Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Warning: The article is Dutch...

http://frontpage.fok.nl/nieuws/57603

Het Amerikaanse Ministerie van Defensie, ook bekend als het Pentagon, wil preventief nucleaire wapens in kunnen zetten om een aanval van een vijandig land of een terroristische groepering te voorkomen. Daarom adviseert zij de huidige regelgeving voor het inzetten van nucleaire wapens te herzien. Ook wil het ministerie nucleaire wapens kunnen gebruiken om de nucleaire, chemische en biologische voorraden van vijandige staten te vernietigen.

Het Pentagon komt met dit voorstel als onderdeel van de preventieve strategie die president Bush eind 2002 presenteerde. Toen maakte een woordvoerder al bekend dat met een 'overweldigende kracht' opgetreden zal worden tegen vijanden die massavernietigingswapens tegen de Verenigde Staten willen gebruiken. De president zal daarbij 'alle mogelijke opties' tot zijn beschikking hebben.

Er zijn ongeveer 30 naties die massavernietigingswapens produceren en volgens het Pentagon in aanmerking komen voor een preventieve aanval. Daarnaast is er een onbekend aantal terroristische organisaties. Het voorstel moet nog worden goedgekeurd door de minister van Defensie, Donald Rumsfeld.

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

Basically what it says is that there is a new law coming that will allow the US to use nukes to prevent other country's from launching nukes. Donald Rumsfeld still has to approve with the law but I don't really think thats going to be to much trouble.

Yeah this will really stop terrorism... Imagine what could happen if something like this is allowed, or if it was allowed a few years ago. Iraq has WMD's, launch a nuke at a strategic location like Saddam his biggest palace. At this time the Pentagon has a list of about 30 nations that are considered for preventive nuking. 30 nations....

Nations with nukes that the US doesn't like, Nations that could have nukes, or nations with a lot of "terrorists" in it... Great way to create peace and stability...

Dutch:God...
English:God...

There is no law needed, US has always been able to us nukes, and the US has in the past and will again in the future. Might makes write, however, this is something that will only make terrorists.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no law needed, US has always been able to us nukes, and the US has in the past and will again in the future. Might makes write, however, this is something that will only make terrorists.

Its not that a law is needed but the fact that this law is coming. And it only makes it easier for a US president to launch nukes, besides nuking to stop nuking? What kind of bullshit is that, hypocrit bastards.

Originally posted by Fishy
Its not that a law is needed but the fact that this law is coming. And it only makes it easier for a US president to launch nukes, besides nuking to stop nuking? What kind of bullshit is that, hypocrit bastards.

The "football" follows the president 24 hours a day. At any time he could push the button.

pre-emptive strikes are suddenly something else to blame on Bush now are they...pity the concept has been around longer than he has

Originally posted by jaden101
pre-emptive strikes are suddenly something else to blame on Bush now are they...pity the concept has been around longer than he has

Hi jaden101

I'm glad you are here to help set these people straight.

Originally posted by jaden101
pre-emptive strikes are suddenly something else to blame on Bush now are they...pity the concept has been around longer than he has

Is just the younger kids who haven't heard of the Cold War in school yet. Aim nukes at each other, Gorbachev, Cuba, blah, blah, blah.

Originally posted by jaden101
pre-emptive strikes are suddenly something else to blame on Bush now are they...pity the concept has been around longer than he has

so i guess the policy is writing itself? no? then who shall we blame?

Aiming nukes, have you ever seen them get fired? And the article clearly talks about a change of policy, so there will probably be a change of policy. And who makes that policy? Not the guys that ruled during the cold war. They aren't in office anymore...

Originally posted by PVS
so i guess the policy is writing itself? no? then who shall we blame?

the policy has always been there...blame whoever wrote it in the first place....you CAN blame Bush for whoever he uses it on...but he'd have to actually use the policy first

hold on...there's blue snow falling outside my window right now

Originally posted by jaden101
pre-emptive strikes are suddenly something else to blame on Bush now are they...pity the concept has been around longer than he has

Originally posted by WindDancer
Is just the younger kids who haven't heard of the Cold War in school yet. Aim nukes at each other, Gorbachev, Cuba, blah, blah, blah.

The concept of pre-emptive strikes goes back to the Romans, although they didn't have nukes, when they destroyed a city, they did it with the sword.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The concept of pre-emptive strikes goes back to the Romans, although they didn't have nukes, when they destroyed a city, they did it with the sword.


How fanatic Muslim of them...you know, the flaming sword of Allah and all

Originally posted by jaden101
the policy has always been there...blame whoever wrote it in the first place....you CAN blame Bush for whoever he uses it on...but he'd have to actually use the policy first

hold on...there's blue snow falling outside my window right now

but thats just it. m.a.d. was never written, but implied. disgusting enough as it was.

to put it into policy is a message of acceptance. im sure iraq has nothing to fear from this however, since the use of nukes would halt oil production. everyone else is screwed though. its a written policy of genocide basically.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
How fanatic Muslim of them...you know, the flaming sword of Allah and all

Well, there is enough blame to go around.

Do you actually believe this? Nuclear weapons havn't been used in fifty some years, what would make us start using them again? We understand the harsh reprocussions of nuclear warfare, it leaves large bodies of land uninhabitable for hundreds of years, do you seriously think our goverment is insane enough to do that? We're not Korea..

Originally posted by PVS
but thats just it. m.a.d. was never written, but implied. disgusting enough as it was.

to put it into policy is a message of acceptance. im sure iraq has nothing to fear from this however, since the use of nukes would halt oil production. everyone else is screwed though. its a written policy of genocide basically.

mutually assured destruction is a concept that was a result of strike policies...not the policy itself...it was the inevitability of the M.A.D that most likely prevented

unfortunately the same doesn't apply to most so called terror sponsoring states so in that aspect its more plausible that pre-emptive nuclear strikes would be implemented if intelligence was found that determined a definite nuclear threat to the US

Originally posted by Spelljammer
Do you actually believe this? Nuclear weapons havn't been used in fifty some years, what would make us start using them again? We understand the harsh reprocussions of nuclear warfare, it leaves large bodies of land uninhabitable for hundreds of years, do you seriously think our goverment is insane enough to do that? We're not Korea..

You are correct, but if someone where to bomb one of our cities with a nuke, then we would use them, as much as was needed. This is what the message is that is being told to the world. I think they are telling the terrorist that if they are stupid enough to nuke one or more of our cities, there will be hell to pay.

Originally posted by Spelljammer
Do you actually believe this? Nuclear weapons havn't been used in fifty some years, what would make us start using them again? We understand the harsh reprocussions of nuclear warfare, it leaves large bodies of land uninhabitable for hundreds of years, do you seriously think our goverment is insane enough to do that? We're not Korea..

not korea? i take it you mean "not NORTH korea"
and no, we're not, since north korea, as corrupt as they are, never actually
detonated a nuclear weapon on civilians. the u.s. however did. in fact, we
are the only ones in history who did. does that answer your question?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are correct, but if someone where to bomb one of our cities with a nuke, then we would use them, as much as was needed. This is what the message is that is being told to the world. I think they are telling the terrorist that if they are stupid enough to nuke one or more of our cities, there will be hell to pay.

yes, and im sure they will thus cower and retreat.
have you no grasp of reality or do you only believe the
reality this current administration spoon feeds you?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, there is enough blame to go around.

LOL..that pictures great! Is this how America deals with terrorists?

Originally posted by PVS
yes, and im sure they will thus cower and retreat.
have you no grasp of reality or do you only believe the
reality this current administration spoon feeds you?

You know nothing about the military. If our cities were nuked and the president would try to stop the military, they would take over and declare marshal law.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
LOL..that pictures great! Is this how America deals with terrorists?

The terrorists teach there children from birth that the US is evil. We just get our kids drunk and then they become rednecks.

BTW I'm just joking!!!!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You know nothing about the military. If our cities were nuked and the president would try to stop the military, they would take over and declare marshal law.

Everybody already knows that nuking the US will mean they get nuked back... Thats why they don't send nukes at the US. But the US is hearby saying that they can send nukes before attacked. (which btw: goes against NATO regulations). So the US is once again breaking international laws as it see's fit and not just that they are actually saying that they will attack just because a country has nukes. Or more precise because they think they have nukes. Rather safe then sorry seems to be there policy now. Unfortunally for the people in other country's the US is the only place thats going to be safe...

At least if this will work, do you honestly think that if this is allowed people are going to suddenly like the US. The arrogance of it all will only make them more hated around the world.

Originally posted by Fishy
Everybody already knows that nuking the US will mean they get nuked back... Thats why they don't send nukes at the US. But the US is hearby saying that they can send nukes before attacked. (which btw: goes against NATO regulations). So the US is once again breaking international laws as it see's fit and not just that they are actually saying that they will attack just because a country has nukes. Or more precise because they think they have nukes. Rather safe then sorry seems to be there policy now. Unfortunally for the people in other country's the US is the only place thats going to be safe...

At least if this will work, do you honestly think that if this is allowed people are going to suddenly like the US. The arrogance of it all will only make them more hated around the world.

I am not saying what I said out of support for the military. I am just speaking fact. I think it is a bad move for the US, but I understand it, and expect it.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
How fanatic Muslim of them...you know, the flaming sword of Allah and all

are you talking about ??

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am not saying what I said out of support for the military. I am just speaking fact. I think it is a bad move for the US, but I understand it, and expect it.

But of course ;

anything that conflicts into the US interests would be subject to their new 'modus operandi' ; Thats why we didnt see them lift a ginger against the Chechen terrorists

This is how I'd deal with terrorists, especially if they came to my door trying to sell me pegs and wives.

http://www.shobudo.co.za/images/Groin_Kick.jpg

Originally posted by Fishy
Warning: The article is Dutch...

http://frontpage.fok.nl/nieuws/57603

Het Amerikaanse Ministerie van Defensie, ook bekend als het Pentagon, wil preventief nucleaire wapens in kunnen zetten om een aanval van een vijandig land of een terroristische groepering te voorkomen. Daarom adviseert zij de huidige regelgeving voor het inzetten van nucleaire wapens te herzien. Ook wil het ministerie nucleaire wapens kunnen gebruiken om de nucleaire, chemische en biologische voorraden van vijandige staten te vernietigen.

Het Pentagon komt met dit voorstel als onderdeel van de preventieve strategie die president Bush eind 2002 presenteerde. Toen maakte een woordvoerder al bekend dat met een 'overweldigende kracht' opgetreden zal worden tegen vijanden die massavernietigingswapens tegen de Verenigde Staten willen gebruiken. De president zal daarbij 'alle mogelijke opties' tot zijn beschikking hebben.

Er zijn ongeveer 30 naties die massavernietigingswapens produceren en volgens het Pentagon in aanmerking komen voor een preventieve aanval. Daarnaast is er een onbekend aantal terroristische organisaties. Het voorstel moet nog worden goedgekeurd door de minister van Defensie, Donald Rumsfeld.

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

Basically what it says is that there is a new law coming that will allow the US to use nukes to prevent other country's from launching nukes. Donald Rumsfeld still has to approve with the law but I don't really think thats going to be to much trouble.

Yeah this will really stop terrorism... Imagine what could happen if something like this is allowed, or if it was allowed a few years ago. Iraq has WMD's, launch a nuke at a strategic location like Saddam his biggest palace. At this time the Pentagon has a list of about 30 nations that are considered for preventive nuking. 30 nations....

Nations with nukes that the US doesn't like, Nations that could have nukes, or nations with a lot of "terrorists" in it... Great way to create peace and stability...

How the **** will that improve anything? Who came up with this bullshit... This is defiantly a mature way of handling things. An eye for an eye before the eye was even damaged.

Originally posted by Fishy
Warning: The article is Dutch...

http://frontpage.fok.nl/nieuws/57603

Het Amerikaanse Ministerie van Defensie, ook bekend als het Pentagon, wil preventief nucleaire wapens in kunnen zetten om een aanval van een vijandig land of een terroristische groepering te voorkomen. Daarom adviseert zij de huidige regelgeving voor het inzetten van nucleaire wapens te herzien. Ook wil het ministerie nucleaire wapens kunnen gebruiken om de nucleaire, chemische en biologische voorraden van vijandige staten te vernietigen.

Het Pentagon komt met dit voorstel als onderdeel van de preventieve strategie die president Bush eind 2002 presenteerde. Toen maakte een woordvoerder al bekend dat met een 'overweldigende kracht' opgetreden zal worden tegen vijanden die massavernietigingswapens tegen de Verenigde Staten willen gebruiken. De president zal daarbij 'alle mogelijke opties' tot zijn beschikking hebben.

Er zijn ongeveer 30 naties die massavernietigingswapens produceren en volgens het Pentagon in aanmerking komen voor een preventieve aanval. Daarnaast is er een onbekend aantal terroristische organisaties. Het voorstel moet nog worden goedgekeurd door de minister van Defensie, Donald Rumsfeld.

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

Basically what it says is that there is a new law coming that will allow the US to use nukes to prevent other country's from launching nukes. Donald Rumsfeld still has to approve with the law but I don't really think thats going to be to much trouble.

Yeah this will really stop terrorism... Imagine what could happen if something like this is allowed, or if it was allowed a few years ago. Iraq has WMD's, launch a nuke at a strategic location like Saddam his biggest palace. At this time the Pentagon has a list of about 30 nations that are considered for preventive nuking. 30 nations....

Nations with nukes that the US doesn't like, Nations that could have nukes, or nations with a lot of "terrorists" in it... Great way to create peace and stability...
It's a great incentive for WWIII to kick off. Which I sincerely hope to god does not happen.

Seen as how I don't read Dutch, I'm going to take this for what it's worth...a jumble of crud translated by someone. Fishy, not saying it's not an accurate translation, s'just...I think there'd have been something along these lines released in English too, y'know...so we could READ it

Meh, no one trusts or believes the dutch. This is probably some bullshit they wrote to spice up more anti-american sentiment.

If it were true, we'd hear about it from somewhere other than a silly biased dutch newspaper.

Revised US nuclear doctrine outlines preemption strategy
Boston Globe, September 11, 2005

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to preempt an attack by a nation or terror group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.

The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing the use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.

At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States would ''respond with overwhelming force" to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces, or allies, and said ''all options" would be available to the president.

The draft, dated March 15, would provide authoritative guidance for commanders to request presidential approval for using nuclear weapons, and represents the Pentagon's first attempt to revise procedures to reflect the Bush preemption doctrine. A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration, contains no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from weapons of mass destruction.

Titled ''Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" and written under the direction of Air Force General Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the draft document is unclassified and available on a Pentagon website. It is expected to be signed within a few weeks by Air Force Lieutenant General Norton A. Schwartz, director of the Joint Staff, according to Navy Commander Dawn Cutler, a public affairs officer in Myers's office. Meanwhile, the draft is going through final coordination with the military services, the combatant commanders, Pentagon legal authorities, and Rumsfeld's office, Cutler said in a written statement.

A ''summary of changes" included in the draft identifies differences from the 1995 doctrine and says the new document ''revises the discussion of nuclear weapons use across the range of military operations."

The first example for potential nuclear weapon use listed in the draft is against an enemy that is using ''or intending to use WMD" against US or allied, multinational military forces or civilian populations.

Another scenario for a possible nuclear preemptive strike is in case of an ''imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy."

That and other provisions in the document appear to refer to nuclear initiatives proposed by the administration that Congress has thus far declined to fully support.

Last year, for example, Congress refused to fund research toward the development of nuclear weapons that could destroy biological or chemical weapons materials without dispersing them into the atmosphere. The draft document also envisions the use of atomic weapons for ''attacks on adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons."

But Congress last year halted the funding of a study to determine the viability of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator warhead -- commonly called the bunker buster -- that the Pentagon has said is needed to attack hardened, deeply buried weapons sites.

The Joint Staff draft doctrine explains that despite the end of the Cold War, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction ''raises the danger of nuclear weapons use."

It says that there are ''about thirty nations with WMD programs" along with terrorists ''either independently or as sponsored by an adversarial state."

To meet that situation, the document says that ''responsible security planning requires preparation for threats that are possible, though perhaps unlikely today."

To deter the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, the Pentagon paper says preparations must be made to use nuclear weapons and show determination to use them ''if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use."

The draft says that to deter a potential adversary from using weapons of mass destruction, that adversary's leadership must ''believe the United States has both the ability and will to preempt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective." The draft also notes that US policy in the past has ''repeatedly rejected calls for adoption of 'no first use' policy of nuclear weapons since this policy could undermine deterrence."

Wow. Wouldn't have believed it unless I saw it....... Always thought we were a bit above that.

What stops others from doing the same shit to us?

Originally posted by long pig


Wow. Wouldn't have believed it unless I saw it....... Always thought we were a bit above that.

What stops others from doing the same shit to us? I suppose technically Mutually Assured Destruction prevents launch of nuclear weapons - this is the theory that if one side were to launch nuclear weapons that would provoke the other side to launch nuclear weapons, resulting in - an assumption which has thus far proved sufficient deterrent against any country launching a first strike - that neither side would survive a nuclear war and that the world as a whole would not survive the nuclear fallout.

To my knowledge only the Bush Administration, of any country's Executive branch has pursued any form of policy in regards to preemptive nuclear strike.

America wants to take over the world, just like Hitler wanted to , but they are doing it over an enormously protracted period of time so it seems as if it is not happening at all, perhaps even centuries, and are doing it in a more covert way, not making the same mistakes as hitler did so that they can get away with it.

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid!

oh...plz this will Never happen our Goverment Will NOT approve this!! No way!!!

Says the member with the Green Day signature.

Do not trust your government, they do not care about YOU