13-09-2005 07:40									#1
	Pentagon Plans First-Strike Nuclear Policy. Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Pentagon plans strike-first nuclear policy 12.09.05 1.00pm By Rupert Cornwell WASHINGTON - The Pentagon has drawn up a new strategy, built on the 2002 "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive military strikes, that would allow the US to make first use of nuclear weapons to thwart an a WMD attack against the country. Under the scheme, developed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff but yet to be ratified by Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, commanders would be able to request permission from the President to use nuclear weapons in a variety of scenarios. According to the Washington Post, one possibility is an enemy that is using, or "is about to use" weapons of mass destruction against US military forces or civilian population. Another is where nuclear weapons could be used against biological weapons that an enemy was close to using, and which could only be safely destroyed by nuclear weapons and their after-effects. In practice, the strategy would update existing guidelines, drawn up in 1995 under the Clinton administration. It would fit in with plans mooted by the Pentagon to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons, specifically designed to attack enemy bunkers of WMD, buried deep underground. But Congress has thus far declined to provide funds for a study into the so-called "robust nuclear earth penetrator", not least because of criticism that such a move would make a mockery of US-led efforts to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation, and make it more, rather than less likely, that such weapons would be employed. However the Pentagon document argues that proliferation has already made it more likely that nuclear weapons could be used. It claims that some 30 nations have WMD programmes -- not to mention terrorists, or "non-state actors" as they are described, acting either independently or under the sponsorship of a state opposed to the US. It also points out that even during the Cold War the US refused to commit itself to a "no first use" of nuclear weapons.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/s...jectID=10345189

	13-09-2005 07:47									#2
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Old news, re-reported after spin.

It's not really a big deal once you ignore the "zomfgNUKESAREEVIL!" part of your brain and look at the tactical nuke designs objectively.

	13-09-2005 07:57									#3
	Increase the size of your Attachments

VJ what interest does the New Zealand Herald have in putting a "spin" on this story?

	13-09-2005 08:06									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

NZ has a left-wing press. They like Bush-bashing/anti-americanism since there's demand for it on their domestic market, just like in Finland (Finnish press bashes US all the time).

That's my guess, anyway. I don't really know much about NZ.

	13-09-2005 08:07									#5
	Suffering from ads?

Don Rumsfield has been an advocate of tactical nukes (in this case, "bunker-busters") which should be used against non-nuclear powers for a long, long time... IIRC he was pushing the stuff back in the 70s, when he was in the Ford cabinet.

	13-09-2005 08:30									#6
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

These things "objectively" kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in collateral damage. is this not un-ZOMFG enough for you?

	13-09-2005 08:31									#7
	Suffering from ads?

Any such policy makes an utter mockery of any attempts at stoping nuclear proliferation. The guys in the pentagon might be right, and increading proliferation is increading the likelyhood of the use of nukes-and they are the main reason why.

After all, the same policy of using nukes to destroy enemy WMD's before they are used applies to every other state just as well. The North Koreans have the same incentive to use their WMD"s pre-emtively to take out aggresive WMD's being aimed at their population, by say, the US.

You can;t argue that nukes are tactically justifiable and then deny the right to have nukes to any soverign state. You might as well try to ban tanks from anyone not a permanent member of the UN. Either nukes are just another weapon in the arsenal, or they are off limits. One or the other.

	13-09-2005 08:57									#8
	Suffering from ads?

Hasn't the military always had the ability to ask to use nuclear weapons? Hasn't the president always had the ability to say no, or better yet, order a first strike?

Yes.

	13-09-2005 09:51									#9
	Remove this text

quote: VJ what interest does the New Zealand Herald have in putting a "spin" on this story?

NZ has a major thing against most things nuclear since we went anti nuclear in the 1980s. Newspaper articles generally reflect this when talking about nuclear related shiet. The anti nuclear thing is still rather strong in the the NZ charactor. Plus we do have a rather left wing media and america is treated as the boogeyman sometimes. But in less than 7 days we may have a more right wing government ourselves. Who knows? All will be revealed. NZ Election Day: September 17 2005

	13-09-2005 10:27									#10
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Patroklos Hasn't the military always had the ability to ask to use nuclear weapons? Hasn't the president always had the ability to say no, or better yet, order a first strike? Yes.

Indeed, first strike policy dates back to the Cold War.

	13-09-2005 11:53									#11
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by GePap Any such policy makes an utter mockery of any attempts at stoping nuclear proliferation. The guys in the pentagon might be right, and increading proliferation is increading the likelyhood of the use of nukes-and they are the main reason why. After all, the same policy of using nukes to destroy enemy WMD's before they are used applies to every other state just as well. The North Koreans have the same incentive to use their WMD"s pre-emtively to take out aggresive WMD's being aimed at their population, by say, the US. You can;t argue that nukes are tactically justifiable and then deny the right to have nukes to any soverign state. You might as well try to ban tanks from anyone not a permanent member of the UN. Either nukes are just another weapon in the arsenal, or they are off limits. One or the other.

100% correct analysis

	13-09-2005 14:10									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Well, Iraq should consider herself lucky. Had this policy been in effect in 2003, there'd be a big honkin' glass desert in middle-east right now. I mean, Saddam had his finger on the proverbial button, right? Right about to send dozens of ICBM's raining down on Pleasantville, Illinois?


Better have solid intel, before they nuke some canned food factory in Iran...

	13-09-2005 14:15									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

....

Well now I understand why USA wants to use nukes.

Ofcourse no WMD were found, we got them all with the nukes!

Who needs intel when you have weapons that destroy all possible evidence.

	13-09-2005 14:25									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by GePap Any such policy makes an utter mockery of any attempts at stoping nuclear proliferation. The guys in the pentagon might be right, and increading proliferation is increading the likelyhood of the use of nukes-and they are the main reason why.

Exactly. DPRK takes a look at this and says, "Hurry up, we need our own nuclear deterrents."

	13-09-2005 16:11									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Another is where nuclear weapons could be used against biological weapons that an enemy was close to using, and which could only be safely destroyed by nuclear weapons and their after-effects.

Probably as close as Saddam was using his WMD on the US!!

And btw, Bunker-Buster nukes can be used on civilian bunkers as well and OMFG I think they'll be used on civilian bunkers if the situation "seems" to make it necessary, in the same sense as it "seemed" that Saddam was about to invade the US! Yes, I don't trust anyone in the Bush administration, they're all suffering from severe paranoia.

	13-09-2005 17:14									#16
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

This is nothing new. This is just rhetorics from Rummie to the terrorists and people who are contemplating becoming one that it's not out of the question, do not give nukes to terrorists, they will be used.

I don't think they'll be used. It's just rhetorics.

I don't see US nuking for example say... some ME nation if there's strong evidence they gave nukes to some terrorist org. Basically killing the 4 guilty people and 300k not guilty? I don't think so. It' sjust rhetorics.

So I wouldn't be alarmed.

The only thing though, this doesn't exaclty help nations wanting to lower the number of nukes. Quite the opposite. See NK negotiatons fall down right about now.

	13-09-2005 18:03									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by VJ NZ has a left-wing press. They like Bush-bashing/anti-americanism since there's demand for it on their domestic market, just like in Finland (Finnish press bashes US all the time). That's my guess, anyway. I don't really know much about NZ.

internet finns look quite right wing and pro usa to me.

	13-09-2005 18:04									#18
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I don't think the terrorist nuke threat is that big. First, I don't believe they can get a real nuke on their hands and second, dirty bombs seem to be overrated. In one fictive example more damage was done by the panic that followed than what the bombs could do. Also I heard that radiation from dirty bombs are not that significant.

	13-09-2005 18:05									#19
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Brachy-Pride internet finns look quite right wing and pro usa to me.

finns are evil, what do you expect?

	13-09-2005 18:22									#20
	Put an end to popups!

No, but we realize that sometimes you need to kill.

	13-09-2005 18:26									#21
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by GePap You can;t argue that nukes are tactically justifiable and then deny the right to have nukes to any soverign state.

Can I argue that nukes are strategically justifiable and then deny the right to have nukes to any soverign state?

	13-09-2005 19:26									#22
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Pekka No, but we realize that sometimes you need to kill.

realize
As much as the psychopath next door realizes that sometimes he needs human flesh to eat.

	13-09-2005 20:30									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

We've always had a first use policy. Just ask Japan. Hell, I'm honestly surprised we didn't use them after 9/11.

	14-09-2005 08:19									#24
	Tired of ads?

We'll meet again,
Don't know where, don't know when,
But we'll meet again
Some summer's day.

--Or--

Boom goes London.
Boom Parie.
More room for you;
More room for me.

And every country, the whole world round
Will just be another All-American town

	14-09-2005 08:38									#25
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Edan Can I argue that nukes are strategically justifiable and then deny the right to have nukes to any soverign state?

no, which is why the non-proliferation regme is bound to fail in the long term as long as the established nuclear powers refuse banning nukes outright, like other WMD's.

	14-09-2005 09:15									#26
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by GePap no, which is why the non-proliferation regme is bound to fail in the long term as long as the established nuclear powers refuse banning nukes outright, like other WMD's.

Well that's silly - I can argue whatever I want to . I think nuclear weapons helped prevent war breaking out between superpowers in the 20th century, saving millions of lives.

I also think that a rogue regime, or one supporting terrorists, should not have access to nuclear weapons, just like a volent criminal shouldn't have access to guns. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that view.

I also don't think it's that hard to accomplish. There are only a small handful of countries seeking nuclear weapons that do not currently have them. Nuclear weapons are expensive to consutrct and expensive to maintain, and most countries find the expense in terms of money and diplomacy not worth it. And we should use the tools of diplomacy to try to ensure that we halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Time will only tell wether or not we'll be successful, but I don't think we should ignore the possibility of other countries getting nuclear weapons just as we shouldn't ignore the possibility of terrorist groups developing them either.