It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
But we've never once threatened to use them have we? When was the last time the US threatened to destroy an entire nation, "wiping it off the map"?
The White House reminded Iraq and other hostile countries on Tuesday that the United States is prepared to use "overwhelming force," including nuclear weapons if necessary, to respond to any chemical or biological attack.
The warning, included in a six-page strategy document on countering weapons of mass destruction, or WMD, underscored a long-standing US policy that Washington may use nuclear weapons if needed.
"The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force -- including through resort to all our options -- to the use of WMD against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies," the document said.
It is most noteworthy that the ruling class here and its media have been relatively passive and silent about this development. This contrasts with 1991 in the period prior to launching the Gulf War against Iraq, when President George Bush Sr. threatened that if Iraq used chemical weapons, the U.S. might retaliate with nuclear weapons. Bush was later forced to write that he did not really intend to carry out the threat.
A. The Gulf War [1990-1991]
How was this done in 1991? John Pike’s survey of Coalition threats notes suggestive language by US, Israeli, and British officials implying (through phrases such as Yitzhak Shamir’s that Iraq if it attacked Israel "will be harmed in a most serious way") nuclear retaliation. Defense Secretary Cheney had stated that "it should be clear to Saddam Hussein that we have a wide range of military capabilities that will let us respond with overwhelming force and extract a very high price should he be foolish enough to use chemical weapons on United States forces.” And Pike quotes a CIA report of a 1995 interview with Saddam Hussain’s defector son-in-law, Husayn Kamil Hasan al-Majid, "that the Iraqi command became convinced that the United States would use tactical nuclear weapons against Iraq if Iraq used chemical or biological weapons against the coalition."
Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists
My administration has a job to do and we're going to do it. We will rid the world of the evil-doers.
This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.
Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.
States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.
Bush referring to Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as an "Axis of Evil" in his State of the Union Address
Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today’s threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries’ choice of weapons, do not permit that option.We cannot let our enemies strike first.
reply to post by blackmirage0311
Nope. Our military keeps tabs on everything that goes on in our waters. If we know where they are, they are not a threat. Those who think these subs pose any threat have absolutely no clue how our military functions, nor the technology that is used. You don't become the #1 military super power in the world without being able to detect potential threats and defend yoursel
Originally posted by syrinx high priest
what is russia gonna do ?
get drunk ?
Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by yourmaker
I do not believe that the USA/UK/Israel had anything to do with instigating social unrest in Tunisia and Egypt, they have mostly kept out of Tunisia and have tried to manage Egypt but not the cause, well let me rephrase that. They were an indirect cause by how they have managed globalization, especially in economics, energy and food (the last two were until recently very connected because of the ethanol crassness especially the use of subsidized corn to produce it).edit on 15-1-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Yeah...China said virtually the same thing a few years back. Anything happens to the Hormuz chokepoint, and we're at war with whoever affects our oil supply. Neither statement is a shocker on the geopolitical scene.
Originally posted by michael1983l
One thing to keep in mind is that the current Russian government might make threats, but they may not be backed by its people. They are just about hanging on to power as it is with mass demonstrations against Putin and his cronies.
Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by OldCorp
Personal Disclosure: Care to rethink your argument?
Originally posted by Tw0Sides
Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
Radical Shiite leaders including the Ayatollah believe they can bring about the return of the "Mahdi" known to them as " Twelfth Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi" who upon return will rule for a period of time and rid the world of wrongdoing injustice and tyranny... He is the redeemer of Islam.
Really, we gonna try this angle again.
By any chance , you watch the " I pledge allaiance to Israel debate" or listen to what Sanitorium has been saying lately. The rulers of Jesusland , formerly the USA, scare me more than any Muslim. They believe the Rapture will save their sorry butts, and the scary part, they DO have working nukes, lots of them.