Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.  
User currently offlineJETPILOT From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3130 posts, RR: 29
Posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1197 times:

The US has addded nuclear weapons to it's list of first strike weapons against hardened targets in it's fight against terrorism.

The hardened targets in question include chemical and biological targets not able to be destroyed with current bunker buster weapons.

Things could get interesting.....

JET





29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNWA742 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1190 times:

One word,


Good.



-NWA742


User currently offlineClipperhawaii From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2033 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1184 times:

Yes JET it could. Peace thru strength is where it is at. Let despots know that we have it and we will use it. So if there is someone out there who considers using weapons of mass destruction, let it be known that the United States will in all it's might and right use it.

This philosohy got us thru the cold war without nuclear war so perhaps it will work in these days as well.

ClipperHawaii



"You Can't Beat The Experience"
User currently offlineJETPILOT From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3130 posts, RR: 29
Reply 3, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1176 times:

ClipperHawaii..... not as a deterent. As a first strike weapon.

JET


User currently offlineClipperhawaii From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2033 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1166 times:

Yes Jet, I got that. Indeed, a known location of bio/chemical or nuclear weapons that are thought to be put in play certainly can be neutralised in a first strike scenario. Problem is, after the smoke clears, we (the U.S.) face the wrath of world opinion. The proof that there were these weapons that needed to be destroyed is all but eliminated. It's is a tough one.

Are we speaking of Governments here or extremists?

ClipperHawaii



"You Can't Beat The Experience"
User currently offlineJETPILOT From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3130 posts, RR: 29
Reply 5, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1161 times:

It sounded like you were maiking a play at the nuclear weapons having a dterent effect.

Who cares if the rest of the world is upset with us..... we'll all be alive and well. Thats all that counts isn't it?

I think the unspoken first strike would be directed at stockpiles in Iraq.... thats the feeling I got.

JET


User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1160 times:

Since i don;t see a link or a source here, I think it is safe to say, the U.S. would be hard pressed to launch Nukes against Al Queada.

User currently offlineJETPILOT From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3130 posts, RR: 29
Reply 7, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1157 times:

No link.... because It doesn't have a link....

It was a discussion on MSNBC. The government drew up a new doctrine concerning its policies on carrying out the war against Islamists. The doctrine contains plans to use nukes in first strikes.

Enjoy looking for it on the internet if you need more credibility.

JET


User currently offlineClipperhawaii From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2033 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1153 times:

Public opinion is one thing certainly. If Truman had to endure public opinion as it is today he would wrestle with the idea I am sure, and then he would use it.
Being alive and well counts for everything. Just imagine President Bush launching an all out nuclear strike against weapon stockpiles in Iraq and in other known terrorist safe heavens. I kind of like the thought of tyrants squirming throughout the world.
We live in a more dangerous world than we did 20 years ago. Flying three holers wasn't supposed to be like this eh?
ClipperHawaii



"You Can't Beat The Experience"
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1148 times:

The US have always stated that nuclear weapons are the only logical answer to chemical and bio weapons.
Now that the US is shifting its policies for dealing with terrorist groups and the nations supporting them from retaliation to preemptive strike, it only makes sense that the use of nuclear weapons as a last resort to take out targets where weapons of mass destruction are prepared for use against US interests are being prepared.

I don't think you should expect an M-X to be launched against Baghdad (however much some people would like to see that).
Most likely weapons are low-yield weapons (1-10KT) on earth penetrating warheads to destroy underground bunker and cave complexes with minimal fallout.

And a statement that their use cannot be ruled out could well be a deterrent in its own right, making countries think twice about allowing in whatever capacity (either open support or by turning a blind eye) the activities of terrorist groups on their soil.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineSwissgabe From Switzerland, joined Jan 2000, 5266 posts, RR: 33
Reply 10, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1148 times:

Well, yeah, they have a nice toy. But when you play with be careful, some one could be hurt.
What do you think when a few terrorist are attacking and a nuke is used, don't you think that they should consider that there could also be civilians?

NWA742
How can this be good, do you like those stupid weapons? Do you think they are also good in India, Pakistan, Russia, France etc? Do you think thats the right way against terrorism?

Clipperhawaii
As far as I remember you told me once that Switzerland is too neutral and we are doing nothing, I might be wrong but I think you told me this.
Around 35-40% of Terrorism Money worldwide was blocked by the Swiss government and Banks (not that I would be proud, I have done nothing). Sorry, but I think this way would be more useful than playing with nukes and going into the direction of a new Cold War.

I would like to mention to everyone that I feel with all the people died, Americans, non Americans, Civilians, Afghans, just all of them. I don't support terrorism at all but to kill civilians in the name of peace and justice is WRONG.



Smooth as silk - Royal Orchid Service /// Suid-Afrikaanse Lugdiens - Springbok
User currently offlineJETPILOT From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3130 posts, RR: 29
Reply 11, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1144 times:

I'm all for it.

It's just a dissapointment that the MIRV bus on the MX missile designed to carry 10 re-entry vehicles has been modified to only carry one due to treaty regs.

Damn.....

JET



User currently offlineTechRep From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1141 times:

We have tactical nukes in our arsenal that would fit nicely in an undeground bunker. Some low yielders (clean weapons) with small radiation count, we used to call them City Killers or Silver Bullets could be used. If lobbed tossed by an F-16 they will take out cities, however if you plung them into the ground you can get a different effect and control the blast radius more effectively. They were designed for this use to close sub pens during the cold war. I really piety the Arab country that seeks to use nuclear weapons against the west, you and 30-50 Million others will meet Allah very quickly if you do.

TechRep


User currently offlineClipperhawaii From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2033 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1139 times:

Gabe, that was not I who said that. I do agree that hitting organisations where it can hurt such as their wallet is a good idea. But just as land, sea, and air forces are used in combination in a battle, why not have that nuclear genie hanging over a few radicals heads?

ClipperHawaii



"You Can't Beat The Experience"
User currently offlineSwissgabe From Switzerland, joined Jan 2000, 5266 posts, RR: 33
Reply 14, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1122 times:

Clipperhawaii
Sorry, I mixed something this way. My fault..
I might be wrong but the change to hit others (lets say civilians etc) with a nuke is much higher than with "normal" weapons etc.
I just think its wrong to hunt them in other countries. It just comes into my mind that I have seen a documentary movie about Safety at US Airports and Airplanes.
During test they where able to bring 30% or hand weapons and 60% of fake bombs into the plane. I think USA is the only country where your bag can fly without you in the plane and the best is, that not even all bags are going through x-ray machines. Just my opinion, but I think there would be more useful things to do against terrorism than using nukes.



Smooth as silk - Royal Orchid Service /// Suid-Afrikaanse Lugdiens - Springbok
User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1097 times:

JETPILOT:

No link.... because It doesn't have a link....

It was a discussion on MSNBC. The government drew up a new doctrine concerning its policies on carrying out the war against Islamists. The doctrine contains plans to use nukes in first strikes.


I'll buy that. Wasn't trying to offend you.


User currently offlineSAS23 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1085 times:

Neutron weapons were always designed to be used as first-strike options, with their short half life radiation and ability to leave buildings and infrastructure in place. Also, NATO had worked on the basis that they would be prepared to go nuclear in the event of a massive Warsaw Pact armour blitzkrieg which would have overwhelmed NATO forces.

Nothing new there then ... except perhaps they are being honest for once.


User currently offlineIndianGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1076 times:

If this is true, then it must be said that despite such an overwhelming superiority in conventional military capability, it is indeed highly irresponsible to continue having a first use policy wrt nukes.

Or is it that the American administration has very little confidence left in the conventional offensive capability? Or is it that these kind of threats serve to keep to terrorise the rest of the world?

-Roy


User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 18, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1067 times:

This is nothing more than a new play on the old game of nuclear brinkmanship. You make sure your enemy knows you have them and would use them if necessary. If you refuse to even consider the use of nuclear weapons, why keep them around?

Oh KROC, as for our Peacekeeper ICBM's, they still mount 10 W-87 warheads. Sometime within the next few years, all Peacekeepers will be retired and their warheads used to arm the Minuteman III's with one warhead each. This will mean only the Trident II's will have MIRV's.



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1054 times:

Or is it that the American administration has very little confidence left in the conventional offensive capability? Or is it that these kind of threats serve to keep to terrorise the rest of the world?

Or is it, Roy, because if OBL got his hands on such a weapon-or Hamas or Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad-that they wouldn't HESITATE in using such weapons for their barbaric and hateful goals? Did that ever cross your mind?

I'm not saying I agree with a first-strike policy. With nuclear weapons, you're talking something that reaches far, far beyond where it is detonated. Radiation can spread over large areas. It's something not to be taken lightly. But, in the context of today's conflicts, it has to be considered, unfortunately, because the enemy-these scumbag terrorists, would think it a blessing from Allah to use such weapons.


User currently offlineGo Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1025 times:

alpha one, yet again you are correct.

the usa is not talking about suddenly using nuclear weapons against other states tomorrow, it is a threat to these terror groups that if they use biological weapons or are about to that they will be attacked and the usa wont care about world opinion and whether one civilain dies or twenty do.

In the context of the world we live in the usa and the uk to an extent have to show that they will not stand for terrorists nor stands threaterning their destruction.

Roy-targeted missles would be far easier to sue against terrorists than a ground force invasion that involves a large number of troops, civilains and military deaths and the prospect of your goal not being reached.

Nuking bin laden before he nukes you is a sound policy, if the usa attacked an al-queda cell that have nuclear weapons then in response these terrorists would use the nuclear option irrespective of an military attack on them, ther want matyrdom and death.



It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1009 times:

Its all fun and games until one of those groups uses a nuclear bomb back on us...

User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13166 posts, RR: 78
Reply 22, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 999 times:

And how exactly could a US nuclear strike target a group of terrorist cells dispersed around the world? (Including the US, the Sept 11th bunch were effectively based there leading up to the attacks).
You think Iraq will put it's WND's all in a few neat, easy to target bunkers? Saddam himself travelled around incognito during much of the Gulf War.
The idea that Iraq, or N.Korea would launch a missile strike on the US is a fantasy, it would be national suicide.


User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 992 times:

The idea that Iraq, or N.Korea would launch a missile strike on the US is a fantasy, it would be national suicide.

You're not dealing with the most rational or the most dependable people in the world here, GDB. Their religious, social and political hatreds run deeper maybe than any logic would dictate, and therefore makes them even more dangerous that a U.S.S.R ever was. These people live in a reality far removed from anything the west understands. And you can't beat them by hitting them on the hand with a wet noodle and saying "tut, tut", can you? They only understand brute force, and maybe threatening them with brute force-the most brutal force there is-maybe make them think a lot harder about going after us the next time.





User currently offlineDragogoalie From Australia, joined Oct 2001, 1220 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 989 times:

Well...we did sign that thing with Russia saying that we would get rid of a bunch of nukes...is this possibly the way  Wink/being sarcastic okay...sorry for the dark humor

--dragogoalie-#88--



Formerly known as Jap. Srsly. AUSTRALIA: 2 days!
25 Racko : Please don't use nukes while you invade the Netherlands, I want to be able to eat eggs and salad tomorrow. Thanks.
26 Post contains images Alpha 1 : Please don't use nukes while you invade the Netherlands, I want to be able to eat eggs and salad tomorrow. Thanks. You'll be able to have your eggs an
27 NWA742 : Swissgabe, NWA742 How can this be good, do you like those stupid weapons? Do you think they are also good in India, Pakistan, Russia, France etc? Do y
28 GDB : James Bond fantasy stuff, this SPECTRE like Al-Queda myth, yes the corporate H.Q. in Afghanistan has gone, but the command, and almost certainly the n
29 Heavymetal : What the world fails to realize is that a nuclear 'event' on US soil will not end like September 11th did....with sympathy calls being paid to the Pre
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
America To Use Nukes If Need Be! posted Sun Mar 10 2002 00:51:51 by Go Canada!
How To Use A Traffic Roundabout In Your Country? posted Sun Jan 15 2006 00:42:46 by HT
Pop Quiz - Great Tool To Use In High Schools posted Sat Aug 27 2005 02:52:17 by September11
First Time To Golf Club In Pretentious Part Of NY posted Tue Jul 29 2003 06:11:29 by Mirrodie
Coalition To Use WMD's First posted Fri Mar 28 2003 22:46:55 by Galaxy5
First Cloned Child To Be Born In January! posted Wed Nov 27 2002 12:20:50 by CPH-R
United Kingdom Will Use Nukes If It Has To! posted Mon Mar 25 2002 15:47:04 by Arsenal@LHR
LSU Headed To Rose Bowl In Pasadena? posted Thu Nov 30 2006 17:55:50 by Tom in NO
How To Spend A Night In Manchester / Cork? posted Sun Nov 19 2006 21:35:25 by Birdwatching
Saddam To Be Hanged In India (sort Of...) posted Fri Nov 10 2006 10:32:00 by Thom@s