Next Generation Emulation banner
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

· Banned
Joined
·
10,931 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Pentagon plans strike-first nuclear policy
12.09.05 1.00pm
By Rupert Cornwell

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon has drawn up a new strategy, built on the 2002 "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive military strikes, that would allow the US to make first use of nuclear weapons to thwart an a WMD attack against the country.

Under the scheme, developed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff but yet to be ratified by Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, commanders would be able to request permission from the President to use nuclear weapons in a variety of scenarios.

According to the Washington Post, one possibility is an enemy that is using, or "is about to use" weapons of mass destruction against US military forces or civilian population.

Another is where nuclear weapons could be used against biological weapons that an enemy was close to using, and which could only be safely destroyed by nuclear weapons and their after-effects.

In practice, the strategy would update existing guidelines, drawn up in 1995 under the Clinton administration.

It would fit in with plans mooted by the Pentagon to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons, specifically designed to attack enemy bunkers of WMD, buried deep underground.

But Congress has thus far declined to provide funds for a study into the so-called "robust nuclear earth penetrator", not least because of criticism that such a move would make a mockery of US-led efforts to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation, and make it more, rather than less likely, that such weapons would be employed.

However the Pentagon document argues that proliferation has already made it more likely that nuclear weapons could be used.

It claims that some 30 nations have WMD programmes -- not to mention terrorists, or "non-state actors" as they are described, acting either independently or under the sponsorship of a state opposed to the US.

It also points out that even during the Cold War the US refused to commit itself to a "no first use" of nuclear weapons.

- INDEPENDENT
As we move closer to the third world war I have to wonder will there be anyone left to fight the forth one
 

· Banned
Joined
·
10,931 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
If they lied about the weapons of mass destruction in iraq nothing can stop them from saying that somone like Korea "is about to use" and wipe them out as an excuse.
if you wipe them out you also erase all evidence they didn't plan to WMD you

Yeah, I might aswell call superman to protect me :(
While you do that I might as well be selling lead underware
 

· Banned
Joined
·
10,931 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 ·
I don't know but the US's policy that we can have as powerful of weapons as we want and it's ok but if any other country starts to build weapons to defend themselves, then we must stop them.
I can understand them doing that, human nature dictates that the powerful will do anything to stay powerful.
The people who live in the communist country suffer enough, they don't
deserve to lose thier lives too.
Something I am pondering: What would you rather have, a lifetime of suffering without hope of anything getting better or death? which is actuaily more cruel?
 

· Banned
Joined
·
10,931 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
People who wrote that preemptive strike plan are just plain sick...
I agree with you on that, maybe the coperations can use this to launch nuclear strikes against thier competetors overseas and have bush claim that there was (vaporised) evidfence of a WMD attack being prepared
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top