»

[blobrana]

Hum,
Just when you thought it was safe to dismantle that bunker...

“The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to pre-empt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons”.

They also could be used to destroy deep, hardened bunkers containing enemy chemical or biological weapons or the command and control infrastructure required to execute a chemical, biological or nuclear attack.

www.washingtonpost.com

The imperialist Bourgeois Washington post article does not mention a number of other nuclear strikes scenarios that are also proposed that they could be used against an enemy without weapons of mass destruction: They could be used to counter potentially overwhelming conventional adversaries, to secure a rapid end of a war on US terms, or simply "to ensure success of US and multinational operations…”

[Speelgoedmannetje]

I posted such a few days ago on whyzzat, here

[PMC]

Oh great, that's just what we need now:

Another scenario for a possible nuclear preemptive strike is in case of an "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy."

Given the administrations previous history in identifying an imminent threat of bio weapons in Iraq that has yet to materialise (well hidden eh, Saddam?) and the numerous cases of use of excessive firepower by US forces in combat, the change of doctrine chills me to the bone.

[Glaucus]

PMC wrote:
Oh great, that's just what we need now:

Given the administrations previous history in identifying an imminent threat of bio weapons in Iraq that has yet to materialise (well hidden eh, Saddam?) and the numerous cases of use of excessive firepower by US forces in combat, the change of doctrine chills me to the bone.

Well, yeah! If they nuked Iraq, for example, there would have been nothing left to inspect and we'd never have known if Iraq really had WMD. Basically, they can accuse a nation of developing WMD and nuke them - end of story. Well, hopefully someone nukes them first.

- Mike

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Glaucus wrote:
Well, hopefully someone nukes them first.

- Mike

Well, hopefully no one nukes, but hopefully certain persons get a jail sentence for life.
But this whole situation, it just can't be!

[Dan]

Considering the US history of "friendly fire" then UK really needs a really good antimissile system.

[X-ray]

"...Well, hopefully someone nukes them first..."
------------------------------------------------

Glaucus, come on. That's quite uncharitable.

[Dan]

Glaucus wrote:
Well, hopefully someone nukes them first.

- Mike

No need, lets just hope bin Laden gets his wish and becomes King of SaudiArabia. A saudi civilwar would do nice things to the oil price and then the big expensive warmachine would simply rust just like Russias. The US is doomed if they continue the current politics and economy thats based on pure denial. The dinosaur just hasn´t realized that its dead yet.

[whabang]

That's why they have nookalyr-powered subs and carriers...

[Dan]

whabang wrote:
That's why they have nookalyr-powered subs and carriers...

Nookylar is expensive too;-)