JETPILOT
Topic Author
Posts: 3094
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:40 am

U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.

Tue Jun 18, 2002 5:09 pm

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



 
NWA742
Posts: 4505
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 11:35 am

RE: U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.

Tue Jun 18, 2002 5:12 pm

One word,


Good.



-NWA742
Some people are like slinkies - not good for anything, but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs
 
clipperhawaii
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 3:35 pm

RE: U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.

Tue Jun 18, 2002 5:16 pm

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"
 
JETPILOT
Topic Author
Posts: 3094
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:40 am

RE: U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.

Tue Jun 18, 2002 5:27 pm

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

JET
 
clipperhawaii
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 3:35 pm

RE: U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.

Tue Jun 18, 2002 5:57 pm

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"
 
JETPILOT
Topic Author
Posts: 3094
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:40 am

RE: U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.

Tue Jun 18, 2002 6:10 pm

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
 
KROC
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.

Tue Jun 18, 2002 6:11 pm

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.
 
JETPILOT
Topic Author
Posts: 3094
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:40 am

RE: U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.

Tue Jun 18, 2002 6:16 pm

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
 
clipperhawaii
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 3:35 pm

RE: U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.

Tue Jun 18, 2002 6:19 pm

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"
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.

Tue Jun 18, 2002 6:22 pm

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
 
swissgabe
Posts: 5147
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2000 4:57 am

RE: U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.

Tue Jun 18, 2002 6:22 pm

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
 
JETPILOT
Topic Author
Posts: 3094
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:40 am

RE: U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.

Tue Jun 18, 2002 6:24 pm

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

 
TechRep
Posts: 1877
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2002 6:53 am

RE: U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.

Tue Jun 18, 2002 6:29 pm

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
 
clipperhawaii
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 3:35 pm

RE: U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.

Tue Jun 18, 2002 6:30 pm

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"
 
swissgabe
Posts: 5147
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2000 4:57 am

RE: U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.

Tue Jun 18, 2002 6:36 pm

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
 
KROC
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.

Tue Jun 18, 2002 8:10 pm

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.
 
Guest

RE: U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.

Tue Jun 18, 2002 8:38 pm

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.
 
IndianGuy
Posts: 3126
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2000 3:14 pm

RE: U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.

Tue Jun 18, 2002 9:26 pm

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
 
b757300
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

RE: U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.

Tue Jun 18, 2002 10:01 pm

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."
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.

Tue Jun 18, 2002 11:00 pm

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.
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.

Wed Jun 19, 2002 1:05 am

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
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.

Wed Jun 19, 2002 1:26 am

Its all fun and games until one of those groups uses a nuclear bomb back on us...
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.

Wed Jun 19, 2002 1:44 am

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.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.

Wed Jun 19, 2002 2:05 am

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.



 
dragogoalie
Posts: 1172
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 3:58 pm

RE: U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.

Wed Jun 19, 2002 2:10 am

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!
 
racko
Posts: 4548
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 12:06 am

RE: U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.

Wed Jun 19, 2002 2:37 am

Please don't use nukes while you invade the Netherlands, I want to be able to eat eggs and salad tomorrow. Thanks.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.

Wed Jun 19, 2002 2:42 am

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 and salad, Racko, but they'll just have a distinctive glow to them.  Big grin
 
NWA742
Posts: 4505
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 11:35 am

RE: U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.

Wed Jun 19, 2002 3:21 am

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 you think thats the right way against terrorism?


No, in fact, I think they are absolutely horrible things. I'm saying that if we used them on terrorist targets, that would be a good thing, because it gets rid of more terrorists and their weapons. Remember, these people we're talking about would not hesitate to use a nuke on us if they had one. I do think this is a right way to fight terrorism, for a few reasons:

1. It would kill more terrorists and destroy their weapons and terrorist camps a lot more effectively than other smaller bombs, and missles.

2. It would be much easier for the US, we have so many bombs, it would not cost a thing, and it's also good to get rid of a few. It would also save a lot of time.


So, I think it's good that we might nuke the terrorists.

I don't support terrorism at all but to kill civilians in the name of peace and justice is WRONG.

This is not in the name of peace and justice, it's in the name of defense and retaliation, and of course, justice. This is not peace. Civilians will die of course, but that's war for you.

As some of you seem to think, the US is not trying to kill civilians here.

-----------------------------------------------



Techrep,

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.

I couldn't agree more. If any country, were to ever use a nuclear weapon against the US, then that country and its people would CEASE TO EXIST in a very short period of time.

These Arab terrorists don't seem to get it do they? If they were to do taht to us, they would be killing their own people and themselves.

-----------------------------------------------



Alpha 1,

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.


I couldn't of said it better.

--------------------------------------------------------



GDB,

And how exactly could a US nuclear strike target a group of terrorist cells dispersed around the world?

They are dispersed around the world, but most of them and their camps and breeding grounds are located in the Middle East.


Regards,



-NWA742
Some people are like slinkies - not good for anything, but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.

Wed Jun 19, 2002 4:38 am

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 non-cannon fodder elements escaped.

Afghanistan was also the training and distribution centre, but at least 5 years worth of 'product' has gone out, all around the world, many are probably 'sleepers'.
You can bet Bin-Laden also anticipated a US attack at some stage, definitely after Sept 11th, so you can assume that his organisation was planned and developed with this eventuality in mind.

I'm not trying to build this maniac up, but it illustrates the folly of thinking conventional forces, much less nuclear ones, are an answer to the suppression of the Al-Queda, and related threats.

All this loose talk about nuking here, nuking there, a few weeks ago an Invasion of Iraq was in the offing, now all the talk is of wishful hopes the CIA might be able to get Saddam.

 
heavymetal
Posts: 4443
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

RE: U.S Plans To Use Nukes In First Strikes.

Wed Jun 19, 2002 4:55 am

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 President, US forces on high alert...and no tangible enemy to shoot back at, save some obssessed hillbillies in Central Asia.

Nuclear attacks demand retaliation. The cold math of the Cold War still applies....my city goes with 200,000 deaths? Somewhere someone's gotta pay the bill. The northern burbs of Bagdahd? Saddam's hometown maybe? Or Manhattan...for Mecca?

"But what did they have to do with it?!" will scream those left to pick through the rubble of a shattered Middle East city. But they will not have exclusive rights to ask that question. Those who stare at an American pile of rubble got to ask it first.

With guaranteed retaliation....painful, horrific, immoral retaliation.... those who give knowing winks of approval to the madmen of al Qaeda will suddenly have to ask themselves where the real threat is.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], flyflewflown and 17 guests