It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

WAR: U.S. Envisions Using Nukes on Terrorists

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 12:36 AM
link   
A Pentagon planning document envision the use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction. The document which was revised to reflect the doctrine of pre-emption. The document describes one scenario for nuclear pre emptive strikes as an "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy.". The document also make very clear that any release of nuclear weapons must come from the President.
 



news.yahoo.com
WASHINGTON - A Pentagon planning document being updated to reflect the doctrine of pre-emption declared by President Bush in 2002 envisions the use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies.

The "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," which was last updated 10 years ago, makes clear that "the decision to employ nuclear weapons at any level requires explicit orders from the president."

But it says that in a changing environment "terrorists or regional states armed with WMD will likely test U.S. security commitments to its allies and friends."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


You could build a case for this, but there are way to many unknowns. First your intel would have to the 100% before you popped off a nuclear weapon. Although the yea or nay evidence would be destroyed at any rate. Countries would not take kindly to a nuclear weapons release within thier borders or near them as the fallout could affect many (Yes even for the ground penetrators). I simply feel there is no feasible way to use a tactical nuclear device without major issues.




posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Does that means that they will nuke Afghanistan/Iran? Or what? Maybe nuke their own country, the United States!



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
A Pentagon planning document envision the use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction. The document which was revised to reflect the doctrine of pre-emption. The document describes one scenario for nuclear pre emptive strikes as an "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy.". The document also make very clear that any release of nuclear weapons must come from the President.
 



news.yahoo.com
WASHINGTON - A Pentagon planning document being updated to reflect the doctrine of pre-emption declared by President Bush in 2002 envisions the use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies.

The "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," which was last updated 10 years ago, makes clear that "the decision to employ nuclear weapons at any level requires explicit orders from the president."

But it says that in a changing environment "terrorists or regional states armed with WMD will likely test U.S. security commitments to its allies and friends."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


You could build a case for this, but there are way to many unknowns. First your intel would have to the 100% before you popped off a nuclear weapon. Although the yea or nay evidence would be destroyed at any rate. Countries would not take kindly to a nuclear weapons release within thier borders or near them as the fallout could affect many (Yes even for the ground penetrators). I simply feel there is no feasible way to use a tactical nuclear device without major issues.


To start off with, Fred I do agree with you on the issue that you can not release a nuclear weapon on "terrorist" which would cause catastrophic damage to the environment, the people living in that enviroment, and all of the psychological trama this would cause, without facing major issues with the people this has effected. How would other countries look at our actions?
What unknown variables would take place? Could this cause an international war with other countries? I am wondering what circumastances would pressure the United States to drop nuclear bombs on terrorist? What other methods could we use to deal with this situation?



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Very interesting. I wonde if this will be used as an excuse to nuke Iran.

However I must say this doesn't sound all too feasible. Simply put, it's very hard to distingush terrorist from civilian. Thats why nuking doesn't work. Terrorists hide amongst civilians, making it very difficult to just go and launch a nuke. When you nuke terrorists you're almost certain to nuke at least three times as many civilians. That and seing as theres no actual terrorist nation (Saudia Arabia isn't officially terrorist) you're nuking somebody else's territory when employing nuclear weapons. Fallout also factors in, which ends up pissing off nations bordering the nuked nation to boot.

So I'm not exactly sure how we plan on nuking terrorists.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Ya, this makes sense. In order to thwart "terrorists" from using weapons of mass destruction. Why not use weapons of mass destruction of them instead!! ?? Jeez how stupid can you get? This is why the rest of the world hates the US govt. Because they are complete idiots, who don't think about the long term repercussions of their actions.

Like seriously folks! Wasn't the whole reason we went to war in Iraq to find their weapons of Mass destruction? (Which still haven't been found) Now the US is considering using weapons of mass destruction on countries like Iraq? WTF?!?! This is stupidest thing I have read in a long time!

I think it is time to take out the real terrorists. And everyone here knows who I mean!


apc

posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Admitted there are many unknowns and loose ends, it seems the purpose of this revision is very clear: there are many biological and chemical armaments that can only be destroyed with the intense heat and radiation of a nuclear detonation.

We know the pentagon has been developing incredably low yield tactical nuclear devices.. who's to say these would not be the weapons that come into play? I'm talking about the potential use of 1KT or lower yield warheads. These weapons do not pump immense amounts of fallout into the air, they do not irradiate the ground water layer, and they do not pose a significant risk to any surrounding populus.

However, as I said, who knows what bombs the authors had in mind. This could be one of many markers for the beginning of the end. Don't you just wish you were a cockroach right about now? Maybe a twinkie?



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 03:42 AM
link   
This makes little sense to me. Whats the point of stopping the use of a weapon of mass destruction...by using a weapon of mass destruction? It beggars belief that this is even being considered by the Pentagon.

If its to remove a threat on foreign soil before its shipped to the United States then why isnt the threat removed via conventional military means? i.e. cruise missiles and/or marines? Like you said in your concluding paragraph Fred, you would need absolute 100% concrete evidence of WMD's before you lobbed a nuclear weapon at them. Why not use that 100% concrete evidence to send in a cruise missile or Delta Force?

Or is this a scare-tactic of pre-emption for people who are prepared to die any way? Another oxymoronic premise. Lets scare suicide bombers who believe they will be going to paradise for their actions by threatening to vapourize them in a nuclear explosion!



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 03:57 AM
link   
Something's got to be done not just as an enforcement but as a serious deterant. I have said at the height of ATS v Terrorism debates - make sure we note what Country their from.

It really has to come down to that. A detonation within the free world has to be retaliated to a country of origin. Terrorist's Woman & Children and relatives have to know there is a threat as there is for western Woman & Children that could be subject to life endangerment.

Just the hard cold facts of terrorism speaks to war and has no boundaries unfortunately.

Dallas



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 07:13 AM
link   
OH GREAT!!! This administration really does have its head up its ass!!! And I always thought it was a colorful metaphor
!!! To use nuclear weapons on terrorists who now that Afghanistan and the taliban has been swated have no large bases and are scattered about the globe in small cells is bright real bright. More than anything this idea, and I use the term loosely, very loosely, finally proves once and for all that this administration has absolutely no clue who or what it is fighting. Do you really think that dropping a nuclear bomb which these days are tens or hundreds of times larger than we dropped on Japan on a few hundred or thousand (its not like they have conventions ya know) terrorists on a poor country like Afghanistan, or the Phillipines or indonesia is going to be a deterrant? No try gasoline on a fire...IDIOTS!!!



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 07:44 AM
link   
This looks to me as though the USAdmin is paving the way for the Iran war.Yet again they are preparing us in advance,so that when nukes are used,we can`t all say "you never said you would use nukes!"
The way i see it,these evil doers (USAdmin) have their hearts set on mass destuction,they are actually getting exited about the use of nuclear weapons,and they will manipulate the media/population in order to get what they want.
How can anyone in a supposedly civilised nation even consider vapourising the flesh of new born babies,women,policemen,doctors?
How can anyone think that by spreading radio active poison across someone else`s homeland,you can create peace?
The USA govt wishes to create peace and democracy through the use of murder, torture,fear and opression......How screwed up is that???
How can anyone,in any country,support these totalitarian murderers?
And if you think i`m crazy to think this way,remember the USA and UK use Depleted Uranium like its going out of fashion......causing cancers,birth defects and a slow death indescriminatley---Soliders/insurgents/babies.....DU does not descriminate.
So we know these fools are not against radiation weapons.
The doomsday clock is at 7 mins to midnight......i think we should be at 3 mins by now.
ARE WE HAVING FUN YET ?



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by CPYKOmega
Ya, this makes sense. In order to thwart "terrorists" from using weapons of mass destruction.


It's known as the "American [Government] Moral High-ground", anyone with half an ounce of common sense knows it no longer exists.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Something's got to be done not just as an enforcement but as a serious deterant. I have said at the height of ATS v Terrorism debates - make sure we note what Country their from.


The thing is, terrorists aren't operating on behalf of any country or nation - they're by definition, rogue.

Most of the 9/11 group (assuming we're going with the theory that they actually did exist) were from Saudi Arabia - is it reasonable to hold Saudi Arabia responsible? How about Lebanon (Jarrah) and Egypt (Atta)?

Noting their country of origin is always a good move, but it's not an indicator of who's actually responsible; furthermore if you go back far enough, you could feasibly blame the CIA and US for equipping rebels in Pakistan and Aghanistan in the 1980s (to fight against the Russians), which directly led up to bin Laden's strength and capability, and by extension, 9/11 itself; not to mention the huge funds pumped into Saudi Arabia at the same time.

It's nigh on impossible to deter a terrorist, and for one very simple reason.

He does not fear death.

What are you going to threaten him with?



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Quick Question:

If I got a group together, went and bombed America would it then be fine by you if the United Kingdom was attacked?

Or Australia?

Canada?

Mexico?

Because of a few people in those Nation's...that's so stupid it pains me to see it on the screen.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Happy 9-11 anniversary from your mainscream media

The media's timely release says. "Beware the nuclear boogieman!"



Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, Fall 2005
www.nukestrat.com...

The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.


[edit on 11-9-2005 by Regenmacher]



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   
"A Pentagon planning document envision the use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction."

LOL.

A reader could be excused for finding such levels of doublespeak/doublethink amusing. I give up, I really do.......It's all just beyond belief.

You Nuke anyone over this and 3/4 of the World will physically turn on you. Terrorism is a mentality, not a region, or city, how do you Nuke it?



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   
So...let me get this straight...

The US will use a Weapon of Mass Desctruction to deter those with Weapons of Mass Destruction.

It's not a Democracy anymore, it's a Hypocrisy.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
You could build a case for this, but there are way to many unknowns. First your intel would have to the 100% before you popped off a nuclear weapon. Although the yea or nay evidence would be destroyed at any rate.

I agree - but WHEN was the Bush administration 100% sure about anything concerning their foreign politics?

That's like saying - Saddam has WMD's, let's Nuke Iraq!

He did not have them - oops, we made a mistake and left Iraq a desert of Glass rocks.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   
This makes me glad Canada and China are now getting along. HAHAHA At least we will have China as an ally when everyone else starts attacking america. (That is if America decides to actually use their nukes)


la2

posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   
the problem is this.............

usually those who control a nuclear arsenal are stopped from using them by a prevailing sanity, does anyone really think Bush would hesitate using nukes given the chance?



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   
In other words the government plans to nuke us here, and the big one will land in Washington?

You know, this isnt even worthy of posting on. Now Bush can get up one morning, after one of his "falls" from his bike and take it out on the world.
Give him all the rope so he can hang the world.

Who is running this country anyway? The devil? What what???

I hope divine intervension from above happens soon enough. I'd rather die from a natural collision with planet X than have the leader of the FREE WORLD do us in.

How can you not read such articles and become sick? HOW can one hold back, wringing hands and gritting your teeth when you hear this?

Sorry if i am over emotional this morning
but stuff like this puts me over the edge.


Is this world mad? (as in daffy?)

Please planet X, wont you come by soon.




top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join