It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


pre-emptive nuclear strikes

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 3 2005 @ 07:44 PM
This is a good example of why the Foriegn Policy of the US is going to lead the war into a major nuclear conflict, and probably soon. It isn't the hyprocrisy of saying to the rest of the world that they aren't allowed to develop the same weapons we threaten them with, but it is the word pre-emptive that scares the crap out of me. Citing weapons of mass destruction as our reasoning for an agressive nuclear stance... I wonder how many more people are going to die due to 'faulty intelligence' with this kind of garbage for a policy. Pre-emptive is a nice way of saying Paranoid Bully.
U.S. may allow nuke strikes over WMD
Proposal would reverse 10-year policy

WASHINGTON (Kyodo) The U.S. military is considering allowing regional combatant commanders to request presidential approval for pre-emptive nuclear strikes against possible attacks with weapons of mass destruction on the United States or its allies, according to a draft nuclear operations paper.
The March 15 paper, drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is titled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," providing "guidelines for the joint employment of forces in nuclear operations . . . for the employment of U.S. nuclear forces, command and control relationships, and weapons effect considerations."

"There are numerous nonstate organizations (terrorist, criminal) and about 30 nations with WMD programs, including many regional states," the paper says in recommending that commanders in the Pacific and other theaters be given an option of pre-emptive strikes against "rogue" states and terrorists and "request presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons" under set conditions.

Bush needs to go before we all end up in the midst of a nuclear war. Yes it is that serious.

posted on May, 3 2005 @ 10:29 PM
I think the problem is that Bush and his cronies thought that people around the globe were idoits so instead of saying that gulf war 2 is the domino theroy repackaged for democracy they told us some BS about Iraqs WMDs .

This is what happens when a bunch of ex pats who see a chance at gaining power in there country of origin. It just so happens that Bush and his cronies choose to belvie the intel that the ex pats supplied.

Remember americans relected Bush the best we can hope for is that the american people dont elected any more neo cons in 2008.

I agree the US is a hyprocrit at times but the USA worst enemy is the USA. Isolationism is more dangerous then playing Las Vegas with corrupt regimes. The USA can still have a postive impact on the world without making bets that will come back to haunt it.

I dont think its just dawning on Bush how much nation building costs nor do I think Bush has heard the phrase "fix one problem before working on another one."

posted on May, 3 2005 @ 10:34 PM
This was already posted. It's no big deal - do you really think the USA wouldn't have made such plans for a worst case scenario? Every country on the planet draws up such contingency plans. It's both sensible and acts a message to other countries to watch their backs. Heck, there's probably a contingency plan for if Canada decided to invade kicking around somewhere in the Pentagon...

posted on May, 3 2005 @ 11:00 PM
I would hardly consider preemptive Nuclear strikes a contingency plan...
well more of what we've come to expect from the nuts in charge...

posted on May, 3 2005 @ 11:06 PM
Of course it is. Do you really think this means the US is going to start nuking people for the fun of it? It just means that if they had hard evidence that, for example, NK was going to fire some WMD off at Japan, SK, USA, etc, they would quickly be able to stamp out the threat with nukes - if it was deemed necessary. Of course it will never come to that more than likely - but tell me which country doesn't make such plans?

posted on May, 3 2005 @ 11:46 PM
It can be very effective, and when first one gets it all others will bow before the great power. Is it?
Anyway it is maybe wiser then this one in Iraq, at least soldiers won't get killed, and yes some countries are severely evil in their intentions so they deserve it. After few bombs all countries in that region will also get doze of radiation if I am right?
In fact we all get some doze of radiation which goes up in the atmospehere and can fall down with the rain is it true?
Anyway I think one will fall this year. It is long prepared plan of US governement, not to mention NATO.

posted on May, 3 2005 @ 11:54 PM
I wouldn't expect anything less out of the Bush administration. Anybody who actually did vote for the man is getting what they voted for. A homicidal maniac who thinks he's doing good.

posted on May, 4 2005 @ 08:13 AM
Yup, I have to agree, this is no contingency plan, this is a policy being set which quite literally threatens the entire planet. The really ironic thing is that we just concluded that Iraq had no WMD's just before this. In other words, if our "Intelligence" thinks you have WMD's, we are going to nuke you. That must be a comforting thought to the rest of the world eh?

posted on May, 4 2005 @ 08:22 AM
Teddy Roosevelt said, "Speak softly, and carry a big stick". Is it possible that Georgie Boy is simply reminding everyone who has the big stick?

Edited for silly error - Dan

[edit on 4-5-2005 by sigung86]

posted on May, 4 2005 @ 08:26 AM
Humm, what about the plan the Russians have which pretty much claims more or less the same thing that is in that link you provided, which has not been accepted or signed yet by the president.

May 2000
Putin Signs New Military Doctrine, Fleshing Out Security Concept
Philipp C. Bleek
THE RUSSIAN SECURITY Council approved and President Vladimir Putin signed a new military doctrine April 21 that replaces the doctrine adopted in 1993 and "fleshes out" the military policy elaborated in Russia's 2000 national security concept, formally adopted in January. (See ACT, January/February 2000.) Like the security concept, the new doctrine appears to lower Russia's threshold for using nuclear weapons when attacked with conventional weapons. It also explicitly states that Russia's nuclear deterrent can be used to respond to all "weapons of mass destruction" attacks and reaffirms Russia's negative security assurances to non-nuclear- weapon states. (See document.)
The military doctrine, an 8,000-word document addressing a wide range of military issues, reaffirms the 1993 doctrine's call for a substantial Russian nuclear deterrent and authorizes the use of nuclear weapons to respond to "large-scale aggression utilizing conventional weapons in situations critical to the national security of the Russian Federation. " Like the nuclear policy elaborated in the 2000 security concept, this statement appears to permit the use of nuclear weapons in a broader range of circumstances than the previous version of the security concept, which was issued in 1997 and allowed nuclear weapons use only "in case of a threat to the existence of the Russian Federation."

The doctrine also says Russia "reserves the right to use nuclear weapons" when responding "to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against [Russia] and (or) its allies." This statement, which appears to mirror the implied U.S policy for using nuclear weapons, marks the first time Russia has explicitly permitted the use of nuclear weapons to respond to "weapons of mass destruction" attacks. In 1993, Russia abandoned its declared policy of not being the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict under any circumstances.

In addition to addressing the use of nuclear weapons, the doctrine also includes a statement on negative security assurances, which delineate situations in which nuclear weapons will not be used. The doctrine states that Russia will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) except in the event of an attack on Russia, its armed forces, or a Russian ally that is "carried out or supported" by a non-nuclear-weapon state "jointly or in the context of allied commitments" with a nuclear-weapon state. This statement closely parallels assurances given by the United States in 1995 and reaffirmed in 1997.

Earlier drafts of the doctrine did not contain negative security assurances, which Russia included in its 1993 military doctrine and reaffirmed at the 1995 NPT review and extension conference. A senior Russian official confirmed that the assurances had been intentionally removed from initial drafts of the new doctrine. They appear to have been reinserted into the doctrine following circulation of an earlier draft.

The new military doctrine, like the 1993 doctrine, also extends Russia's nuclear umbrella to Russia's allies. In an April 25 news conference, Colonel General Valery Manilov, senior deputy chief of the Armed Forces General Staff, stated that allies referred to in the doctrine include Belarus and other members of the Commonwealth of Independent States that have entered into alliance agreements with Russia.

Excerpted from.

BTW, do you even know what the Chinese posture is on pre-emptive nuclear attacks? i doubt you know, very few people actually know, but the new draft done by the Chinese government making legal an attack on Taiwan if they try to declare independence should give you a hint on what their policy is...

posted on May, 4 2005 @ 09:07 AM
If North Korea can go around spouting about its nuclear deterent force then the United States has the right to publicly state that preemptive nuclear strikes are on the table. The Government has a duty to protect the citizens of the USA first and if this means we have to turn N Korea into a radioactive wasteland , then so be it.

If one day in the not too distant future N Korea ceases to exsist - dont say we didnt warn you

posted on May, 4 2005 @ 10:20 AM

I agree with you. To protect the people, that's the whole goal here. If its the people of the United States or the people of S. Korea, or Japan. Its to protect the people.

posted on May, 4 2005 @ 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Muaddib
Humm, what about the plan the Russians have ...using nuclear weapons when attacked respond to "large-scale aggression The doctrine also says Russia "reserves the right to use nuclear weapons" when responding "to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against [Russia] and (or) its allies." ...permitted the use of nuclear weapons to respond to "weapons of mass destruction" attacks.

There's a huge difference between saying we will use these weapons if attacked, and we will use these weapons pre-emptively.
Jesus, doesn't it bother anyone here that the new Policy here includes the words pre-emptive and nuclear? Do you have any idea how many nations are now considered hostile to US interests? ALOT, and most of them have a "poorly defined" WMD of some sort, don't they?

posted on May, 4 2005 @ 04:23 PM
Has any country besides the US actually used a nuke against another country? I know durring WW2 the US nuked Japan. And.. why are nukes always the "trump card"? Everytime trouble pops up everyone is all "OH NO THEIR GONNA NUKE US!!!" or its us thats saying YEA WE'RE GONNA NUKE YOU!!

posted on May, 4 2005 @ 08:26 PM
We've got the nukes (400+), might as well use point in having them if we don't. Besides the only president to ever order a nuclear device dropped on a civilian/military position was a worry not ye of little faith.

posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 08:47 PM
Well, nobody is really saying it, but it's on everybody's mind at the moment. I hope our new preemptive 'policy' here doesn't apply to recent events in Georgia. Crazy stuff man.

posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 12:21 PM
The current events in Georgia won't result in a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as I doubt even GWB is that stupid.

Let's be honest, the US would only use pre-emptive nukes on a nation/threat that has no hope of hitting the USA. Even then, I doubt who ever orders such a strike would stay in office for long. Any strike against a nation that does have the capability (or is good friends with one) would be very costly for the US.

There's no point lobbing buckets of sunshine around unless you are willing to receive some in return.

posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 01:19 PM
The Neocons took us to war with pretty weak evidence because it was what they wanted to hear since they had Iraq as a target all along. Do we really want these same people making the call to use nuclear weapons in a preemptive manner? It will end badly for all of us the whole world. These people should not be trusted with nukes they should be tried for war crimes. The 4th branch of government is just as much to blame for giving the neocons so much air time to make their lying case tot he public. The propaganda arm of the government made certain the support for war was provided to the administration by acting like a echo chamber for the most wrong and hostile voices in support of the war.

new topics

top topics


log in