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.

 

The USA's Nuclear Attack Plan in the Event of a Terrorist WMD Attack

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 07:36 AM
link   
Want to know what the official US plan is in the event of a terrorist WMD attack on the US? Well it’s nuclear....

This report was accidentally posted on a government website this past weekend, it was immediately removed…

“Joint Publication 3-12”

“Doctrine For Joint Nuclear Operations”

View PDF here

A little taste:



The US defense strategy aims to achieve four key goals that
guide the development of US forces capabilities, their
development and use: assuring allies and friends of the US
steadfastness of purpose and its capability to fulfill its security
commitment; dissuading adversaries from undertaking
programs or operations that could threaten US interests or those
of our allies and friends; deterring aggression and coercion by
deploying forward the capacity to swiftly defeat attacks and
imposing sever penalties for aggression on an adversary’s military
capability and supporting infrastructure; and, decisively defeating
an adversary if deterrence fails.

The 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) constituted the first
comprehensive review of nuclear forces since 1994. Because of
the critical role played by US nuclear forces in the national security
strategy of the United States and its allies, the report was broader
in scope than required by law. In a significant change to the US
approach to offensive nuclear weapons, the 2001 NPR articulated
a new capabilities-based strategy for US strategic nuclear forces
that recognizes the unpredictable security environment and
responds to US strategic deterrence objectives and force capability
requirements.

The new triad offers a mix of strategic offensive and defensive
capabilities that includes nuclear and nonnuclear strike
capabilities, active and passive defenses, and a robust research,
development, and industrial infrastructure to develop, build, and
maintain offensive forces and defensive systems. Enhanced
command and control (C2), intelligence, and adaptive planning
capabilities support the new triad. The new triad provides a deterrence
posture suitable for the emerging threat environment; it incorporates
post-Cold War advances in defensive and nonnuclear capabilities;


New threats = new doctrines and rules to combat them.

BOOM!




[edit on 13-9-2005 by skippytjc]

[edit on 14-9-2005 by John bull 1]




posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 07:59 AM
link   
This is the scary part that most terrorists and thier supporters do not understand. How will the USA react to a nuclear attack? It will be devastating to the Middle East! Iran and Syria would probably be targeted first for giving shelter and aid. But there is one certainty, the President and the DOD must take every step necessary to protect the security of America and make sure that a second attack is not possible. This means elliminating any threat with extreme prejudice. Who that will be and how it will be carried out? I can only guess. Will it be done? Put it this way, it will give the term, 'Shock and Awe' a whole new meaning!



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Delete. *I give up, sigh*

[edit on 13-9-2005 by 7th_Chakra]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by 7th_Chakra
Your response to matters which claim lives at home is just a dumb.


[edit on 13-9-2005 by 7th_Chakra]


"Your..."


LOL, who do you mean? Me? All Americans? That’s quite a generalization. Your response implies that ALL Americans are behind that doctrine. Racism starts that way...



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by 7th_Chakra
Your response to matters which claim lives at home is just a dumb.


Who will you hit with this bomb? don't say Mecca please, terrorists aren't interested in Mecca, infact I bet they would love you to bomb it, it would turn the WHOLE Muslim world against you.

Playing into the hands of the enemy. Well done!


[edit on 13-9-2005 by 7th_Chakra]








All I can say to this is if you want to find out then let the terrorist go ahead with thier plans to nuke the States. Up to this point most of the fighting has been done with conventional weapons. The United States will not be the first to use such weapons but we will be the last. If that sounds arrogant to you then so be it. We will do whatever we need to do to assure that America survives and to assure that America can never be attacked again. We have been saying it all along and the world is not listening, if the terrorists escalate this war with Nuclear or Biochemical weapons then the USA will escalate it's response. Any country that is determined to have given aide or shelter to the terrorist will then be a target. That is as clear as I can put it.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD)

The President, as the Commander in Chief, heads the military chain of command within the Department of Defense. The Commander in Chief is kept abreast of all matters affecting the ability of the Department of Defense to defend the United States and its allies. The offices of the Secretary of Defense; the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and their supporting establishments (the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force); and various unified and specified commands make up the DOD. The Department of Defense is the largest government agency in the United States. It spends a major portion of the national budget and employs nearly 4 million people (military and civilian). The DOD carries out the military policies of the United States. Its functions, simply stated, are to maintain and employ armed forces to accomplish the following:

1) Support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies.

2) Protect the United States, its possessions, and areas vital to its interests.

3) Advance the policies and interests of the United States

4) Safeguard the internal security of the United States



It is the fourth function that is important here! The President and the DOD are mandated by law to protect the internal security of the United States.
Which simply means that if there is a nuclear strike on US soil, then all steps militarily possible must be taken to assure that, 'IT CAN NEVER
HAPPEN AGAIN', period. Let there be no confusion as to what that means!
This is what the terrorist and those that support the terrorist do not understand. It is not a 'Nuclear Option' it is a mandate!



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   
This whole thing is very distrubing and a mess..........

First, we are planning nuke attacks in retailation to a WMD attack in the US?

hmm............I don't know about you, but it sure looks like our wonderful government is just looking for a WMD attack here by keeping our borders wide open..........

We should be preventing attacks here first by closing our borders then worry about how we retailiate........

and what retailation are we taking about??

How would you remove the terrorist termites of the World by destroying parts of the house??...............too much colleral damage no matter how tactical the nuke.............

Me thinks our retailiation has an alternative agenda that uses the excuse of allowing an attack here to do some more democracizing in the Middle East where we need stable oil supplies while avoiding a Euro standard to oil trade.......

......in that case.........

Are we just not posturing with this strategy to focus on attacking the underground nuclear sites in Iran and need to use tactical nuclear weapons to do such?? (and that's ugly enough with the warning that China sent our way recently about how we fight terrorism).

Did you see where a person was arrest recently (muslim terrorist) for planning to kill Bush?

and asked how he got here he said through Mexico and that other terrorist cells are coming through as well.....??

Will we close the borders to prevent an attack here??

No.........of couse not............too much corporate pressure to encourage slave labor in America.........

As a result this whole mess and our middle east goals are looking more and more like an orchestration of what our government wants to do.......

Defend our constitution my butt................how come we don't protect our borders first...........

Defend our allies?.................If we start nuking the middle east we won't have any allies left...............

What a disaster this country is today...........



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Skippy, I ment your govement. I think you knew that though.....

Yorga, well I hope we never find out because one faulty piece of intelligence and you have nuked an innocent country, which in turn means more enemies!

[edit on 13-9-2005 by 7th_Chakra]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yorga
4) Safeguard the internal security of the United States

It is the fourth function that is important here! The President and the DOD are mandated by law to protect the internal security of the United States.
Which simply means that if there is a nuclear strike on US soil, then all steps militarily possible must be taken to assure that, 'IT CAN NEVER
HAPPEN AGAIN', period. Let there be no confusion as to what that means!
This is what the terrorist and those that support the terrorist do not understand. It is not a 'Nuclear Option' it is a mandate!


I think that the response needs to be tailored to the type of attack, otherwise we might be swatting flies with dynamite after the flies have left. If it can be shown that the US was attacked with a WMD with the consent or aid of a nation/state then I wouldn't want to be in that nation/state. We may not nuke them but I can guarentee that there will be a response. If support can't be shown then I don't see us just nuking the vicinity. Personally I don't believe that the terrorists are that stupid. Right now they have the support of a number of Muslims and several countries are either sympathetic or are taking a stance of favored neutrality. If they were to launch a WMD attack on the US they would lose that in an instant. The problem right now is that the US is trying to basically fight a polite war. Yes I mean polite, we are allowing many of these countries to eliminate the terrorists on their own while providing resources and aid to them. If we were not so polite we would start operations in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia on our own. Any type of WMD attack would mean that the gloves would have to come off anything less would mean political suicide for the party in power.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   
A nuclear response has always been the US response from a WMD attack on the US.

Say terrorist nuke a US city they didnt make that uranium themselves. It would have to be given,purchased or stolen from a Nuclear power. If for example the nuclear weapon was traced back to N Korea, Iran whatever that could very well be perceived as a WMD attack from that country and warrant a nuclear response.


Just like with Cuba during the missile crisis. We knew they got them from Russia and even if Russia had nothing to do with calling for a nuclear attack from Cuba it would be perceived as a attack by Russia itself on the US.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 10:27 AM
link   
We can dance around this issue all day and try to stay politically correct, but there comes a time when all the blinders have to come off. Porus borders with Canada or Mexico, it doesn't matter how it gets here. What matters is if it gets here and is set off, what will happen next. America could take the hit, do nothing and turn the other cheek. But everybody here knows that isn't going to happen. Bush and Co. have been spelling it out from the very beginning since 9/11. America demanded a response and two Middle Eastern countries have paid the price. Whether you agree with Bush's attack on Iraq or not, it was and is a message to the terrorist, the Middle- East and the rest of the world. Bomb Mecca? Hardly, that is thinking way too small. All you have to do is look at the news and you can see who the targets will be. Rice is seeking sanctions against Iran, Syria is being blamed for sending in weapons and insurgents to Iraq. Doesn't take a genius to figure out what is going on here. It would take a complete lunatic to bring a Nuke into America and set it off, but that appears to be what Benny Laden and his minnions want to do. If that happens the public outcry that will be heard across America for retallition against the Middle East will rock the foundation of the world. This is not speculation on my part, it is a undeniable fact!



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   
I don't agree at all. We started this war on terror, a concept if yuo look can never be defeated because we can't decide who, where, and what the terrorist are.

It is limited vision to lump everybody in the middle east in one category and say they are all anti-American.

It reminds me of a guy named Kindred from NYC. When he learned I was from Texas he asked, "Does everyboy there ride horses and rope cattle all day?"



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   
"There is only one way to get rid of nuclear weapons, use them"



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by garyo1954
I don't agree at all. We started this war on terror, a concept if yuo look can never be defeated because we can't decide who, where, and what the terrorist are.

It is limited vision to lump everybody in the middle east in one category and say they are all anti-American.

It reminds me of a guy named Kindred from NYC. When he learned I was from Texas he asked, "Does everyboy there ride horses and rope cattle all day?"







Doesn't matter if you agree or not, doesn't matter who you think started the war on terror. Doesn't matter if it is a concept, an organized religion or a sovereign nation, just doesn't matter. Maybe for debate points but not in
war. Technically America has been at war since the Iranian students took over the American Embassy, that was an act of war. But that doesn't matter either at this point. It just doesn't matter anymore, what matters is if a nuke is set off in the USA and what will be our response. That is what the thread is about. If that happens, then it really want matter who started what now will it? Millions of innocent Americans may die in the attack, then millions of innocent Arabs will die in the counter attack. So really, what will it matter then who is right and who is wrong? Remember that the US is the only country to ever use atomic weapons on another country. That was to bring WWII to an end to save the lives of Americans and her Allies buy sacrificing those of the enemy. Attacking Iraq was a strategic move militarily to open a front in the enemies backyard and try to keep them occupied defending their own land and not attacking ours. Thus putting the enemy on the defensive. Iraq will seem nothing more than a small hindurance compared to what will be Americas response after a WMD attack on our soil. So we are attacked, the world is sympathic, we counter attack and the world hates us even more, that doesn't matter either. One has to really be naive to think that world opinion matters at that point!

[edit on 13-9-2005 by Yorga]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by garyo1954
I don't agree at all. We started this war on terror, a concept if yuo look can never be defeated because we can't decide who, where, and what the terrorist are.

It is limited vision to lump everybody in the middle east in one category and say they are all anti-American.

It reminds me of a guy named Kindred from NYC. When he learned I was from Texas he asked, "Does everyboy there ride horses and rope cattle all day?"



yeah i meet ignorant people like that. they ask me where im from tell them dallas tx and they automaticaly assume that the whole area of dallas is country or the boonies or something. when i ask the ignorant people where there from they come up with towns who barely have a tv station and i laught at them.I forgot to include that if i was the president and we were attacked with a wmd nuke i would send b2s all to the middle east enemies and bomb them back to the stone age.

[edit on 13-9-2005 by bigworm]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yorga
4) Safeguard the internal security of the United States

It is the fourth function that is important here! The President and the DOD are mandated by law to protect the internal security of the United States.


I really don't see how nuking another country will achieve that fourth objective. If anything, it will put the security of the United States in more danger as millions more join the terrorists and your allies drop away. Nuking another country still will not solve the root causes of terrorism or stop any flow of terrorists into the United States.

It would be infinitely more productive to seal the border with Mexico and stop them getting there in the first place.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Looks real enough, however these kind of official reports, plans, memos, directives, ect ALWAYS have a cover page indicating level of classification. Even "For official use only," when unclassified. Could this report be misinformation?


[edit on 13-9-2005 by starlifter]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yorga
The United States will not be the first to use such weapons but we will be the last. If that sounds arrogant to you then so be it. We will do whatever we need to do to assure that America survives and to assure that America can never be attacked again. We have been saying it all along and the world is not listening, if the terrorists escalate this war with Nuclear or Biochemical weapons then the USA will escalate it's response. Any country that is determined to have given aide or shelter to the terrorist will then be a target. That is as clear as I can put it.


That is just rediculous, and as you put it... arrogant. What does responding to violence with greater violence do but oppress the innocent? Any regime be it the US government or a "terrorist" group that decides the best course of action is to release another cloud of nuclear waste over this earth does not represent me.

Why can we not respond to a nuclear attack with a prayer vigil? A peace offering... A bow? Why not stand in noble silence when confronted with ignorance?

Personally, I could care less if "America survives" America is meaningless... it is just another empire in a long list of empires that have risen, and will eventually fall. There is no sense in polluting the entire world with nuclear filth for an eternity just because some group has the audacity to stand up for themselves... against the evils this "great nation" commits on a daily basis. I think a much better response to nuclear attack would be some self reflection on US foreign policy. Ponder why they are attacking... and trust that it has nothing to do with their hatred of our blessed freedom but everything to do with "our" arrogance.

Sri Oracle





[edit on 13-9-2005 by Sri Oracle]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   
I agree Oracle,
simply killing more of them , will create more terrorists..
sons fathers uncles will join the resistance and continually hit america.
They obviously want us to STOP meddling in middleastern affairs..
thast what sept11 was about IF it was indeed muslim terrorists.
So what did the us do?
in all its greatness and powerful might, they sent in a few 100'000 MORE troops..

The US SHould step back from putting its thumb into everything



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Heady stuff. The old way was nuclear detterence, and it kind of made sense against a system like the Soviet Union, you can justify, militarily, nuking moscow or leningrad, even tho there are innocent people there, just like you could justify fire-bombing dresden. But nuking Damascus after an islamo-fascist biological or chemical attack in the US? Much more difficult to justify. But, the rock to that hard place is that you simply must respond in kind, striking back against an unconventional attack with a nuke attack. I doubt that the US would even consider engaging in germ warefare in the middle east or using mustard gas in part of tehran, so nukes are the only option.
Fortunately the US does have tactical nukes, so perhaps these can still preserve detterence and the like, rather than nuking entire cities. But probably not.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join