US Retains the Option of a Nuclear Response

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Anonymous

Guest
#1
US warns of nuclear response

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2564509.stm


US warns of nuclear response


The White House says no options have been ruled out

Washington has said it is prepared to use nuclear weapons if necessary to respond to any attack with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against itself or its allies.
"The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force - including through resort to all our options," a White House strategy document released on Tuesday said.
nuclear response


When are we going to get past the idea of using retalitory nuclear weapons. How can we expect other countries to control their use of such weapons with such a gun-ho approach?

The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to take the world to the brink of destruction (and push it over) if it sees fit. I'm sure Britain will back them up as well, which makes me even sicker.

Time and time again we witness escalations of conflicts from war-like reactions rather than peace-like intiatives. Now we are talking about gaining the advantage in conflict by propagating more refined, target specific nuclear weapons. Are we moving into an age where the use of nuclear weapons will become the norm? A scenario the world has fought against since hiroshima. Will the disarmament of the global killer nukes be replaced with the armament of millions of smaller target-specific ones?

I maybe over-reacting or ranting but, although I am used to not trusting my country's or her allies' government, I am not used to being scared of them. And this scares me.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#2
I have 2 words. The first is Oh, and the second is very short and starts with F.

I have no other way of reacting to such stupidity. It's quite mind boggling. Let's destroy the world. That'll show them.
 

carole

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 1, 2001
Messages
2,309
Likes
50
Points
79
#3
Going off at a tangent a bit, who first coined the phrase 'weapons of mass destruction'? It now seems to be the 'in' phrase for nuclear/biological weapons.

I do wish the Yanks would stop being so bloody gung-ho. It might work in Hollywood, but not in real life . . .

Carole
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#4
Am now hoping the whole Bush administration is all a big conspiracy to encourage/drive the world to think more liberally (i.e. show them the Devil and they'll believe in God) and create a global, peaceful community for the future.....


.... yeah, right.
 

carole

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 1, 2001
Messages
2,309
Likes
50
Points
79
#5
Adrian, I don't dislike American people, on the contrary, I like them very much indeed (or at least most of the many I've met). I find them on the whole polite, charming and good company. I like the bits of their country that I've seen, too.

It's their ruling body's view of America as Global Headmaster and the Saviour of the World-and-don't-let-anybody-else-forget-it that I can't handle . . .

Carole
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#6
I know Carole, I know. But if you say 'Yanks' instead of 'The Bush Administration' they think you're talking about each one of them personally.
 

carole

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 1, 2001
Messages
2,309
Likes
50
Points
79
#7
Just like they say 'The Blair Presidency' rather than 'the Limeys/Brits', eh?;)

No, I see what you mean, point taken . . .

Carole
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#8
I don't know what hes trying to prove with that kind of talk, but it scares the shit out of me, never mind millions of innocent iraqi's just sitting there, waiting to be obliterated!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#9
This is nothing new, folks. They said exactly the same thing in Gulf War 1. It was a ploy to warn Hussein off using WMD, and in Desert Storm it worked. The question is, with Hussein himself under threat of being deposed, how desperate will he get?
It's propaganda used as a deterrent. I don't think even the Bush administration are dumb enough to wage such destruction in the name of regime change.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#10
Surely it will just underline Saddam's determination to have such weapons. Also, S knows how to play the political game and may actively entice US to use such weapons, thus gaining political sympathy and global outcry against the US.

What is also scary, is that the use of nukes by the US fits in well with their plan to overcome Iraq quickly (using nukes as a strike advantage) rather than a prolonged war with conventional weapons (i.e. the British Army).
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#11
I very much doubt it would come to that. If the US uses nukes, the world outcry would be enormous. There would be worldwide condemnation. The already shaky coalition would fragment. Under those circumstances, even the US's closest allies would be horrified.
If you look at the war aims, and the political need to keep "collateral damage" to a minimum, this precludes the use of nukes.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#12
the point about nukes is that they operate as a deterrent. The threat of their use has to be a real one, otherwise they are just very expensive, brightly painted cylinders.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for Bush to say that, should Saddam use chemical or biological weapons indiscriminately against Western targets, the US and its allies can consider wiping Saddam's administration out in that fashion.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#13
As soon as 'The West' uses nukes, you can garauntee that India and Pakistan will unleash theirs.

'If you can do it, so can we'
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#14
yes, but India and Pakistan can't deliver their nuclear weapons in the same way as the West. They only have bombs that can be dropped from aircraft, and short range missiles.

So, while the prospect of their use in any context is appaling, they can only really blow up each other
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#15
Originally posted by Conners_76 yes, but India and Pakistan can't deliver their nuclear weapons in the same way as the West. They only have bombs that can be dropped from aircraft, and short range missiles. So, while the prospect of their use in any context is appaling, they can only really blow up each other


Phew thats ok then. :wtf:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#16
Conners_76 said:
the point about nukes is that they operate as a deterrent. The threat of their use has to be a real one, otherwise they are just very expensive, brightly painted cylinders.
That same skewed logic was the reason nukes were dropped on Japan. "Well we've got these awsome weapons, but no-one really thinks we will use them, so lets demonstrate ... " Cue lots of dead people.
 

ShadowPrime

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 21, 2001
Messages
690
Likes
2
Points
49
#17
Good lord folks... can we PLEASE grow up?

Is it really necessary to discuss how this works? Apparently so. While I know we here LOVE to engage in endless dark fantasies about shadowy circles of dark men running the world... the reality is that the most likely first use of chem/bio/nukes is by a "rogue" state against the forces/cities of the West. It is quite possible that NOTHING that can be SAID will deter that. But to the extent that something MIGHT, it would be the threat that any nation who did so would face certain destruction... and that the leaders of the same would thus all be dead in fairly short order.

That is what this is all about and it is ALL that it is about. Whether or not the threat would be carried out, lets ALL hope we don't find out. But PUHLEEZ>....wake up to the very dangerous world we all live in - is it necessary after 9-11 to say that? Unbelievable! - and get a grip, please. Bush refuses to rule out any options in advance. Whoop -de- freaking - do!

Shadow
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#18
I think the thing is that we're all worried about nutters with access to weapons of mass destruction. Just that I happen to be worried about the one who's threatening to use them. Marvellous that it's ok for Bush to threaten to nuke anyone he wants, but not ok for Saddam to say nothing about weapons there isn't even any proof he has got.

Double standards anyone?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#19
Do they really think nuclear weapons will deter the kind of people who blow themselves up with gleeful abandon? Wishful thinking, I'm afraid.
I dislike nukes intensely; think of all the exciting gizmos that the Royal Navy could have bought for the price of the Vanguards and their little fireworks. They are a waste of money these days. But they are fully paid for now, so we might as well keep 'em.
 

ShadowPrime

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 21, 2001
Messages
690
Likes
2
Points
49
#20
Double standard? OF COURSE! Without apology! Without one hint of hesitation, qualification, or embarassment. Because, unlike some on this board who seem to revel in this vacuous but oh-so-PC notion of "ethical relativism" which permits them to equate George Bush with Sadaam... I have no problem with saying that I have one standard for the duly elected (I know, I know, you folks are STILL fighting Florida! *L*) leader of the world's largest, most successful experiment in representative democracy and freedom and a sadistic, evil, brutal dictator like Sadaam.

Shadow
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#21
yep i sort of agree with Shadow... theoreticly a tyrant like Sadam wil use anything that props his regiem up. Anything at all. So u have to kick away the props, but Tyrants also like to leave a right royal mess if the have to leave the party. I sopose i dont realy identify with Bush or Sadam i identify with the poor buggers who get slaugterd/bombed or generaly suffer. Perhapse the thing to do is drop leaflets all over saying "dont stand with in 50 miles of Sadam " of coures some just dont have a choice.
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
25,619
Likes
25,235
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
#22
i had a long, very-detailled post prepared but my computer crashed...

some points:

- are nukes a viable strategy with respects to Iraq? neighbours like iran will be angry but Kuwait and Saudi are alledgedly allies - won't fallout affect them even if such strikes are 'tactical'.

if not radioactive in nature, political fallout would be immense: e.g.

destabilisation of the middle east

esculation in external threats to Israel (the devil on my shoulder tempts me to say 'that would be good')

more 'moderate' arab governements (saudi arabia) potentially loosing the reigns of power to extremists.

Worldwide condemnation (nukes? r u mad?).
As is becoming increasingly clear, Kofi Annan is continually obligated to say moderate things about immoderate/foolish actions & rhetoric by the U.S Government - its clear that unlike Mr Blair, Mr Annan is begining to view Bush as a foolish child with dangerous toys...

- Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.) does not function as strategy if your opponent does not fear said destruction as it ensures a first-class trip to heaven. (edit: having read post below this comment does not refer to Saddam but rather to Bin Laden type extremists)

- Brightest/most amusing thing i've ever heard Bush Jnr say was [post 11/9] "i'm not gonna fire a $2million missile at a $10 tent and hit a camel in the ass." (Great until my friend pointed out this probably WAS his initial idea until advisors talked him out of it.) The point remains however, you can't nuke a man with a laptop especially if u don't know what cave/5 star hotel he's staying in. 21stcentury conflict cannot be approached with cold war strategy.

Nukes just kill the public: If one other person on earth has a nuclear bunker as comfortable as Bush it could well be Saddam Hussein.

anyway - nukes? surely not - that would be foolish...
 

The late Pete Younger

Venerable and Missed
Joined
Jul 31, 2001
Messages
5,908
Likes
127
Points
129
#23
Sorry to be another voice in the wilderness but I also agree with Shadow, while the suicide bombers are brainwashed into believing that they will go to heaven for their muderous actions, I dont believe Saddam labour's under such delusions.
 

NilesCalder

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
1,818
Likes
11
Points
67
#24
Okay so it's not wrong for the US to use WMD but it is for everyone else??? Okay. I know someone who has a bridge they'd like to sell you...

Point: We probably do have evidence that Saddam has WMD; the recipts from when we sold them to him.

Point: Saddam may be a cynical old despot, but the terrorists are fanatics and don't give a flying monkey...; they will attack because they are prepared to die for their cause and take as many people with them as they can. Since you can't kill an idea except by killing everyone carrying the meme, using nukes will not work; all you do is become the very monsters that the terrorists say you are. Thus generating more terrorists.

Oh you might kill a cell or two but you'll also take out countless civilians. So go ahead, nuke a muslim country and prove that America is the Great Satan...!

Sheesh, stop the world I want to get off!
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
25,619
Likes
25,235
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
#25
Originally posted by Niles Calder
Point: We probably do have evidence that Saddam has WMD; the recipts from when we sold them to him.

Niles - are you a respectful Bill Hicks fan or did you co-incidently paraphrase him.
 

ShadowPrime

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 21, 2001
Messages
690
Likes
2
Points
49
#27
I can't believe it is necessary to say this, but...

The issue here isn't whether it is wise to use nukes in any particular situation. It is whether it is wise to PRECLUDE their use, in public, at THIS time. And the answer is no, it isn't.

When and if the USA attacks Iraq, it seems pretty clear that most Iraquis will have a reasonable expectation that THIS time, the USA intends to press until Sadaam is gone. That being said, it is not at all unlikely that some Iraqui military commanders are going to be faced with an interesting choice... exactly how ready are they to die for Sadaam, given that he is a lost cause. I am in no way impugning the patriotism of Iraqis. Some will doubtless feel the urge to fight to the last. But some will want to ask themselves whether this despotic monster is worth it, given that there is no real question as to such a war's outcome.

The relevance of nukes? It is not at all outlandish to think that Sadaam MIGHT have told his commanders to use chem/bio weapons, or that he will. And at that moment...ANYTHING that makes that commander think twice about obeying that command is to the benefit of the USA and the West. So why, for goodness sake, take that nuclear threat off the table? It may make no difference, but it can hardly hurt, and it may very well HELP.

This is all entirely separate from the question of whether, in a given situation, there is actually ANY thought to REALLY using nukes. Those of you presupposed to think the worst of Bush and the USA - and you are many on this board - immediately assume that is the case. I think it highly unlikely. But to take that threat off the table now would be just plain stupid.

And Niles, in your world, the USA and Iraq, Bush and Sadaam, may be moral equivalents. I find that sort of affected, world-weary, ethically relativistic thinking not even worthy of debate. We are all just the same, eh? The Nazi, the Klansman, the pro-apartheid South African, the Chinese Communist, Nelson Mandela, the students in Tianemin (SP?) square..there is no moral dividing line. PUHLEEZ. See, I happen to think that GOALS are relevant.

Shadow
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#28
Shadow said:
And Niles, in your world, the USA and Iraq, Bush and Sadaam, may be moral equivalents. I find that sort of affected, world-weary, ethically relativistic thinking not even worthy of debate. We are all just the same, eh? The Nazi, the Klansman, the pro-apartheid South African, the Chinese Communist, Nelson Mandela, the students in Tianemin (SP?) square..there is no moral dividing line. PUHLEEZ. See, I happen to think that GOALS are relevant.

Shadow
PUHLEEZE, Shadow, keep that kind of relativistic nonsense for the post Le Man, post Derrida, ex Yale set. It might impress them.

GOALS? Do you mean that ENDS Justify MEANS?

I think INTENT is certainly relevant.

Why are we poised on the brink of the Last Crusade at this time?

Is it to save the world from the threat of International Terrorism? Or is it to secure a tank full of petrol at last years prices? Is it somewhere in between?
 

TheOriginalCujo

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jul 27, 2001
Messages
850
Likes
11
Points
49
#29
Shadow said:
I find that sort of affected, world-weary, ethically relativistic thinking not even worthy of debate.
What do you mean by ethically relativistic? Are you accusing Niles and others of saying that everything is relative to everything else? I ask because the idea that everything is relative is something of a cornerstone of Fortean debate.

Cujo
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#30
Grow up?
Are we not talking big boys toys and play ground tactics here?

This is a country we are talking about nuking (or sorry, threatening to nuke - do you think if we let the threat slip buy we can then say to George W "Actually we didn't really want you to do that .." after he's pressed that oh so inticing big red button). These are people, men, women, children, goats - famillies , that will certainly not benefit from an all out war, especially one involving nukes.

Do we forever want to try and resolve global problems with war and violence? I am not the sort of person to draw peace signs everywhere and march up and down with placards, but I do believe there is a more wise/peaceful way of resolving such problems. And before you go "Puhleez" again (a most annoying and quite ugly phrase), can we again look at such people as MArtin Luther King, the Ti'an'imin (soz spell.) students, Ghandi, who all managed to undermine their respective regimes through peace. Currently the only undermining going in is the US eroding all the power of the UN. If the powers that are really want such regimes as Iraq to be improved surely if they put their power (non-military) behind the UN whilst not undermining it, anything could be possible.

Any successful administration has to acknowledge that we live in a global community. Nowadays economic/trade power is far more powerful than military power (take Switzerland) and yet we continuously rely on bigger and better weapons to police the world.

War just hurts the people. Nuclear war (whether real or conjecture) is simple insanity, dreamt up by generals in comfortable bunkers.

And one last point. How many 20th Century war criminals can you name that have actually been brought to justice through war or military action? More importantly, how many simply walked away when the dust cleared? Pol pot, Pinochet, Osama, Milosevic, Gadafi (still there) and several African generals. This war is against Saddam, and yet he will probably not pay for it. Only the people will.

Well, that's me done. Tear apart my arguments as you may, but just spare a thought for the poor bastards in Baghdad who are going to have a hell of a time in the near future, whatever happens.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top