Bush signs order to use nukes

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by peter2002, Jan 31, 2003.

  1. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    #1
    Bush has signed an executive order to use nuclear weapons against Iraq if they get the best of our soldiers with biological or nuclear weapons, or VX gas. Our secret forces who handle the big one have gotten their marching orders.

    Seems ironic or is it sardonic? I'll have to find my dictionary. Gulf War 2.01 is going to make Auschwitz look like a picnic.

    http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030131-27320419.htm

    Pete

    _____________________________________________________

    Update: Experts See War in Iraq By End of March

    http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....E1LQAWCRBAELCFEY?type=topNews&storyID=2147325
     
  2. Moderator emeritus

    WinterMute

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Location:
    London, England
    #2
    Re: Bush signs order to use nukes

    It's neither I'm afraid, it's moronic, lets talk about escalation shall we?

    We should have taken Saddam out last time, this war needs nukes like I need a PC, Iraq is on it's knees anyway, sure a few of the ground forces might get into some nasty stuff, but it's a WAR, they are an ARMY, we're INVADING THEIR F***ING COUNTRY, they aren't going to use pointy sticks and harsh language.

    Now, without the shouting, if you really must fight, take it to the minimum level and no further, threatening nuclear reprisals is lunacy, I don't much care for Bush or his politics, but I thought he was better than that.
     
  3. macrumors 6502

    #3
    I can't believe I'm hearing news like this.

    Two nukes used against humankind are enough enough enough. We should stop at that.

    As a man from the country which took these only two, I'm 100% against Mr. Bush now :mad:

    EDIT: BTW, is this a credible news source? Just never heard of Washington Times. Why is the news on "classified document" on the paper???
     
  4. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #4
    Good lord man, war is war. He is trying to pressure Saddam to keep him from using his biological weapons, or chemical weapons don't you get that? He isn't talking about nuking Bagdad, but about tactical nukes to take out large armoured divisions that would be using chemical, or biological, or God forbid nuclear weapons.


    Yes, us and our allies would be invading their country to remove him from Power because of 12 years of UN security counsel violations, and because of the ties to Al queda that will come public next week.
     
  5. macrumors 6502a

    drastik

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2002
    Location:
    Nashvegas
    #5
    I think that everyone is over reacting here. The president has to sign an order to make nukes available. This doesn't really signal an intention to use them. Presidents since WW2 have signed such orders in any signifigant armed conflict, its just posturing. Bush loves to play tough-guy, and this is another toy for it. I hope, in my heart, that Bush knows better than to use a nuke. That would bring retaliation on the US like nothing other, and since we have zero ability to stop terroist atttacks at home, we peobably shouldn't invite them over.
     
  6. macrumors 6502

    #6
    I have no problem with political pressure and political games. But saying he's gonna use nukes is like saying "I'm gonna kill your mother if you don't release the hostages!"

    I mean, there are certain things you simply can not say, whatever the intention is.
     
  7. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #7
    Actually Clinton was known to do this more than once or twice. Yea, that is the other question. This paper, are they legit? Sounds like the National Enquirer.

    And to everyone saying "man, I can't believe that Bush would do that, now I hate him", please explain what you would have us do, if during the invasion of Iraq, Saddam drops 3,000 tons of VX gas on our troops killing 50,000 in under a minute.

    Wow, so much for not having WMD would you say. How would you respond to that if you were the President? If you knew going in that he had them, and that we were going to make him give them up, and the he killed 50,000 troops in a day? What the hell would you do?

    Let me say this loud and clear. AT THAT POINT NUKE HIS ASS!

    Sorry, but that is how I feel.
     
  8. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #8
    No, it is like saying that if you rape my wife, then I will skin you alive. It is the ultimate threat. It is for intimidation.
     
  9. macrumors 6502

    #9
    OK, I understand the situation a little better now. Thanks for clearing it up for me. Obviously I don't know much about American political system.

    I just hoping Bush won't do anything nuts.
     
  10. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #10
    No, you can understand it perfectly, but it is about letting them know that we have them, and will use them if they do.
     
  11. Moderator emeritus

    WinterMute

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Location:
    London, England
    #11
    Well, not quite, as of now, it's almost certain that Iraq doesnt have nukes, and we do have a land force capable ofdealing with chemical or biological attack, I sincerely doubt casualties of 50K, the number of planes neccesary to deliver the payload wouldmake a big and easy target.

    My worry is that this kind of sabre rattling is a one way street, what happens if Saddam lobs a couple of gas shells into the lines, do we nuke him then, tactically or otherwise?

    That level of overkill would almost certainly lead to other islamic nations becoming involved, and after all the gum beating we (the brits) and your good selves have been doing about weapons of mass destruction, this smacks of hypocrisy and thuggery.

    Please don't get me wrong, Saddam and his tinpot regime have out-stayed their welcome by a decade, and he really deserves to have his arse kicked square, but pre-emptive strikes are dangerous things, as Al-queda discovered.

    I hope the war will be short and limited, for there will bea war, make no mistake.
     
  12. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #12
    Water minute. Do you realize that the man has over 30,000 liters of Anthrax? How about the 5,000 tons of VX? Just to let you know, VX, a tablespoon will kill thousands, and I mean thousands. So, it is very possible. But say, he gets 5,000 with a chemical weapon, what then?

    At what point would you use a nuke?
     
  13. Moderator emeritus

    WinterMute

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Location:
    London, England
    #13
    B2M, VX is only that effective against non-military targets, as is anthrax, this theatre is going to be as hardened as you can get, it's the only credible threat the idiot has got, and there's no certainty he can deliver the agent to the arena even IF he has it.

    My point is not that we shoudn't go hunting bear, it's that we hunt with a rifle not a bazooka.

    Try to identify you friends more closely, we don't like "friendly fire";)
     
  14. macrumors 6502a

    etoiles

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Location:
    Where the air is crisp
    #14
    Like Bush said during his last speech "why would Iraq have weapons of mass destruction, if it was not for political intimidation or mass destruction" (or something like that).

    Well, to be honest...do WE have them for any other reason ? Oh yeah, that is right, to 'defend' ourselves.

    I am all for the 'unfair advantage' as long as it is on our side, but the idea of 'tactical nukes' makes me kind of nervous. I don't know, it feels like a point of no return thing. It is one of the last taboos of modern warfare...we are not sure what is going to happen if someone makes the first step (except for the mass destruction part, that we know for sure).
     
  15. macrumors 68000

    GeeYouEye

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2001
    Location:
    State of Denial
    #15
    Who gives a crap about tactical nukes? They explode at ground level, as opposed to strategic nuclear weapons, such as the Hiroshima and Nagasiki bombs, limit the radiation to only slightly larger than the blast radius, and have a yeild of about 20 kilotons, about 5 kt larger than the Hiroshima bomb, but without any of the blast focusing effects that the detonation height and location of Hiroshima caused. The real "problem" with nuclear weapons is that they've never been used in battle. If there had ever been an occasion to use them during the cold war, I suspect people would be far less averse to them.

    We will anot nuke Bahgdad. We will, hovever, use nuclear weapons on heavily defended installations and troop movements, especially if there is any indication that they are carrying Biological or chemical weapons.
     
  16. macrumors 68000

    lmalave

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Location:
    Chinatown NYC
    #16
    Are you completely insane? Do you remember the hysteria over Chernobyl 15 years ago? How do you think the world will react to nuclear weapons being detonated in Iraq? And how, I pray, do you stop radiation from spreading? How are you going to stop the wind from blowing? I don't know what kind of propaganda you've been reading, man, but there's no way that you can contain radiation from an above-ground nuclear blast.

    If Bush uses nuclear weapons of ANY kind, it will be the biggest military and political failure in U.S. history. I guarantee you the entire world would turn against us, and with good reason.
     
  17. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #17
    Again, I ask the question, that if we do go in, and we starts using chemical and biological weapons should we ....

    1) Pull out
    2) Keep sending people in to be killed?
    3) Hit the depots where the chemical weapons are with tactical nukes?

    Remember the chemical and biological agents can spread just like radiation. So.....
     
  18. macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #18
    This is a bad post,all presidents have had this option ! 2nd more -peter- they are not going to get the best of our troops!And 3rd of all what you really need to be thinking is that saddam might try to use these weapons of mass destruction on his own people!#3 is what i am concerned about because bastards like saddam are just like hitler if i am going down ill take as many of MY OWN PEOPLE as i can! Hitler did! TYRANTS dont CARE! I SAY WE SHOULD KILL THE BASTARD AND THE NORTH KOREAN NEXT! The world will then be nicer place!
     
  19. macrumors P6

    wdlove

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    #19
    I'm behind Bush in his decison making process. Greater force is the only thing that will cause dictators like Saddam to take notice.
     
  20. macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #20
    How about 4), which is #3 except with conventional weapons instead of with nukes? Or is the flash from those not bright enough to show the world what huge wangs we've got?

    An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth will leave everyone blind, to paraphrase that old Indian chap. If we're opposed to the use of WMD in war, we shouldn't use them ourselves. Really, our military is so massive and powerful, there's no reason we should need to resort to nuclear weapons. Nukes also produce this stuff called fallout that has been known to do quite bad things to the environment (not least being causing a spike in cancer rates for decades into the future).
     
  21. macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #21

    I agree. The only people who would be averse to them would be the cockroaches, because they'd be the only ones left alive if there had ever been a nuclear exchange during the Cold War.
     
  22. macrumors 68000

    lmalave

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Location:
    Chinatown NYC
    #22
    Iraq has had these weapons for at least 15 years, and the world has been more or less fine. If Bush precipitates this sort of attack through his reckless actions, it will again as I said be a colossal military and political failure. I'm STILL not clear on what our motivations are to invade Iraq. The only logical reason I've read is to establish a democracy so that we can spread democracy to the rest of the Arab world. Wether or not you *agree* that this is a course of action to take, at least it is based on a logical argument. Attacking Iraq when it is not a terrorist threat (as far as we know) and is a less serious nuclear threat than North Korea (not to mention our "ally" Pakistan which already HAS nukes), just does not make any sense to me. I guess for diplomatic reasons Bush can't state his true intentions though.
     
  23. macrumors 65816

    kiwi_the_iwik

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Location:
    London, UK
    #23
    Nuclear Weapons:

    All men are cremated equal...


    :(


    Bad move, Georgie-boy. Maybe he should read "How to win friends and influence people".
     
  24. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #24
    There's nothing imprudent about letting it be known that these weapons can and will be deployed under certain circumstances. Let's assume for a moment that Saddam is thinking of sending missiles to Israel and the surrounding Arab states tipped with chemical and biological weapons, killing hunderds of thousands, if not millions. Now, let's assume that his generals charged with carrying out those orders happen to know that they are ground zero for a tactical nuclear strike in the event that this should take place. That just might lead them to reconsider their loyalty to Saddam.

    BTW, kiwi, I don't think you ever explained why New Zealand didn't send an expeditionary force to Rwanda.

    There's a lot of whining on here about what Iraq hasn't done and how Saddam deserves to be left alone. Let me just quote the president on that:

    "This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance."

    How many more last chances do you want to give that madman? Too many on the left are letting their dislike of Bush color their views of the situation. I don't care if you don't like the Bush tax cuts or private Social Security accounts or judicial nominations. He right on target with the Iraq policy.
     
  25. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    louisville
    #25
    there are certain things you cannot say? what is this friggen romper room? first, you wusses don't want bush to act aggressively. second, you don't want him to talk aggressively. next you won't even let the damn guy think aggressively! if you want a leader like this, it's real easy... move to france. i believe their government has already voted in advance to surrender to anyone:p
     

Share This Page