[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Use of nuc. weapons in Iraq
All of this discussion seems so unnecessarily nit-picky!. No nation in its right mind agrees blindly to forswear the use of any weapon in its possession. That kind of advance commitment promotes the goals of neither negotiation nor the conduct of war. It all makes interesting(?) rhetoric for news media repartee or for opponents of a given national policy, but is of no value otherwise.
This is as fruitless as the arguments over whether or not a nation has any "plans" for this, that, or the other contingency. Within the limits of national resources, of course they have plans. Those responsible for national defense would be derelict in their duties if they did not have plans covering as wide a range of possibilities as they can. The limits are simply the available resources.
Should a catalog of such national contingency planning be publicized? Of course not!
What pap!
Cheers,
Maury Siskel maury@webtexas.com
---------------
The quickest way to end a war is to lose it.
===================================
"Strickert, Rick" wrote:
> More on the discussion about the use of nuclear (as well as nukular) weapons:
>
> >From a December 11, 2002, Statement by the President -
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021211-8.html
>
> "Today I have issued the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction. The strategy establishes a comprehensive approach to counter the growing threat from weapons of mass destruction (WMD), including nuclear, radiological, biological, and chemical weapons... "
>
> >From a December 11, 2002 Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer -
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021211-5.html#4
>
> Q Now, on the response question, some -- there was a headline in New York today that said, "Nuke 'em." There have been other reports that suggested the administration was somehow upping the ante here. Is that the case?
>
> MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think it's a rather declarative statement of how seriously the United States would take it in the event that weapons of mass destruction were used. And it's a reiteration of a statement that has been made previously. But this time, it ties it all together to make clear that the United States will, indeed, respond.
>
> Q Any departure at all from existing U.S. policy, going all the way back to the Gulf War, when we made similar statements, as far as I remember --
>
> MR. FLEISCHER: No, this policy is consistent with that previous policy.
>
> Q But in an era of stateless terrorism, against who?
>
> MR. FLEISCHER: Let me read from it. What is says, to be clear, is "The United States must be prepared to respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction against our citizens or military forces and those of our friends and allies. We will develop and maintain the capability to reduce to the extent possible the potentially horrific consequences of WMD attacks at home and abroad."
>
> And the message, I think that people, whether they are states or whether they are terrorists or whether they are terrorists -- or states that are hosting terrorists, is that they should not engage in any such use because the United States will respond, as we deem appropriate.
>
> Q With weapons of mass destruction?
>
> MR. FLEISCHER: As is necessary and as is deemed appropriate.
>
> And from today's Washington Times (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030131-27320419.htm)
>
> Bush approves nuclear response
> Nicholas Kralev
> THE WASHINGTON TIMES
> Published January 31, 2003
>
> A classified document signed by President Bush specifically allows for the use of nuclear weapons in response to biological or chemical attacks, apparently changing a decades-old U.S. policy of deliberate ambiguity, it was learned by The Washington Times.
> "The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force - including potentially nuclear weapons - to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies," the document, National Security Presidential Directive 17, set out on Sept. 14 last year.
> A similar statement is included in the public version of the directive, which was released Dec. 11 as the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction and closely parallels the classified document. However, instead of the phrase "including potentially nuclear weapons," the public text says, "including through resort to all of our options."...
>
>
> Rick Strickert
> Austin, TX
>
> ************************************************************************
> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
> send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
> radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
> You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
--
It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the
press. Charles M. Province
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/