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.


US develops strategy for first use of WMD against WMD

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 03:16 PM
I remember reading a sign at protest that something along the lines of 'Fighting for peace is like 'having sex' for virginity' (the original sign replaced the quoted words 'having sex' with a favorable four letter 'f' word.)

Anyway, this brings me to the sudden realization that fighting Weapons of Mass Destruction with Weapons of Mass Destruction is like...err..wait. Are they serious?

Apparently they are, and this can be applicable under a variety of situations. Which is even scarier then can possibly be imagined. I mean...2,000+ U.S. Soldiers have already died because of a logistics failure (Iraq had no WMD). When this strategy goes into effect, instead of a convient country invasion, countries might be completely green glasses instead, leaving a glowing nuclear glow for the next 50 years.

Jesus Christ, how did mankind even get this far?

The Pentagon has drawn up a new strategy, built on the 2002 "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive military strikes, that would allow the United States to make first use of nuclear weapons to thwart an attack using weapons of mass destruction against the country.

Under the scheme, developed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff but yet to be ratified by Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, commanders would be able to request permission from the President to use nuclear weapons in a variety of scenarios. According to The Washington Post, one scenario is of an enemy that is using, or "is about to use", WMD against US military forces or the civilian population. Another is where nuclear weapons could be used against biological weapons that an enemy was close to using, and which could only be safely destroyed by nuclear weapons and their after-effects.

In practice, the strategy would update existing guidelines, drawn up in 1995 under the Clinton administration. It would fit in with plans mooted by the Pentagon to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons, specifically designed to attack enemy bunkers holding WMD, which could be buried deep underground.

posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 03:25 PM
i view this as just 1 of 1000's of plans that the pentagon has in place. they would have plans for every possible war or first strike plans they could think of. remember that when you hear them come out with these things.
ok they may have used depleted uranium already in iraq etc... but i beleve from what you mean is most of the general public will view it as nuclear weapons as we seen in japan at the end of ww2.

i just view it as the pentagon has 1000's of plans in place at any one time to cover every situation, while obviously this plan would be silly, they must have released this info for a reason. maybe some sort of conditioning on there part. you never know today.

posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 04:17 PM
This is very similar to the MAD train of thought that was built up during the Cold War. We have nukes, you have nukes, so don't nuke us or we'll nuke you back. The difference, as you pointed out, is that this is not using WMDs to prevent WMD attacks, this is using WMDs as preemptive strikes, to hit first.


Having just started The Art of War last night, let me quote Sun Tzu. "All warfare is beased on deception." Whenever you're fighting, your goal is to confuse the enemy. When you're dealing on such a level as with WMDs, it is imperative your enemy (including prospective targets) have no idea what's going on. Toss that in with the fact that, other than NK and Iran, these groups are subversive, hard to find, scattered, very little is known about them, and very little is definite. You can't wage massive war against these groups, it just isn't possible.

If you use diplomacy for the wrong reason, nothing bad comes of it. If you go to war to prevent an attack, there will be a lot of fallout if and when your intelligence shows up false. If you preemptively strike with WMDs, the fallout (pun intended) would be enormous. Not to mention the US citicizens rising up, but the entire global government would be outraged. It's a stupid policy, and is incredibly unpractical. They HAVE to know that.

I'm willing to bet this is a scare tactic.

new topics

log in