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 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 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
Re: America's newest of way of dealing with terrorist
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...
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."
Originally posted by long pigI 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.
😮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?
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!