A Pentagon review of U.S. nuclear policy, concluded late last year, put new emphasis on possible nuclear strikes against Third World adversaries and backed development of low-yield nuclear bombs to hit hardened or deeply buried targets.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28866-2002Apr10.html

What do you think, Is this all bullfeces or is the situation in the mideast starting to worry george?

Like maybe it can't be controlled at all, and will have to run its course?

BobGuyİ
And the band played on.

For certain situations, perhaps only nuclear-weapons have sufficient explosive force. I'm sure no one sane, including George W, hopes such things will ever be needed.

Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, on the other hand...

UNITED DEVICES PC911 TEAM MEMBER

Modern nuclear weapons, of the types that the US military has in the arsenal, are capable of being tailored to the response and how "clean" they are. Given the possibility of biological or chemical weapons use in the Middle East (in particular in Iraq), it isn't a bad idea to look at what our response would be. Remember that official policy has been that if attacked with NBC weapons, we will respond with nuclear strikes. Given that the reality that we can turn Mecca into glass may not deter Saddam and friends, our response needs to be tailored in order to be effective.

Hello,
I dont normally post on "political issues" but I had hoped that contemplation of the use nuclear weapons, no matter how limited their deployment and against whoever was a thing of the past.

The "what if scenario" of thinking resulted in the arms race and huge build up of nuclear arsenals during the cold war period.

Ultimately the only people who benefit are the people who make the weapons.

Jim

Jim, I think in this case they are looking for a weapon sufficiently powerful to completely vaporize any vestiges of biological or chemical weapons be directed at the US or its allies. Conventional high explosive air defense weapons only knock an aircraft or missile down. (I'm a former air-defense missile tech/instructor.) Obviously that's not a good idea versus biological weapons. Remember the SCUD missiles during the Gulf War? Even when successfully shot down by Patriot missiles the debris still fell into Tel Aviv and caused casualties. It doesn't help much if air defense missiles intercept a missile loaded with smallpox aimed at Cleveland and it falls largely intact on Pittsburg instead.

Likewise, low-yield nuclear weapons could completely destroy underground biological weapon laboratories and storage facilities without releasing the biological weapons into the atmosphere, with possible catastrophic results.

It's an ugly use of modern technology, but it's prettier than the alternative.

UNITED DEVICES PC911 TEAM MEMBER

>>SIZE="3"]Jim, I think in this case they are looking for a
>weapon sufficiently powerful to completely vaporize any
>vestiges of biological or chemical weapons be directed at
>the US or its allies. Conventional high explosive air
>defense weapons only knock an aircraft or missile down. (I'm
>a former air-defense missile tech/instructor.) Obviously
>that's not a good idea versus biological weapons. Remember
>the SCUD missiles during the Gulf War? Even when
>successfully shot down by Patriot missiles the debris still
>fell into Tel Aviv and caused casualties. It doesn't help
>much if air defense missiles intercept a missile loaded with
>smallpox aimed at Cleveland and it falls largely intact on
>Pittsburg instead.
>
>Likewise, low-yield nuclear weapons could completely destroy
>underground biological weapon laboratories and storage
>facilities without releasing the biological weapons into the
>atmosphere, with possible catastrophic results.
>
>It's an ugly use of modern technology, but it's prettier
>than the alternative.
>
>

>UNITED DEVICES PC911
>TEAM MEMBER

I'm afraid you misunderstood my whole point, which was that nukes ARE hot enough to destroy any biological contaminants they are used against. Did you think the military was looking into this just because nukes make big pretty explosions?

"Discover punctuation; it is your friend."

UNITED DEVICES PC911 TEAM MEMBER

Jim,

Would you prefer that the US not reexamine its options and continues with a policy that states an ICBM launch in retaliation for a chemical or biological weapon use against the US or its forces?

Life isn't always the way we like it, and contigencies must be considered.

Hi Al,
What I would like is for us all to drop(no pun intended) all forms of nuclear weapons from our arsenals.
I realise this probably not going to happen but it doesnt actually stop it from being a desirable thing.

Edit - spelling

Jim

Without those nuclear weapons you so abhor, you would probably be speaking Russian. In all likelihood only the nuclear deterrent prevented the Soviet Union from invading western Europe in the early 1950s. They would probably have succeeded in a conventional war, which would have totally altered the course of European civilization.

Nuclear weapons, for all their inherent horror, have prevented World War III for over 50 years. There is a logical reason no nuclear power has gone to war with another: It's too dangerous.

The nuclear genie can't be put back in the lamp. All that can be done is to attempt to limit the spread of these weapons lest they fall into the hands of madmen or fanatics. Can anyone doubt bin Laden would have nuked New York instead if he'd possessed an atomic bomb September 11th?

UNITED DEVICES PC911 TEAM MEMBER

You would prefer widespread use of chemical and biological weapons?

Not only have nuclear weapons been a deterrent against war, but they have also been a deterrent against the use of chemical and biological weapons. Get rid of that deterrent? Not a good idea.

Excuse my ignorance but...... I am well aware of why the Americans are unhappy with Osama, but Saddam simply stole Kuwait and did not, to my recollection target the U.S.A.. Why do you guys hate him so much?
On the other hand human bombs are killing tens of people here and the US administration is saying that we have to grin and bear it. On the other hand Hindus and Moslems are killing each other in India and Pakistan and no one cares. Can anyone explain this all to a simple soul?

Ethan

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
"Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took it all from them." - Edward Filene

There is considerable evidence that Saddam Hussein was behind the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Further, he is inarguably a sponsor of terrorism and is attempting to develop both nuclear and biological weapons. I propose that it is in no ones benefit if he succeeds, least of all Israel. He is a very dangerous man, and utterly without scruples.

In regard to your other question, I really don't know. I don't see any real moral difference between a so-called "suicide bomber" (More accurately a "homicide-bomber") and what was done in the US September 11th either, nor do I think most Americans see one. I'd like to think that President Bush has some subtle point to make , but I honestly can't guess what it is. I suppose he has to go through the motions of attempting "peace" before he drops the hammer on Arafat; I do know he detests the PLO chairman.

I think public opinion here in the US is gradually swinging back in favor of Israel due to the continued suicide bombings. Don't believe everything you see in our press. I believe Israel is doing the right thing, and I can only respect and admire Israel and her restraint under such horrific attacks on innocent civilians.

What kind of sickos use high-school girls and10 year old boys as suicide bombers?

UNITED DEVICES PC911 TEAM MEMBER

The U.S. and Europe were at one time subject to the terror of an invasive war-machine. Saddam Hussein's regime bears a resemblance to that machine in its infancy. Saddam must never be allowed to have resources to expand that machine or subject a region to his tyranny. He must be controlled. Permanently.

Uh, did anyone notice, or care to mention, the one common denominator between saddam and bin-laden?

BOTH, were former puppets, AND, on the payroll of, the U.S. government.

But, BOTH have to go down man. Period.

DATERMINEHTOR


MY HOME PAGE!


GO LEAFS GO!

http://daterminehtor.blogspot.com/

  

I would put it more simply. Can you imagine a situation in which thousands of Americans were killed by chemical or biological weapons and the US not responding on a massive scale. I would think, given the American citizens general state of mind, the a US President who didn't use extreme force would not be President long - no matter who they are.

An examination & options plan for the Middle East is necessary since it is so important to the well being of the developed world. That includes nukes. What Pentagon Chief of Staff would not have that one in his back pocket?

That does not mean we should look for a situation purposely to use nukes. It does mean the turkeys running various countries in the Middle East as if they are still in medieval times & tolerate terrorism as a behind the scenes national policy need to know, as surely as the sun rises every morning, that the West will surely vaporize them all, if necessary. If you don't think the US will not go to war over a shut down oil supply - think again!

Fred

How would China and Russia fit into this neat little plan? Would they stand idly by and allow this glass-making exercise to take place?
Maybe the US could cut a deal with China and Russia so they could import glass to make windows etc?? Lord knows, they must need them??

>BOTH, were former puppets, AND, on the payroll of, the U.S. government.<

Neither bin Laden nor Saddam Hussein were ever "puppets" of the US. They were both supported by the US when they were fighting adversaries of the US; i.e., the Soviet Union and Iran. This support was based on a very old axiom: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Puppet has a distinct meaning in international affairs, neither bin Laden nor Hussein ever took our orders nor ruled at our sufference. I suspect they did little but take our money and weapons. Bin Laden was not even specifically supported, but was just one of a number mudjahadeen leaders America supported in the Soviet-Afghani War in the 1980s.

All this means is that the US has not always been particularly wise in its selection of "allies". That's hardly new, look at France.

UNITED DEVICES PC911 TEAM MEMBER

You, are quite correct, and I, stand corrected.

DATERMINEHTOR

MY HOME PAGE!

GO LEAFS GO!

http://daterminehtor.blogspot.com/

  

>Uh, did anyone notice, or care to mention, the one common
>denominator between saddam and bin-laden?
>
>BOTH, were former puppets, AND, on the payroll of, the U.S.
>government.
>
>But, BOTH have to go down man. Period.
>
>>FACE="TERMINATOR TWO" SIZE="+3"
>COLOR="BLACK"]DATERMINEHTOR
>
>
>http://members.rogers.com/daterminehtor">MY HOME
>PAGE!
>
>
>>FACE="OVEREXPOSED"]GO LEAFS
>GO!
hello
please dont be offended if i refuse to work for the us govermant.lol

  

For over half a century the possibility of nuclear war has served as a means of preventing the use of mass destruction weapons. No atomic weapon has been used in battle since August 9, 1945.

Only by maintaining our nuclear deterrent ability will we have any hope of preventing some madman from using such weapons. The threat of total annihilation has a clarifying effect on the mind.

Shelly

. "I suspect they did little but take our money and weapons"

Trebuchet, now now come on, you make it sound like the US gave them money and weapons out of some kind of charitable duty. They GAVE them
those things because it supported their interests to do so.

No, I specifically said we gave them cash and arms because they were opposing enemies of ours. Where does that imply altruistic behavior by the US? We gave them materiel for exactly the same reason we gave arms and materiel to the Soviets during WWII: They opposed a common enemy.

Looking after the legitimate interests of a nation is after all the very reason national governments exist. There's nothing immoral about that.

UNITED DEVICES PC911 TEAM MEMBER

I think it would be wrong to assume that politics has anything to do with ethics or morals.

Its not about whats right or whats wrong and it isnt about the victims.

Its about who has what to gain by moving in which direction.

Its a chess game.

Nothing more.

Move around the board, take what you have to to acheive the final goal. The pawns, knights, and bishops youve lost are irrelevant when its all said and done.

And no, i'm not saying the Americans are the only players.. its politics in general. Its just the way it works.

t_bare

political decision is ever based on morals either. Sometimes people do things just because they think it is the right thing to do.

It would certainly make Americas relations in the Middle East and Europe (Both areas of which are largely inhabited by nations that are enemies of Israel) much simpler if we were to withdraw from all support of Israel, alliance with which provides the US with no real resources nor benefits. We support Israel because it is the only democracy in the region; in other words because it is the right thing to do.

UNITED DEVICES PC911 TEAM MEMBER

I got terribly confused after reading Leon Uris's "Exodus" about the formation of the Jewish State. Being a student I was involved in all the usual politically correct demo's etc, and of course, was spoon- fed the "Arab as victim" line. Uris gave the Jewish perspective, and , to be honest, I was left with no choice but to be full of admiration for what they built and achieved over there. So, Im left confused and frustrated by what is happening, wishing that someone would bang their heads together and stop them destrying each other.
Its a cycle, surely...I understand Israels anger going for the jugular right now, but surely (no?) this will just spiral into more suicide bombings?? Violence ONLY begets violence. No???

The long-stated goal of the Palestineans is to destroy Israel. Unfortunately, I don't see how that leaves Israel with a lot of room to compromise. They have tried over and over again without success.

The greatest crimes perpetrated against the Palestinean people has been by their own "government" and by their neighboring Arab nations, who have whipped them into a frenzy of victimhood and refused to allow them to assimilate or become citizens. The only nation in the mideast that permits Palestineans to become citizens or even vote is, ironically, Israel. The Palestineans have been used as nothing more than cannon-fodder by creeps such as Yassir Arafat who have been manipulating them for decades as a weapon against Israel. Arafat is not even Palestinean, he is Egyptian.

The very term "Palestinean" is a creation, little more than a Madison Avenue term to manipulate people into believing there is a "nation" called Palestine. There were no Palestineans agitating for their "own" lands under the Turkish empire, nor under the British Mandate, nor in TransJordan. Israel and Palestine were created by edict of the same UN mandate, splitting TransJordan into 3 sections: 80% became Jordan, 10% was to become Arab Palestine, and 10% was to be Israel. The Arabs rejected this arrangement and immediately declared war on Israel when it was founded in 1948. They've never really stopped.

UNITED DEVICES PC911 TEAM MEMBER

I was listening to Alistair Cooks "Letter from America" last night on BBC radio 4. He said Palestine was given that name by the Romans in the 2nd century AD, who renamed it from its original name Judea. This was apparently to annoy the Jews as the name Palestine derived from the "Philistines" , the Jews sworn enemies. That's what Alistair said anyway Theyr'e going to have to reach some kind of agreement eventually...or maybe not...maybe the killing can go on forever...until they all wipe each other out? Maybe that would solve it?
Then turn the whole area into a wild bird sanctuary??

Bird sanctuary? I think not. Read this article for a far more likely (and very scary!) conclusion if Israel is on the verge of destruction:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/columnists/ponte/2002/ponte04-12-02.htm

The online magazine it's from is rather right-wing but I think the points in this article are still probably valid. It covers Israel better than most journalists, albeit with a very pro-Jewish bias.

UNITED DEVICES PC911 TEAM MEMBER

"Violence only begets violence"

Sometimes violence solves the problem. Permanently and forcefully.

Temporarily maybe, you may subdue him, even get him to admit defeat.
But inflicting violence and humiliation on people, in my humble experience, usually will lead to a desire for revenge. That's why it's a cycle, no?

That depends on the level of suppression. Ask the Roman empire how much trouble the Carthagineans still caused after the Second Punic War.

UNITED DEVICES PC911 TEAM MEMBER

Ok, Treb, next time I bump into Julius C, I'll ask him

Gee, Guess it's a good thing Churchill was in charge over there instead of you during WWII.

Shelly

You mean like the Japanese and Germans? The Native Americans? The Incas? Or does Britain still have a desire for revenge against the Americans?

"Violence ONLY begets violence. No???"

No, violence begets peace if the righteous win. Pacifism begets violence because that's guaranteeing the violent the win. Who do the schoolyard bullies pick on, the strong or the weak?

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

Hmmmm. "The righteous". Let's see. That's the good guy right? Like in the John Wayne film ?

You guys are covering the bases pretty well. I just want to add a few points. When the organized return of Jews to the Land of Israel began, the area was controlled by the Turks. After the First World War the British and the French carved the area up and distributed most of it to a client family of Bedouins from Saudi Arabia. The area of Palestine that was called Cis Jordan , as opposed to Trans Jordan which became the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, was more difficult to parcel out. The League of Nations gave a temporary mandate to Great Britain to rule over Palestine. With a great deal of history in between, in 1948
The Mandate ended, the United Nations divided the Cis Jorden part of Palestine into a Jewish State and an Arab state with economic union, a plan that had its problems but was grudgingly accepted by the Jews and out rightly rejected by the Arabs. Immediately after the declaration of Independence of Israel, this included guaranteeing the equal rights of all of the non Jews with in the state, The Arabs attacked. The attacks were orchestrated from outside Palestine, Regular and irregular soldiers attacked, coming out of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. During the war about 10% of the Jews were killed. 10's of thousands of Arabs were displaced and the land was divided between the Jews in Israel, the Jordanians on the West Bank and the Egyptians in Gaza. The Jordanians and the Egyptian showed no interest in creating a State of Palestine in Gaza or the West Bank.
Golda Meir said many controversial things, she said when the Arabs loved their children more then they hated the Jews, then we could talk peace. She also said that there is no Palestinian People, at the time that was true, the allegiance of the Arabs was to their families and villages, not per se to a People or Nation. Within the refugee camps the Palestinian people were created. Camps that were created and maintained by the Arab "brothers" who had no interest in absorbing these people as refugees were absorbed by other peoples and countries.
The Arab people within the area that was once Palestine remained an active obstacle to peace the entire time (terrorism) and now complain of their treatment by the Jewish State.
During the wonderful period of the '80's and '90's when it looked like the world was going to be a better place, The Jews and the Arabs also began talking finally. Arafat in the later stages took an all or nothing stance, after gaining self rule in most of the West Bank and Gaza and being armed by Israel. When else has an enemy been armed by its enemy?
Now the Palestinians are blowing themselves up in our cities and we are being blamed by the Europeans and the US administration??
Maybe, if Moses had led us to an Oil rich land the story would be different ..

Ethan

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
"Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took it all from them." - Edward Filene

Ethan, you might get a chuckle out of this. Or maybe not.

http://www.satirewire.com/news/march02/chosen.shtml

Time to lighten up the thread a bit...

UNITED DEVICES PC911 TEAM MEMBER

There has been so much mis-information cited by so many people on this thread, that I hardly know where to start.

I'll settle for one comment. The possession of nuclear weapons has served to prevent an attack by other nuclear weapons (MAD; mutuall assured destruction), but:

Nuclear weapons have NEVER, NEVER prevented, or affected a conventional attack. The DOD touted tactical nukes in the 60s and 70s, but quietly packed them away when they (and NATO) realized that all they would do is turn Germany into a radioactive desert.

Ray

In what way does what you've stated above contradict or correct anything said in this thread by anybody? I think everybody here realizes that nuclear weapons are not some sort of panacea, nor has their creation resulted in a wave of worldwide peace.

UNITED DEVICES PC911 TEAM MEMBER

NEVER had an effect?

How about this one.

In 1973, Egypt was carving a path into Israel. A shortage of armored vehicles, aircraft munitions and other logistical items was preventing Israel from effectively dealing with this threat. The USA provided an airlift of the necessary items.

Do you know why the US provided that airlift?

Sure, Israel is our friend. Israel is the sole democracy in the region.

Israel was also about to use nuclear weapons to stop the Egyptians, to maintain their survival. The airlift prevented it.

I'd call that an effect on a conventional attack.

The nuclear devices under consideration today are significantly different than the Little John rockets of the 1960s. Accuracy, yield and behavior are all far improved. The existence of tactical nuclear devices affected both the US Army's organizational structure (any one remember the Pentagram divisions?) and the Soviet Army's approach to warfare. In a like vein, the existence of tailored nuclear devices in the US inventory should have an effect on how the nations in the Middle East choose to deal with us.

Isn't it sad though, Al, that despite having these weapons, the Middle East doesn't appear to care? We only have to recall recent tragic events for confirmation of this.

It has been posited that the war to end all wars (and more than likely, us) will begin in the Middle East. For all our sakes, and most importantly, for the sake of our children, let us hope that this is not the case. And that now, is not the time.

If there really is, ever a time.

DATERMINEHTOR


MY HOME PAGE!


GO LEAFS GO!

http://daterminehtor.blogspot.com/

  

Not that i am one to quote the bible, but it states that there will be unrest in Jerusalem until the end of time basically.

I dont know much about the bible really, and i dont wish to turn this into a religious belief thread, but i do think that we are dreaming if we believe that we will ever see peace there.


t_bare

You've got that right....

I understand the Israeli's point of view. It is simply that their survival as a nation is more important than discarding the possibility of using nuclear weapons. The same attitude the United States has on the use of nuclear weapons.

But I don't get the Arab point of view. They seem to think that the extermination of Israel is more important than their survival.

Damn Al, King Solomon couldn't have said it any better.

Walter A Robertson

Lotta speculation in the first part of your statement. It has been rumored for years that Israeli leadership was in near panic and considered using nukes (frog and scorpion paradigm), but no evidence that it came close to happening.

Did we supply weapons out of fear they would use the nukes? Gee, that could mean that the Israelis used nuclear blackmail to force us to provide weapons. Silly idea, isn't it? Fact is, at that time, and likely now, no way we were/are going to let them be annihilated.

Your last part: tactical nuclear weapons are OK now because they are more accurate and effective than they used to be. Dr. Strangelove lives!


Ray

from the United States the necessary weapons-grade plutonium needed to make their early nuclear weapons. Of course, they now have a breeder reactor to manufacture plutonium themselves.

The destructive power of nuclear weapons is such that no one but a madman wishes to risk their use against themselves. The mere possibility that they might be used has acted as a deterrent for decades. Fortunately, no one but a madman wants to use them either. That these powerful weapons cause negative emotional reactions does not diminish the objective truth of their utility in securing peace on a large scale, though obviously not on a small one.

UNITED DEVICES PC911 TEAM MEMBER

"Fortunately, no one but a madman wants to use them...

Unfortunately, there is no shortage of madmen in the middle east. I have little doubt that if the Palestinians had access to nuclear weapons, they would not hesitate to use them.

Shelly

Unfortunately, I couldn't agree more.

Sadly, while Muslims individually may be amongst the nicest of people, Muslim nations do not appear to make good neighbors.

UNITED DEVICES PC911 TEAM MEMBER

Old Ray,

I suggest you talk to the members of the JCS at the time. Ask them. It isn't a rumor.

As for blackmailing us? I would say they made us aware of the choices available to them. But then again, the US being blackmailed isn't new or silly.

As for the effiency of the weapons, I guess you have the same mentality about conventional bombs? Well, I guess those quantum changes that were illustrated in Desert Storm and Afghanistan don't make any difference, do they?

Tell me, what makes an FAE acceptable, but a low-yield, clean nuke not?

How's the little one coming along Al?