U.S. may allow nuke strikes over WMD

zimv20

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
link

WASHINGTON (Kyodo) The U.S. military is considering allowing regional combatant commanders to request presidential approval for pre-emptive nuclear strikes against possible attacks with weapons of mass destruction on the United States or its allies, according to a draft nuclear operations paper.

The March 15 paper, drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is titled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," providing "guidelines for the joint employment of forces in nuclear operations . . . for the employment of U.S. nuclear forces, command and control relationships, and weapons effect considerations."

"There are numerous nonstate organizations (terrorist, criminal) and about 30 nations with WMD programs, including many regional states," the paper says in recommending that commanders in the Pacific and other theaters be given an option of pre-emptive strikes against "rogue" states and terrorists and "request presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons" under set conditions.

The paper identifies nuclear, biological and chemical weapons as requiring pre-emptive strikes to prevent their use.

Allowing pre-emptive nuclear strikes against possible biological and chemical attacks would effectively contradict a "negative security assurance" policy declared 10 years ago by the Clinton administration during an international conference to review the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

(more)
i stand by my assertion of 2 years ago: that bush would nuke something in a second term.
 

pseudobrit

macrumors 68040
Jul 23, 2002
3,418
4
Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
pre-emptive nuclear strikes against possible attacks with weapons of mass destruction on the United States or its allies, according to a draft nuclear operations paper.
Glad they set the bar so high.

"Possible attacks with weapons of mass destructions": where have I heard that standard bandied about before?
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
I don't think this is really all that new or radical of a thought. It's just codifying what otherwise would be an unwritten rule. Get the POTUS's permission BEFORE you launch a nuke. If there's something worth shooting a nuke over, let's talk.

Unfortunately I'm afraid Bush's launch threshhold might be a bit low, to put it mildly.
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
Rumsfeld Asks Congress to Fund Nuclear-Bomb Study

link

Rumsfeld Asks Congress to Fund Nuclear-Bomb Study

May. 1, 2005 - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld pressed Congress on Wednesday to fund research into an earth-penetrating "bunker buster" nuclear bomb that U.S. lawmakers dropped from the budget last year.

"It seems to me studying it makes all the sense in the world," Rumsfeld told a Senate appropriations subcommittee, referring to a nuclear weapon designed to penetrate the earth and then explode. Proponents argue it could be used to demolish hardened and deeply buried enemy targets.

But Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California told Rumsfeld: "It is beyond me as to why you're proceeding with this program when the laws of physics won't allow a missile to be driven deeply enough" to prevent deadly radioactive fallout from spewing into the air after a nuclear detonation.

During the hearing, Rumsfeld assailed critics who were talking about possibly resuming the draft, and said he was tired of hearing about former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki's prediction a month before the invasion that "several hundred thousand" troops would be needed to occupy Iraq.

The Bush administration has asked Congress for $8.5 million for research into the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator in fiscal 2006, split between Pentagon and Energy Department budgets.

Congress last November omitted about $27 million for the research sought by the Bush administration for fiscal 2005. Congressional opponents of the research have said even studying the possibility of making such a weapon takes nuclear warfare out of the realm of the unthinkable and encourages adversaries to develop nuclear weapons.

The Pentagon maintains potential enemies increasingly are trying to protect key military assets, including chemical, biological and nuclear arms or military command and control facilities, from aerial bombing by hiding them deep underground in fortified bunkers.

Rumsfeld said the Pentagon's current arsenal is incapable of destroying such deeply buried targets, adding that 70 countries are pursuing these facilities.

(more)
is it just me, or have there been more nuke stories in the past week than normal?
 

mischief

macrumors 68030
Aug 1, 2001
2,920
0
Santa Cruz Ca
zimv20 said:
is it just me, or have there been more nuke stories in the past week than normal?
And with that note, I'll be looking at the BC online classifieds.... Now where the hell'd I put my birth certificate.....
 

mischief

macrumors 68030
Aug 1, 2001
2,920
0
Santa Cruz Ca
So let me see if I grasp the concept:

If you can't find the lab
You must nuke it.
If you can't find the bombs
You must nuke it.

Go foreward, move ahead
It's not to late
to nuke it
nuke it good.

So Nuke it...
Nuke it good
 

mischief

macrumors 68030
Aug 1, 2001
2,920
0
Santa Cruz Ca
yellow said:
Hehehe.. I didn't think that was possible, even with bourbon.
I still think the best wy to make it worth watching would be to make a simple rule that you have to wear the logos of your contributors.... like NASCAR. Additionally, you have to plug them whenever possible.

Senator Kennedy: There's nothing wrong with this bill that a little Ketchup wouldn't fix.

Senator Dole: Or a little Viagra.
 

takao

macrumors 68040
Dec 25, 2003
3,825
432
Dornbirn (Austria)
zimv20 said:
is it just me, or have there been more nuke stories in the past week than normal?
perhaps because in the UN the discussion about the future of the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) just started _today_ ?

with the mini nukes working against that treaty it doesn't look very good for _less_ nukes in the world when the US themselves keep developing new ones ...
 

Don't panic

macrumors 603
Jan 30, 2004
5,551
695
having a drink at Milliways
our correspondent at the WH said:
Washington, D.C.. Not satisfied with having secured the "Worst US President Ever" slot (WUPE!!) early on, Mr. Bushy is tinkering with the idea of challenging some well known dictators of the first half of last century for the "Most Reviled Leader in History" title.
He is confident that launching a first strike nuclear attack would pretty much bring that home.
To the objection that this would, in fact, justify the detonation of a similar device (by the rival terrorist organization) on, for example, NYC, he quipped: "We got more than they do. Bring'em on"
Since I happen to live in NYC, I do find this scenario quite irritating.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
takao said:
perhaps because in the UN the discussion about the future of the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) just started _today_ ?
Yeah I was thinking the same thing.

Apparently the nuclear clock has been moved closer to midnight this week as well...
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
mactastic said:
Oh nevermind. I read a new article with an old quote from the people who maintain the clock.
i wouldn't be surprised if it is updated soon.
 

pseudobrit

macrumors 68040
Jul 23, 2002
3,418
4
Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
Just to lay some groundwork here on the facts of nuclear weapons:

The lower to earth the detonation of a nuclear weapon, the more fallout is created. The smaller the yield, the dirtier the bomb.

A well placed airburst leaves minimal fallout, but early weapons tests, like the Plumbbob and Hardtack (II) series (and even the Trinity test) were close to the ground and produced so much fallout that significant doses of radioisotopes of iodine, strontium and cesium were measureable in the rain that fell over the eastern and southern United States, causing a spike in both the number of miscarriages and cases of infant leukemia.

What Bush is proposing we use, these so-called "bunker-busting nukes" are a unicorn. They don't exist. They'll never exist. It's impossible to punch a nuclear device into the earth deep enough to prevent significant amounts of local fallout from spewing into the air. They'd need to penetrate at least three times deeper than would be physically possible.

These devices will be low-yield, low-depth nuclear explosions releasing thousands of curies of radioactive isotopes that will kill and sicken thousands of people in the region of the detonation.

Unless we show up on the surface, drill out a shaft 300 meters deep, drop our bomb in it and plug it before detonation, there's no way to make a working, safe bunker-busting nuke.
 

Thanatoast

macrumors 65816
Dec 3, 2002
1,005
134
Denver
request presidential approval for pre-emptive nuclear strikes against possible attacks
Pre-emptive *nuclear* strikes against *possible* attacks? Um, the last time we pre-emptively attacked someone it turned out the people in charge were not only wrong, they were full of ****.

Additionally, the last time we nuked someone was after years of all-out war, and alternatives were few and far between. Which is *not* the situation now.

They've gone mad.

Not to mention the fact that Bush is doing his best to dismantle every international system created for controlling nukes. Guess now we know why.
 

diamond geezer

macrumors regular
Jan 26, 2004
156
0
mischief said:
If you can't find the lab
You must nuke it.
If you can't find the bombs
You must nuke it.

Go foreward, move ahead
It's not to late
to nuke it
nuke it good.

So Nuke it...
Nuke it good
You try and sing that to the young people of today, and they wont understand you, they wont.

DEVO/Python crossover.