Am I the only one scared of this?

Hobbes

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1576/1920132.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-030902bombs.story

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration has directed the military to prepare contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries and to build smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations, according to a classified Pentagon report obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

The secret report, which was provided to Congress on Jan. 8, says the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. It says the weapons could be used in three types of situations: against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or "in the event of surprising military developments."

gandalf

Nope we all are. Obviously someone in the circles of power in Washington is to as they leaked this.

Gandalf.

bonkey

Its the "use of nukes against hardened targets" provision which worries me.

As we've said before, the US is not wrong to have plans drawn up to cover many eventualities - invasion plans for most nations, scenario plans, and nuclear response falls into this.

The US must show that it is willing to use WMDs in response to WMD attack - thats the whole point of a "deterrant".

"Surprising military developments" - yeah, I can maybe dig that one too, but I get a feeling it means "reacting to the how-the-hell-did-they-develop-something-which-can-kick-our-asses situation".

However, drawing up plans to use nukes against hardened targets is the one which worries me. These are plans to allow the use of tactical battlefield weapons, and not necessarily against a nuclear-capable enemy - just against one you cant conventionally bomb into the stone age.

Of course, the US will make some press statement about how theyve always had such plans, and that nothing has changed....

jc

azezil

Are North Korea, Libya and Syria legitimate targets?
Granted some terrist organisation may be able to lauch from these locations but to nuke the general populus? (not that use of nukes is acceptable against anyone)

Hobbes

N.Korea is part of Bushes "Axis-of-Evil", I'm sure South Korea will just love getting nukes dumped on it's next door neighbour.

Actually Bushes wording on a few things worries me. I don't know if it's because of his typical bushism's, he doesn't pay attention to what he's saying or he actually means what he says.

For example when asked about the fighting recently in Afganistan he said "We won't stop until they surrender or we wipe them all out". (sic)

He could of certainly left out the "wipe them all out" part.

Typedef

Lets be glaringly clear.
North Korea is in the midst of a famine. The fabled Taepodong 2 'ballistic missle' you know the one George Bush made so much noise about will be used to target the West Coast of the US with nuclear weapons the North Koreans don't even posess (thanks to some diplomacy(I know it's a dirty word)), can barely clear the East coast of Japan, and is not in my opinion any kind of tangable threat to the US save it's use as an excuse to filibuster the 'Sunshine' policy of raprochament between North and South Korea.

The Son of starwars program's entire reason for existance is based on the 'implied' threat posed by the Taepodong II, a threat that cannot reasonably be posed by a country that cannot even feed it's own people, lets get some kind of objective grip on reality and cut through the propaganda long enough to see at least that much.

Instead of using diplomacy and working North Korea towards raprochament with the South and thus remove the 'supposed threat from this ICBM that can't clear the East cost of Japan hence the IC part of the name' the Bush administration simply labled North Korea as a 'rouge state' and decided to pump x million/billion dollars into the Son of Starwars, in contravention to the 1972 Anti Ballistic Missle treaty, a treaty Bush labled as 'inconsistent with reality' or some such totally unsubstancited and unsupported claim.
Ok I accept the administration needed an excuse pre-September 11 2001 to expand the military budget and that North Korea seemed as good a reason as any, but in the reality of all things that are North Korea is an impoverished state and the rumours of 'terrorism' from North Korea are wholely unsubstanciated 'much like the 'threat from the Taepodong''.

Morpheus

Usually militarily hardened targets ARE NOT placed in high popluation areas, even and especially terrorist ones, the simple reason being that they are usually covert, and secretive targets.

secondly if u know about the USA's nuclear arsenal u would also know that they have specially designed small nuclear tactical weapons that can be used to take out hardend targets such as may be built into the side of a mountain, etc, that give off very low yield radiation, ad cause a small EMP burst that basically nullifies all electronic and radio equipment in the localised area around the blast, so that ground troops can move in and mop up, because there is little or no fallout.

Thats not to say that the US wont simply adopt a "Blow the feckers out of it" policy if these cleanER nukes dont work and drop the biggies on em, or worse, AIR burst them, that is to explode the nuke at about 500 to 1000 feet above the target, so the blast covers more area than a ground level explsion, ie, there is NO cover other than underground that guarantees survival, so it can cause MAXIMUM civilian casualties.

seamus

Originally posted by bonkey
Its the "use of nukes against hardened targets" provision which worries me.

Me too. Surely the Taleban were one of the most 'hardened targets' possible? The US managed to destroy their powers through common methods. This is a totally unnecessary and completely dumb move. I expect we see plenty more of these kind of ideas being used by Bush (because he's an idiot).

:mad:

MrPudding

Originally posted by Morphéus

Thats not to say that the US wont simply adopt a "Blow the feckers out of it" policy if these cleanER nukes dont work and drop the biggies on em, or worse, AIR burst them, that is to explode the nuke at about 500 to 1000 feet above the target, so the blast covers more area than a ground level explsion, ie, there is NO cover other than underground that guarantees survival, so it can cause MAXIMUM civilian casualties.

Firstly let me say that whatever type of Nuke is used and however it is used a lot of people will have a bad day. That said, Airbursts are preferable to ground bursts. If you refer to military NBC manuals you will find that airbursts are much more survivable. A person hiding under a car (listed as possible cover) has a chance (very, very slim) of surviving the initial blast, depending on range. If it was a ground explosion it would be death. The range to explosion is very important to if you did a chart of survival chance versus range from blast you would find that the likelihood of survival increases much faster with airbursts. Airbursts are not very good against Hard targets. For Hard target a ground burst as close to the target as poss is much more likely to succeed. Another reason that Airbursts are *better* is that they are *cleaner* A ground burst will suck up millions of tones of debris which will be irradiated and liberally spread around the countryside; this fallout is the real killer. Airbursts result in relatively little

Gargoyle

It is common practice for a new president to review nuclear policy. Clinton did it. Bush Sr. did it. This is really nothing new. Also, please note the word "contingency".

The only thing new here is that the contents of the policy review were leaked to the press.

seamus

Originally posted by Gargoyle
Also, please note the word "contingency".

Funnily enough, knee-jerk reactions are now more severe and more sensitive, making a decision to use this contigency plan far more likely. That is, Bush is still very likely to overreact to another attack on his country.

Gargoyle

Of course, there is no way to be sure what kind of extraordinary circumstances could develop, but I would say with high certainty that I cannot envision a scenario where the US would use nuclear weapons except in response to another nuclear attack. This is definitely true for stategic nukes and very likely true for tactical nukes as well.

Hobbes

I think that was part of it where they were trying to OK the use of nukes in battle conditions even against countries who don't have nukes.

reviewing policy is one thing but you have wonder the lucky 7. Syria? Would that be in the case of Israel is attacked? Why China?

MrPudding

I think even George Dubya Bush would think twice about using Nukes. In the immediate aftermath of Sept 11 when the death toll was thought to be 5000 higher than what we now know some countries did not even want conventional retaliation. I think the likelihood of another country attacking the US with a weapon of mass destruction is unlikely. I think it is more likely that a small organization or keen group of individuals would be more likely to make the attempt. How do you nuke individuals? There is the possibility that they would be doing this at the behest of an unfriendly nation but proving that, to the level that most countries would require to stomach a nuclear attack, would not be easy. I think he needs to be seen to be making these plans but I think (and hope) most people don’t beleive he will actually use them. On the other hand, I don’t think there has ever been an American more likely to give it a go.

Gargoyle

The plans serve as a deterrant - a reminder that while unlikely, nuclear retaliation is not completely off the table. Were a terrorist group to somehow acquire a small warhead and get it into the US, or highjack a russian silo, they need to think that the threat of nuclear retaliation is very real...even if it may not be.

Morpheus

I personally think the plans were deliberatly "leaked", it serves to bolster the bush administrations support, by reasuring the vast majority of US citizens, that their country is safe, simply because they reckon that if anyone else attempts another Sept11 terrorist attack, they will face possible nuclear reaction, and ultimately this causes people in the terrorist organisations home country to turn against them.

I mean would we in Ireland want the IRA to be threatening something on this scale if we knew we might wake up tomorrow, with a nice blistery tan, and a brekkie of iodine tablets (allbeit out of date ones :rolleyes: ).

No terrorist org that is threatening the USA will be able to set up in a 3rd world or even 2nd world country, the host nation would be too scared sh*tless, to allow it to happen.

On the plus, i honestly dont think that the Eastern block superpowers that be, mainly China and Russia would sit quietly back while ol Georgie boy blasts their neighbourhood into the stoneage.

so relax, and worry about the new bin charges we have to pay! oh yeah, before you run out to dig the foundations for that new state of the art bunker in the back garden, and buy your airtight anti radiation suits, has anyone gotten the emergeancy plan leaflet? check out www.dpe.ie to see what this great country of ours will do if sellafield goes critical, thats about the only radioactive fallout we will suffer short-term!

BTW.... Green part leader Trevor Sargeant lives across the road from me, he has a nuke bunker built into his front garden! Thats true, no sh*t, ive seen it, its pretty amazing, food stores, clean water supply and all.

wonder what other politicians have bunkers??

maybe our Govt isnt telling us EVERYTHING :eek: