America's newest of way of dealing with terrorist

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?