great.
.....
just, great.

It's normal I think.

Use your WMD against us or our allies, and we'll use our WMD against you. What's wrong with that ?

In other words, it means only this : DO NOT USE YOUR WMD AND WE'LL NOT USE OUR WMD.

What Bush is doing here is basically saying that we have the right to respond in kind. It's the same policy of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) that kept WMDs from coming into use during the cold war. Neither side used them because both sides knew that if they did they'd get hit back.

Even Hussein will think twice about using his WMDs if he knows he'll get nuked for using them.

I agree with what Bush say's.And it did work during the coldwar.But now we dealing with terrorist cells.Do we nuke an entire country because one of these cells goes off?What happens if the next terrorist attack is done by an American?If a country(Iraq) is supporting terrorism,and they use nukes then go ahead and nuke-em.But if al-quada uses a dirty bomb,who would we nuke?

We absolutely do have to be careful about responding in kind. This includes only striking a nation-state when the nation-state itself has attacked us. Where we get into grey areas is with terrorists sponsored by states...

I seriously doubt that the US would nuke someone if a terrorist cell unleashed a WMD on our soil, as there would be no clear enemy. We are not barbarians. However, the statement is most likely directed directly at Saddam and his Iraqie thugs, a warning that if there is an attack, and they use WMD's agains us, we will retaliate with all means at our disposal. Nukes today are nothing like they were back in the Hiroshima days. We have what are called "Tactical Nukes" that are much more precise, and, perhaps unfortunatly, but obviously necessary, more deadly. Mutually assured distruction, altho a totaly viable strategy utilized still today by not only the US, GB, Pakistan and India, is not a player here. We're talking simple and utter devastation of any enemy who would dare use WMD's against us. In a anutshell, the US would not be the first one to use WMD's in this case, and possibly never in the future....but we would shure end the fight with them if need be. What is the sense of having these weopons if you don't at least show a possible willingness to use them?

I think it's obvious that if the US had say 5 casualties from a WMD attack (ie.chem or bio), they aren't going to turn cities into slag. However what if the US suffered 100,000 or 1,000,000 dead ? I still couldn't see them wiping out civilians in cities, however I would expect military sites to be hit with nukes.
The general vibe I'm getting especially from liberals, is that a nuke is used and it's the end of the world. BULL# !!. Nuclear weapons can have extremely low yields and believe it or not can be quite 'clean' if used properly. You have to remeber that 1000+ nulear weapons have been tested ( some with enourmous yields ) already. So what's 1 or several more above gound detonation(s) ?

I read this in a variety of sources and ploughed my way through it trying to see if there any clues to anything, beyond a little posturing -perhaps to scare N. Korea - but I couldn't find very much.
To be honest, given the untold zillions that the USA (and UK, France) have spent on their nuclear arsenals (and given the vast bills hanging over the USA for keeping its silo-ed weapons operable), I don't really see what else the Pentagon could say.
Having half-bankrupted yourself developing, making and maintaining a nuclear deterrent, it might be a trifle off-putting to electorate and tax-payers if one suddenly said: "Oh, but we'd never use them: they're just for effect"
It's a standard answer to a rather dull standard question (one I'm sure no one in his/her right mind would have actually asked) scary stuff and a Merry Christmas to one and all!
It will, in all seriousness, be very hard to justify continued nuclear expansion unless governments can persuade the masses that, although the Russians have gone, there are other enemies just as dangerous.

I think us "liberals" mainly object to the hypocritical precedent it sets.

"Saddam may have nuclear weapons, as such its perfectly justifiable for us to use nuclear weapons against him"

It amazes me that we are about to go to war with one man because he ~might~ have weapons of mass destructionand in the process use WMD that we actually do have.

all that on top of the fact that control of these weapons on our side is held by a religious fundamentalist.