WMD threat could spark American nuclear strike.
Quote:
WMD threat could spark American nuclear strike
From Giles Whittell in Washington
A PRESIDENT of the United States would be able to launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes against enemies planning to use weapons of mass destruction under a revised “nuclear operations” doctrine to be signed in the next few weeks.
In a significant shift after half a century of nuclear deterrence based on the threat of massive retaliation, the revised doctrine would allow pre-emptive strikes against states or terror groups, and to destroy chemical and biological weapons stockpiles.
Presidential approval would still be required for any nuclear strike, but the updated document, the existence of which was confirmed by the Pentagon at the weekend, emphasises the need for the US to adapt to a world of worsening proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in which deterrence might fail. In that event, it states, “the United States must be prepared to use nuclear weapons if necessary”.
The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, last revised ten years ago, extends President Bush’s doctrine of pre-emptive war to cover a US nuclear arsenal that is expected to shrink to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads by 2012.
It was drafted by the Pentagon in March and posted on the internet, but did not attract widespread attention until a report on it in The Washington Post yesterday. It has since been removed from the Department of Defence website.
It came to light as Iran insisted, in defiance of the European Union, that it would continue processing uranium at its Isfahan reactor. The US has called on the UN Security Council to impose sanctions on Tehran for failing to shelve its nuclear programme.
Referring repeatedly to “non-state actors” — parlance for terrorists — the doctrine is designed to arm the White House and US forces with a new range of threats and sanctions to counter the situation of threatened nuclear attack by al-Qaeda or one of its affiliates.
The document’s key phrase appears in a list of pre-emptive nuclear strike scenarios, the first of which is against an enemy using “or intending to use WMD”.
Elsewhere it states that “deterrence of potential adversary WMD use requires the potential adversary leadership to believe that the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective”.
The 1995 version of the doctrine contained no mention of pre-emption or WMD as legitimate nuclear targets.
Scary...discuss.
Re: WMD threat could spark American nuclear strike.
Oh, he'll do it, and you know it.
No more talk about "no WMD" for Dubya... ;)
Re: WMD threat could spark American nuclear strike.
That would have saved him some time in 2002 wouldnt it?
Re: WMD threat could spark American nuclear strike.
It says alot about his resolve that he could do it without being threatened by a chubby Jewish girl in a thong and a blue dress...
Re: WMD threat could spark American nuclear strike.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
It says alot about his resolve that he could do it without being threatened by a chubby Jewish girl in a thong and a blue dress...
What does Liza Minelli have to do with WMD?
Re: WMD threat could spark American nuclear strike.
Watch the movie The Dead Zone.
Bush = Stillson
:O
Re: WMD threat could spark American nuclear strike.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
It says alot about his resolve that he could do it without being threatened by a chubby Jewish girl in a thong and a blue dress...
What does Liza Minelli have to do with WMD?
Liza doesn't even own a blue dress.
Now, David Gest is another matter... :D
Re: WMD threat could spark American nuclear strike.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Watch the movie The Dead Zone.
Bush = Stillson
:O
Your imagination is very...imaginative, B.
Re: WMD threat could spark American nuclear strike.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Watch the movie The Dead Zone.
Bush = Stillson
:O
Your imagination is very...imaginative, B.
True but art imitates life imitates art.
I wouldn't be surprised in the least.
