http://www.10tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3833744 New Pentagon draft spells out preemptive nuclear strikes WASHINGTON The U-S is considering rewriting its nuclear doctrine for the age of terrorism. A Pentagon planning document spells out America's willingness to use nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike if terrorists threaten the U-S or its allies with weapons of mass destruction. President Bush stated such a policy three years ago, and a draft of it is on the Pentagon's Web site. The draft says weapons of mass destruction are proliferating, increasing the possibility they might be used by even a non-state group. And it notes that could happen on purpose or through miscalculation. In such situations, the draft says deterrence might fail and the U-S would have to be prepared to use nuclear weapons if necessary. The draft notes that any such attack would require "explicit orders from the president." Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. _______________________________________ Flame on! If this happens, expect China to change their policy, thus resulting in accusations that they are trying to start a war.
In other words, if some intelligence indicate that certain group or country might be pursuing nuclear, chemical or bioligical weaponry (new definition of WMD), whether nuclear bombs are dropped, all depends on the judgement of the president, even if the intelligence might not be acurate.
Considering the intelligence failures we've been saying - this is very scary - I no longer trust the presidency with that kind of power.
These plans are more so designed to supposedly 'deter' any state from pursuing WMDs...specifically Iran in this case. Our leaders are still stuck in the Cold War mentality and attempting to apply it to today's 'enemy', which doesn't work. Bin Laden and Zarqawi could give a **** as to whether or not the US drops all its nukes on the Middle East, in fact they would love to provoke such a reaction. I wouldn't worry too much about this though, it's more 'rhetoric' or a message to the enemy that the US will have this doctrine in place as official policy, and therefore hoping to deter so-called 'rogue' states from pursuing nukes. Won't work, that's a prediction.
Last time I checked Congress had to authorize the start of a war, which is what dropping a freaking nuclear bomb would do. Perhaps they consider a nuclear bomb to be a "surgical strike to prevent / end a potential conflict."
I know this could harm innocent poeple, but what if we could create a device that could just detinate nuclear weapons. First off, we would need to move all of our weapons to extremely remote locations, so this technology could not be used against us. I think this would be an effective tool to use against government attempting to build those weapons, and it would incourage other governments not to house terrorist with those weapons. Would any country really want to have that potential disaster on their hands.
When was the last time Congress voted to approve a formal declaration of war? June 5, 1942. Yes, you read that right. Against Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania. What has happened to the constitution? Why doesn't Congress demand responsibility and accountability, both from itself, and from the President? From Wikipedia: Extremely heated debate developed in the United States beginning on or around September 11, 2001. A significant percentage of Americans were found by polls to favor formal declarations of war against the Taliban regime of Afghanistan and the Al Qaeda terror network; their requests were largely pushed aside as "uninformed" by the White House. They since began to argue that the recent Second Gulf War was unconstitutional, because it lacked a clear declaration of war, and was waged over the objection of a significantly sized demographic in the United States. Instead of formal war declarations, the United States Congress has begun issuing authorizations of force. Such authorizations have included the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that initated American participation in the Vietnam War, and the recent "Use-of-force" resolution that started the 2003 Gulf War. However, there is some question as to the legality of these authorization of force in some circles. Many who support declarations of war argue that such declarations keep administrations honest by forcing them to lay out their case to the American people, while at the same time honoring the constitutional role of the United States Congress. Those who oppose this measure say that it only takes more time, and that more lives will be lost for the sake of a political formality. Americans should, they argue, support their presidents and question military actions only after the fact. Notably, those who oppose such activities without formal declaration include among them widows and veterans of most undeclared American wars. However, the courts have consistently refused to intervene in this matter, and in practice Presidents have the power to commit forces with Congressional approval but without a declaration of war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States In my opinion, unless it is a true national emergency, where there is not time to gather Congress and vote on a formal declaration of war because the delay would endanger the country, it is the duty of the President to ask for, and the duty of Congress to vote on a formal declaration of war against an enemy. There was no reason this couldn't have been done in any number of instances where our troops were put in harms way. Vietnam, the Gulf War, and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq under George W. Bush. We were not in clear and present danger of assault when those wars were launched, and they would most likely have been supported in Congress, with the possible exception of G. W. Bush's invasion of Iraq. A formal declaration is a solemn act of the executive and comgressional branches of our government. It has traditionally been something not entered into lightly. It places formal responsibility on both branches of government, along with accountability. It's past time to follow the constitution and declare war if we are going to war. Why the Supreme Court has not acted to require this is a mystery to me. I see nothing that excuses the court from following the constitution. All I see is a nebulous act of "approval" for the President, which leaves wiggle room a mile wide for the Congress if things go wrong. In my opinion. Keep D&D Civil!!
