USA policy more and more. Withdrawal from Kyoto, repeated illegal military incursions into tin-pot countries who disobey the will of America. Now this nuclear threat... This reminds me of the propaganda of the early 80s when the 'free world' had to prepare itself for conflict with Russia - yeah, like Russia was any kind of threat in the 80s... It was Reagan fscking with us. Since the collapse of the Berlin wall in 1989 the USA has been desperately trying to find someone to blame the shitty state of it's foreign policy on - it has conveniently aimed its cross-hairs at the nameless and faceless target of 'international terrorism'. How convenient... Check the pictures of the impact on the pentagon - do you really believe a 200 tonne aircraft hit that building ? Do a google search and see what's out there.
If you want to understand terrorism more - find out why Bin Laden is so pissed at America. Don't get lost in the nationalistic furore and blood-lust. Don't listen to he propaganda of the mass media - do some critical thinking and make your own conclusions.
And don't believe elections are the answer either. You're made to believe you are voting for change when every policy which really makes an impact on the world is taken care of in private, without concerning the dosile and irrelevant public. Shut up, watch the Simpsons, drink a Bud, have a Big Mac, pay your taxes, and take a vote between these two stage shows of 'political opinion' every four years. That's how you are supposed to behave in a democracy - you are free to choose from a limited selection - this is not freedom. While a dictatorship controls its population via force, a democracy controls its population by propaganda, calls to patriotism and coercion.
wake up now please (Score:1, Insightful)
Whats the spin here? (Score:2, Insightful)
Nuclear weapons policy (Score:2, Insightful)
From Now On... (Score:3, Insightful)
...everybody in government should have to put a little disclaimer on their policy statements, something like this:
The opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of my employer
In this case, the "employer" is We The People of the United States.
I wager that most of us have no desire to nuke Russia, which is making remarkable progress towards becoming a free society. Come to think of it, most of us have no desire to nuke anybody unless they nuke us first.
Machiavelli (Score:5, Insightful)
US double speak is nothing new. (Score:2, Insightful)
And they berated India & Pakistan for seeing throught this strategem and not signing the treaty. Abd you know what? they themselves haven't signed it.
US posseses the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, and is the only country to have dropped one. Unless the US can drop nukes on others, and escape retaliation, they are of no use. Hence the missile defense program.
so... (Score:2, Insightful)
are you at war with eurasia or oceania?
it's becoming ever more obvious that warfare is domestic rather than foreign politics. being a european I just hope that you make another revolution before this time we have to come over to your site of the atlantic to get rid of the fascists.
Re:appalling. (Score:2, Insightful)