U.S. Envisions Using Nukes on Terrorists WASHINGTON - A Pentagon planning document being updated to reflect the doctrine of pre-emption declared by President Bush in 2002 envisions the use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies. The "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," which was last updated 10 years ago, makes clear that "the decision to employ nuclear weapons at any level requires explicit orders from the president." But it says that in a changing environment "terrorists or regional states armed with WMD will likely test U.S. security commitments to its allies and friends." "In response, the U.S. needs a range of capabilities to assure friend and foe alike of its resolve," says the 69-page document dated March 15. A Pentagon spokesman said Saturday evening that Navy Cmdr. Dawn Cutler, a public affairs officer for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has issued a statement saying the draft is still being circulated among the various services, field commanders, Pentagon lawyers and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's office, . Its existence was initially reported by The Washington Post in Sunday editions, which said the document was posted on a Pentagon Internet site and pointed out to it by a consultant for the Natural Resorces Defense Council. The file was not available at that site Saturday evening, but a copy was available at http://www.globalsecurity.org. "A broader array of capability is needed to dissuade states from undertaking ... courses of action that would threaten U.S. and allied security," the draft says. "U.S. forces must pose a credible deterrent to potential adversaries who have access to modern military technology, including WMD and the means to deliver them." It says "deterrence of potential adversary WMD use requires the potential adversary leadership to believe the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective." It says "this will be particularly difficult with nonstate (non-government) actors who employ or attempt to gain use of WMD. Here, deterrence may be directed at states that support their efforts as well as the terrorist organization itself. "However, the continuing proliferation of WMD along with the means to deliver them increases the probability that someday a state/nonstate actor nation/terrorist may, through miscaluation or by deliberate choice, use those weapons. In such cases, deterrence, even based on the threat of massive destruction, may fail and the United States must be prepared to use nuclear weapons if necessary." It notes that U.S. policy has always been purposely vague with regard to when the United States would use nuclear weapons and that it has never vowed not to be the first to use them in a conflict. One scenario for a possible nuclear pre-emptive strike in the draft would be in the case of an "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy." The Bush administration is continuing to push for development of an earth-penetrating nuclear warhead, but has yet to obtain congressional approval. However, the Senate voted in July to revive the "bunker-buster" program that Congress last year decided to kill. Administration officials have maintained that the U.S. needs to try to develop a nuclear warhead that would be capable of destroying deeply buried targets including bunkers tunneled into solid rock. But opponents said that its benefits are questionable and that such a warhead would cause extensive radiation fallout above ground killing thousands of people. And they say it may make it easier for a future president to decide to use the nuclear option instead of a conventional weapon. The Senate voted 53-43 to include $4 million for research into the feasibility of a bunker-buster nuclear warhead. Earlier this year, the House refused to provide the money, so a final decision will have to be worked out between the two chambers.
It's ironic that the one country in the world pushing the hardest for limiting 'nuclear proliferation' is the one that is publicly threatening to use such weapons in future conflicts.
After a heavy rain i've noticed from time to time that tree roaches will sneak in the house ~ nasty little things. This is why i've purchased several pounds of C4 plastic explosive and 3 AK-47 full auto machine guns to rid my home of these little nuisances.
So Tigermission and adeelsiddiqui are against using our best weapons against terrorists. Interesting and noted.
and you are for killing tons of innocents and mutilating future generations of innocent kids for the sake of making a big boom? where exactly can you use a nucleur weapon today without killing a lot of innocents? what part of nature is so messed up that nucleur weapons wont ruin it more? tell me all that, and if you can convince me, ill support using nucleur weapons on terrorists.
If you can pinpoint those 'terrorists' and isolate them and precisely wipe them out without civilian casualties (which is impossible, since nukes lump in everyone as 'the enemy'), then you are right and I am wrong. Tactical nukes, yah sure, I am sure they are 'very accurate' and 'smart'. You're gullible or just indifferent to human lives.
We've had tiny nukes for a long time so we know they work ~ however before we start dropping "surgical nukes" we need to explore advanced chemical explosions or kinetic energy bombs so radiation isn't an issue.
Greg Mello, director of the Los Alomos Study Group, http://www.nautilus.org/fora/Special-Policy-Forum/16_Miller.html , 2001. “The blast from one of these weapons with even the lowest yield would "knock down nearly all homes and apartments--and kill nearly all the people in them--out to distances of greater than half a mile from the blast. Whatever the yield of such weapons, their use would not only cause massive loss of human life, but also long-term contamination of soil, water tables, and atmosphere, and destruction of flora and fauna." Don't buy the bull about "precision, and cleanliness." When a nuclear weapon explodes, it sends irradiated dirt everywhere and causes massive and long-lasting problems for the surrounding area. Why would we need to use TNWs when there's already these? Dr. Robert W. Nelson, Federation of American Scientists, “Exploding the Myth About Low-Yield, Earth Penetrating Nuclear Weapons,” http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/briefv5n7.htm, April 17, 2001. "The Pentagon already has a number of conventional weapons capable of destroying hardened targets buried within approximately 50 feet of the surface. The most well-known of these is the GBU-28, developed and deployed in the final weeks of the air campaign in the Gulf War. The Air Force was initially unable to destroy a well-protected bunker north of Baghdad after repeated direct hits. The 4000 lb GBU-28 was created from a very heavy surplus Army eight-inch gun tube filled with conventional explosive and a modified laser guidance kit. It destroyed [a] bunker, which was protected by more than 30 feet of earth, concrete and hardened steel. The precision, penetrating capability, and explosive power of these conventional weapons has improved dramatically over the last decade, and these trends will certainly continue. Indeed, the GBU-37 guided bomb, a successor to the GBU-28, is already thought to be capable of disabling a silo based ICBM — a target formerly thought vulnerable only to nuclear attack. In the near future, the United States will deploy new classes of hard target penetrators which can land within one to two meters of their targets."
just like all our other missles and gunfire? which accidently sometimes missed its target? imagine if something like that happens with a nuke? surgery failed.
Nukes are a dangerous thing to toy with. It causes major damage to all life in that area. Keep nukes out of this war. It would be better for everyone if this didnt turn into a nuclear war. Btw...nukes arent precise at all. Terrorists and anyone around will die. Dont buy the bull. -Lal Salam
To be fair they're not talking about using these things in downtown Baghdad ~ more likely remote regions of Pakistan etc. For the right enemy this is acceptable in IMHO ~ however there are other options I feel we should pursue first.
Three years later US uses surgical nukes to destroy a small city called death city which is believed by the President to link to Bin Laden Jr. However, a follow-up investigation shows that CIA has no evidence for such a linkage, even President Bush insists that the death city is the home to the new generation of terrorist. 3 months later, the Hollywood was destroyed by a surgical nuke, and a new terrorist group Al_Death claims to be responsible for that attack. Several days later, NY times cites anonymous officers from the dept. of defense that the US army lost a surgical nuke 2 months ago.
Thanks for your advice. But I don't need to worry about that. Think about it. Even President Bush has believers.
You guys ever stop to think that the U.S. always, always leaves nukes on the table with regard to conflicts with anyone because that is the ONLY way they do what they do best: deter aggression. That's really the only thing that Nukes are good for. But for them to work the other side has to really believe that you'll use them. They are useless if the other side believes that you are afraid to pull the trigger. Why do you think that the possible use of nukes was "leaked" during the first Gulf War? It was to deter Hussein from using Gas (which he probably did have at that time) and it worked. However, their ability to deter agression can work more than one way. Look at the Soviet Unions invasion of Afganistan. We couldn't directly intervien because we couldn't risk a nuclear conflict with Russia so we had to help the locals covertly (and look where that got us). Why do you think Iran and NK want nukes so bad? Because once they get them they can be aggressive towards their neighbors and simply threaten to use them if the US or the UN intervenes. That's why its so important to keep nukes in the hands of the U.S. but out of the hands of smaller, crazier countries with selfish leaders who have nothing to lose. Saddam has been quoted as saying that his biggest mistake was invading Kuwait before he had a nuclear bomb. If he had one, he'd still be in power and still be in Kuwait. If he had the bomb and tried to go into Saudi Arabia we would probably have used nukes against Iraq to protect the oil supply. I don't believe Bill Clinton ever took nukes "off the table" so to speak nor did Jimmy Carter. As long as the US has nukes, there will not be another world war. It's why we keep refining and developing new nuclear technologies and its why all those submarines are always out there. If nukes were really, truly removed from the world, the word would probably become a much more dangerous place.
