"U.S. prepares for possible use of nukes in Iraq"

[MrPopup]

Yup...This seems a well though out plan.

*********************

U.S. prepares for possible use of nukes in Iraq, expert says
By PAUL RICHTER
Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON -- As the Pentagon continues a highly visible buildup of troops and weapons in the Persian Gulf, it is also quietly preparing for the possible use of nuclear weapons in the potential war against Iraq, according to a report by a defense analyst.

Although they consider such a strike unlikely, military planners have been actively studying lists of potential targets and considering options, including the possible use of so-called "bunker buster" nuclear weapons against deeply buried military targets, says analyst William M. Arkin, who writes a regular column on defense matters for the Los Angeles Times.

Military officials have been focusing their planning on the use of nuclear arms in retaliation for a strike by the Iraqis with chemical or biological weapons, or to pre-empt one, Arkin says.

Administration officials believe that in some circumstances, nuclear arms may offer the only way to destroy deeply buried targets that may contain unconventional weapons that could kill thousands. Some officials have argued that the blast and radiation effects of such strikes would be limited.

But that is in dispute. Critics contend that a bunker-buster strike could involve a huge radiation release and dangerous blast damage. They also say that use of a nuclear weapon in such circumstances would encourage other nuclear-armed countries to consider using those weapons in more kinds of situations, and would badly undermine the half-century effort to contain the spread of nuclear weapons.

Although it may be highly unlikely that the Bush administration would authorize the use of such weapons in Iraq -- Arkin describes it as a worst-case scenario -- the mere disclosure of its planning contingencies could stiffen the opposition of France, Germany and Middle East nations to any invasion of Iraq.

"If the United States dropped a bomb on an Arab country, it might be a military success, but it would be a diplomatic, political and strategic disaster," said Joseph Cirincione, director of nonproliferation studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

In the past year, Bush administration officials have repeatedly made clear that they want to be better prepared to consider the nuclear option against the threat of "weapons of mass destruction" in the hands of terrorists and rogue nations. The current planning activities, as reported by Arkin, offer a concrete example of their determination to follow through on this pledge.

Arkin also says that the Pentagon has changed the bureaucratic oversight of nuclear weapons so that they are no longer treated as a special category of arms, but grouped with conventional military options.

A White House spokesman declined comment Friday on Arkin's report, except to say that "the United States reserves the right to defend itself and its allies by whatever means necessary."

David J. Smith, an arms-control negotiator in the first Bush administration, said presidents would only consider using such a weapon "in terribly ugly situations where there are no easy ways out. If there's a threat that could involve huge numbers of American lives, I as a citizen would want the president to consider that option."

[twistyneck]

Good, I hope we nuke them back to the stick age.

[SpaceAce]

Originally posted by twistyneck
Good, I hope we nuke them back to the stick age.

LOL, I wouldn't trust them with stones, either.

If this is true, I think it's pure propaganda. Throwing a scare.

SpaceAce

[Jakke PNG]

That would be stupid.

[SquarePants]

That is some scary stuff to think our own goverment is this stupid to think using nukes will do anything but start WWIII

[theking]

Originally posted by SquarePants
That is some scary stuff to think our own goverment is this stupid to think using nukes will do anything but start WWIII

The military always develops scenarios for the possible use of Nukes in any major conflict. Nukes were considered for use in Korea and in Vietnam and I am sure there were scenarios for the use of Nukes in the first gulf war.

Why would you think that the use of Nukes would initiate a third world war? There is not any viable reason to think the use of Nukes would initiate a third world war.

[PerfectionGirls]

If this is true, I think it's pure propaganda.

I agree... it is also wreakless journalism.

Location: è�ðî¢

That speaks volumes also.

[SquarePants]

Really? So when we release a few tactical nukes and then China or some other power with nukes see s what we did and if we did it it must be okay, you don't think they would use them to control their own conflicts? Then of course someone would have to defend the nuked party.

I have no figures just that once some uses a method to control the bandwagon starts.

[Gutterboy]

From Capitol Hill Blues:

Role reversal: President wants war, Pentagon urges caution.
By Doug Thompson

Senior Pentagon officials are quietly urging President Bush to slow down his headlong rush to war with iraq."We have a dangerous role reversal here" one Pentagon source tells Capitol Hill Blues "The civilians are urging war and the uniformed officers are urging caution."

"This is not Desert Storm," one of ther Joint Chiefs is reported to have told Rumsfeld "We don't have the backing of other Middle Eastern nations. We don't have the backing of any our allies except Britain and we're advocating a policy that says we will invade another nation that is not currently attacking us or invading any of our allies."

Secretarty of State Colin Powell agrees with his former colleagues in the Pentagon and has told the President he may be pursuing a "dangerous course."

An angry Rumsfeld, who backs Bush without question, is said to have told the Joint Chiefs to get in line or find other jobs. Bush is also said to be "extremely angry" at what he perceives as growing Pentagon opposition to his role as Commander in Chief.

"The President considers this nation to be at war," a white House source says, "and as such, considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason."

But conversations with sources within the Bush administration, the Pentagon, the FBI and the intelligence community indicate a deepening rift between the professionals who wage war for a living and the administration civilians who want to send them into battle.

Pentagon planners privately refer to the pending Iraq conflict as a
"Bush league war" somrthing that may be fought more for political gain than anything else.

In addition capitol Hill Blues has learned that both House Speaker
Dennis J. Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist have told the White House that that they have increasing numbers of Republicans in both houses raising doubts about the war.

"Nobody in the party wants to come out publicly and tell the President he is wrong," says one Hill source close to the GOP leadership, "But we don't have the kind of unity we need on this thing. It could blow apart on us at any time."

The whole article is at
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...ter_1587.shtml

[SquarePants]

That's even scarrier to read

Bush is on a vendetta, plain and simple. Sure Saddam is bad. But to start this war is wrong at this time.

Apple doen't fall far from the tree.

[SNOW]

NO FUCKING WAY will it happen. All it is is political hype to off counter the other side. The press is the WEAPON... Please we wont nuke shit until WERE FIRED UPON........

[MrPopup]

Originally posted by PerfectionGirls

That speaks volumes also.

Location: Michigan

I'd say that speak volumes also...

[SpaceAce]

Originally posted by SquarePants
That is some scary stuff to think our own goverment is this stupid to think using nukes will do anything but start WWIII

How? I keep hearing people say we're not going into North Korea for this very reason. What bullshit.

A full-on nuclear war between the USA and any other major nucler power (read: China) would mean the virtual annhilation of human life on this planet. There would be no winner.

Who is going to initiate a planet-destorying war to help Iraq? Iraq might, but they don't have the capability. As for Korea, do you really think China is going to guarantee its own destruction to fulfill an obligation to another country? Please. They may posture and spit, but when it comes down to it, they are not going to eliminiate their own existence for someone else'e benfit. In the case of Iraq, who are we worried about? The other Arab nations? What will they attack with? So-called "suitcase nukes"? If anything, a nuclear weapon detonating in their vicinity would probably help convince them that nuclear aggression against the United States is not in their best interest.

I am _not_ for the use of nuclear weapons in Iraq (or anywhere, for that matter), but I don't think the "World War III" argument holds much water.

SpaceAce

[SpaceAce]

Originally posted by SNOW
NO FUCKING WAY will it happen. All it is is political hype to off counter the other side. The press is the WEAPON... Please we wont nuke shit until WERE FIRED UPON........

This is pretty much what I said in my first reply. I think most Americans probably see it that way.

SpaceAce

[PerfectionGirls]

I'd say that speak volumes also...

Yeah.. it shows I have the courage and pride to say where I am from. I don't need to hide behind symbols to spread my thoughts and idea's.

If you are going to take a stand... take one.

[SquarePants]

This is pretty much what I said in my first reply. I think most Americans probably see it that way.

What makes you think Americans have a say in what goes on?

[SpaceAce]

Originally posted by SquarePants


What makes you think Americans have a say in what goes on?

I don't see how that has anything to do with what I said. I said that most Americans probably see it as a propaganda move and an unlikely outcome.

SpaceAce

[SquarePants]

Not putting words in you didn't say, but the post Gutterboy made about the Bush adminsistration and other hype has to make you wonder what we really know and what we even have a say in. Sure bouncing stuff back and forth here is fun but the fact still remains atht someone is even entertaining the idea of nukes and the fact that more and more nations ARE NOT ENDORSING our motives.

[theking]

Originally posted by SquarePants
Not putting words in you didn't say, but the post Gutterboy made about the Bush adminsistration and other hype has to make you wonder what we really know and what we even have a say in. Sure bouncing stuff back and forth here is fun but the fact still remains atht someone is even entertaining the idea of nukes and the fact that more and more nations ARE NOT ENDORSING our motives.

It is SOP to "entertain" the use of Nukes in any major conflict that the USA engages in. It would be stupidity on the part of the military planners not to have these contingency plans in place. The use of tactical nukes is a viable military option qiven certain circumstances, and always has been since their existence.

[MrPopup]

Originally posted by theking

It would be stupidity on the part of the military planners not to have these contingency plans in place.

Great comedy from another psycho spreading lies....

[Fletch XXX]

Source?

[theking]

Originally posted by Gutterboy
From Capitol Hill Blues:

Role reversal: President wants war, Pentagon urges caution.
By Doug Thompson

Senior Pentagon officials are quietly urging President Bush to slow down his headlong rush to war with iraq."We have a dangerous role reversal here" one Pentagon source tells Capitol Hill Blues "The civilians are urging war and the uniformed officers are urging caution."

"This is not Desert Storm," one of ther Joint Chiefs is reported to have told Rumsfeld "We don't have the backing of other Middle Eastern nations. We don't have the backing of any our allies except Britain and we're advocating a policy that says we will invade another nation that is not currently attacking us or invading any of our allies."

Secretarty of State Colin Powell agrees with his former colleagues in the Pentagon and has told the President he may be pursuing a "dangerous course."

An angry Rumsfeld, who backs Bush without question, is said to have told the Joint Chiefs to get in line or find other jobs. Bush is also said to be "extremely angry" at what he perceives as growing Pentagon opposition to his role as Commander in Chief.

"The President considers this nation to be at war," a white House source says, "and as such, considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason."

But conversations with sources within the Bush administration, the Pentagon, the FBI and the intelligence community indicate a deepening rift between the professionals who wage war for a living and the administration civilians who want to send them into battle.

Pentagon planners privately refer to the pending Iraq conflict as a
"Bush league war" somrthing that may be fought more for political gain than anything else.

In addition capitol Hill Blues has learned that both House Speaker
Dennis J. Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist have told the White House that that they have increasing numbers of Republicans in both houses raising doubts about the war.

"Nobody in the party wants to come out publicly and tell the President he is wrong," says one Hill source close to the GOP leadership, "But we don't have the kind of unity we need on this thing. It could blow apart on us at any time."

The whole article is at
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...ter_1587.shtml

This is not "Role Reversal". The military is always reluctant to engage in war. The ultimate outcome of a war may be predictable with some certainty, but the tactical conduct of a war is almost always unpredictable.

[theking]

Originally posted by MrPopup


Great comedy from another psycho spreading lies....

New rule. I will not have intercourse with pricks, drugged out kids, or the plumb dumb.

[iroc409]

none of this nuke stuff is new, and if anyone hasn't heard of the "bunker buster" nukes, you're hiding in more of a cave than i am.

you have to have a good contingency plan in every situation, else you're just blindly shooting blanks in the dark.

i'm not for nukes either, but there is something to be said about efficiency.

[SquarePants]

I guess the irony is we want to rid him of weapons of mass destruction and yet we have a contigeny plan to use them.

Pot calling the kettle black.

[MrPopup]

Originally posted by theking

Funny stuff from a guy who was pretending that his father died and then came on GFY as his "son".

Turn some lights on in that dimly lit basement apartment and go out and get some fresh air.

Your stupidity knows no bounds.

[theking]

Originally posted by MrPopup


Funny stuff from a guy who was pretending that his father died and then came on GFY as his "son".

Turn some lights on in that dimly lit basement apartment and go out and get some fresh air.

Your stupidity knows no bounds.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New rule. I will not have intercourse with pricks, drugged out kids, or the plumb dumb.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[SpaceAce]

Originally posted by MrPopup


Great comedy from another psycho spreading lies....

How do you figure? This is the absolute truth. I can guarantee you our military has detailed plans for the use of nuclear arms against Barbados just in case it should ever be necessary. Nothing in his statement was psychotic or a lie. It's no secret that all war plans made in this day and age include the possibility of nuclear arms becoming involved on either side.

Nuclear weaponary is a fact of military life. Do you really think there is some chance that the strategists would just ignore their existence when laying plans?

SpaceAce

[SpaceAce]

Originally posted by SquarePants
I guess the irony is we want to rid him of weapons of mass destruction and yet we have a contigeny plan to use them.

Pot calling the kettle black.

I don't see how this is pot and kettle case. Saddam Hussein has already proven his expansionist policy by invading Kuwait. We know he is willing to use nerve and (probably) germ agents. He has repeatedly stated his feelings for the USA and encouraged hatred and attacks against my nation. He needs to be dealt with. If you don't play nice, you get your toys taken away. Tough shit.

SpaceAce

[SpaceAce]

Originally posted by MrPopup


Funny stuff from a guy who was pretending that his father died and then came on GFY as his "son".

Turn some lights on in that dimly lit basement apartment and go out and get some fresh air.

Your stupidity knows no bounds.

Anyone who's seen the "Pathfinder/theking" threads know where I stand on this issue. I think they're the same person and I think the whole thing is lame, but that doesn't mean everything he says is automatically wrong.

SpaceAce

[short hairs]

Originally posted by SpaceAce


I don't see how this is pot and kettle case. Saddam Hussein has already proven his expansionist policy by invading Kuwait. We know he is willing to use nerve and (probably) germ agents. He has repeatedly stated his feelings for the USA and encouraged hatred and attacks against my nation. He needs to be dealt with. If you don't play nice, you get your toys taken away. Tough shit.

SpaceAce

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...q-ushelp_x.htm

[MrPopup]

Originally posted by SpaceAce

Saddam Hussein has already proven his expansionist policy

And the US has no expansionist policy?

[VIP]

Just some stats, makes me wonder...

http://islamicweb.com/begin/results.htm

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/popclock

[SquarePants]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...q-ushelp_x.htm

Ouch!!

[iroc409]

Originally posted by MrPopup


And the US has no expansionist policy?

what have we taken over? alaska?

wait, didn't we buy that?

[Manny The Freak]

Nuke em, fry em. way to go Bush anihilate the human race while you are at it. Totaly fucked up killer type should be shot nuked and fried.

[Rich]

The USA would never fire off a nuclear weapon in a pre emptive strike. If Iraq does start using chemical or biological weapons, or dirty nuclear bombs, I want to see a fucking mushroom cloud with thousands of flamming towelheads flying out of it.

[SleazyDream]

Originally posted by twistyneck
Good, I hope we nuke them back to the stick age.

in iraq today, unless you work for the gov't you prety much are in the stone age..... very sad for the civilians cause they were a first world country a little over 10 years ago.

[unconnected]

Arkin also says that the Pentagon has changed the bureaucratic oversight of nuclear weapons so that they are no longer treated as a special category of arms, but grouped with conventional military options.

IF and when the nuclear war stats, this action will be considered the beginning..
The moment you stop classifying Nuclear Weapons as anyone but attrocities that should be uninvented is clearest indication that things are going downhill in a serious and VERY scary way..

How the hell are nukes going to better prepare you for terrorists?

What do you do? Arab terrorists bomb a city so you wipe out an Arab city in return, that probably has nothing to do with the terrorists in the first place?

Well I know where all of my profits are going to be going this year, stocking up and getting ready for the next middle ages..

Think it is bad now, just imagine what is going to happen when the oil runs out.. If we haven't blown ourselves up by then, then that is going to be a very scary time..

[unconnected]

or dirty nuclear bombs, I want to see a fucking mushroom cloud with thousands of flamming towelheads flying out of it.

This is the reason why most countries value their education system so much.. One look on people like this and we can't pump money into our schools fast enough..

[Pleasurepays]

Originally posted by SpaceAce


How do you figure? This is the absolute truth. I can guarantee you our military has detailed plans for the use of nuclear arms against Barbados just in case it should ever be necessary. Nothing in his statement was psychotic or a lie. It's no secret that all war plans made in this day and age include the possibility of nuclear arms becoming involved on either side.

Nuclear weaponary is a fact of military life. Do you really think there is some chance that the strategists would just ignore their existence when laying plans?

SpaceAce

this was the same thing after 9/11. The Pentagon reviewed all of its contingency plans and updated most of them regarding terrorist attacks, biological/chemical attacks, pre-emptive strike scenarios and the limited use of tactical nukes... etc etc and the press was reporting that the Pentagon was planning to start WW lll

[playa]

I guess no one hear ever made a plan
it's really a no brainer
Plan A, Plan B, Plan C, etc, etc,
they need to have a plan for every situation


this article is sooo stupid,, the author is just stating the damn obvious,,

an attempt to get the less intelligent people scared

[PornoDoggy]

The U.S. military plans for as many possible contingencies as possible when getting ready to go to war. That would have to include nukes should, as Rich said, Iraq resorts to nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Incidentally, if they do I hope to see an awful lot of Iraqis go up in a mushroom cloud too, and I'm not even sure I support this war.

There are probably plans for the use of nukes in every country in the world, including right here in the good ole U.S. of A., sitting in a drawer in the Pentagon someplace. No sense getting hysterical about it, girls ... but if the use of nukes is planned as part of the normal battle plans, the Bush Administration truly has lost its mind.

Iroc -

what have we taken over? alaska?

20 years before we purchased Alaska we had a little tussle with Mexico over a whole lot of what is now the Southwestern United States. The Spanish-American War was essentially an expansionist war that got us Cuba and the Phillipines. That doesn't even get to Central America, where we stole Panama from Columbia to build the canal, and sent the Marines and Army in so often at the request of major companies that, if Ronald Reagan had gotten his way and sent troops into Nicaragua, it woudl have resulted in the FOURTH Nicaraguan Campaign Ribbon.

[SpaceAce]

Originally posted by short hairs


http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...q-ushelp_x.htm

This isn't a surprise and it doesn't change what I said. How we deal with them now is not dictated by former relationships.

SpaceAce

[SpaceAce]

Originally posted by MrPopup


And the US has no expansionist policy?

You're so silly. Do you even understand expansionism? There's a big difference between aiding another nation or kicking a little ass and grabbing a chunk of the world for yourself. What was the last piece of land we annexed and occupied?

SpaceAce

[x3guide]

[kenny]

Originally posted by theking


The military always develops scenarios for the possible use of Nukes in any major conflict. Nukes were considered for use in Korea and in Vietnam and I am sure there were scenarios for the use of Nukes in the first gulf war.

Why would you think that the use of Nukes would initiate a third world war? There is not any viable reason to think the use of Nukes would initiate a third world war.

Exactly, if Iraq used terrorist methods such as bio/chem attacks on american soil. Then I imagine the US would blow them off the face off the earth.

[scooby doo as scooby does]

I read in an article by one analyst on the possible use of tactical nukes by the US that the outcome would not directly be WWIII, but that is was almost a foregone conclusion that nukes would fall into the hands of terrorists pretty soon after the US used them on Arab soil.

I have no idea whether that is a bias'ed article I read or not, but it's a scary thought.

[SpaceAce]

Originally posted by VIP
Just some stats, makes me wonder...

http://islamicweb.com/begin/results.htm

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/popclock

That is pretty interesting, but maybe a little misleading, too.

For instance, it's easy to double in size when you go from 1 -> 2. It's a little harder to double in size from 500,000 -> 1,000,000.

Also, a growth rate doesn't show much. Christianity grew mighty fast when Crusaders were running around putting non-Christians to the torch. Join or die is a pretty effective motto.

SpaceAce

[SleazyDream]

Originally posted by x3guide

the funny thing is, the US national bird was almost (in fact) a turkey!!!!!!