Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan

[ECH1969]

Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons

The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.

At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States would "respond with overwhelming force" to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces or allies, and said "all options" would be available to the president.

The first example for potential nuclear weapon use listed in the draft is against an enemy that is using "or intending to use WMD" against U.S. or allied, multinational military forces or civilian populations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053_pf.html

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Oh excrement!

We are in deep doo doo. If this had been in place two years ago, I have no doubt Bush would have nuked Iraq. Does this mean he'll go ahead and nuke Iran?

[whistle]

4. No he wants the oil, he'll nuke NYC, San Francisco and other

...heavily Democratic population centers in the country (not sarcasm)

[Judi Lynn]

32. He will if he can get by with it. What would prevent it? His "conscience?"

Not likely!

[Born Free]

38. I believe he will use a tactical nuke...

Coworkers call me crazy but I said many times to watch out for the use of "1" tactical nuke , just to show the world he will do it and try to scare them into submission. I don't think it will cause WW III because most nations have somewhat reasonable leaders, only USA has the fanatical, ideological, cowards running the country behind the worlds greatest arsenal of nukes. The individuals running the show are clueless and only know they have the most powerful weapons and the desire to rule the world.
It is a very dangerous situation and until the American people stand up to have these individuals legally removed from their postions of power, the entire world is at risk.

[Judi Lynn]

100. Sad situation. If only he can leave office first without using his power

to get many more people killed, people all over the world will be so relieved.

A "HUGH" question: Is it possible he can be removed, after the MEpublicans have seized control, and own the voting process?

[YapiYapo]

41. Oil is underground.

It's somewhat protected from nuclear strike if they are not too close from the oil.

They want to prevent Iran to deal in euro ( http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html ), as they don't have the military ressource to invade another country ,they will probably use nuclear power.It's more cost effective.

[StrafingMoose]

62. Are you serious?

"Oil is underground -- It's somewhat protected from nuclear strike if they are not too close from the oil."

We mean "oil infrastructures" by "oil". Yes, oil is underground and water is liquid, air is gas.

If USA launches _one_ nuke on Iran, it'll be raining Chinese, Russian ICBMs on all major American cities. I don't think any industrialized country will let USA destroy the much needed oil export from Iran. And needed as in "we _need_ it to function" not only so fatcats get more money.

[anitar1]

70. I believe the same thing. If he launches one nuclear

weapon, we are toast. Those who are not in the target zones will die of radiation sickness. The world will consider it their duty to destroy the madmen who are at the helm. Those of you who were not around in the 50's cannot imagine the fear we went through over nukes. My decision was to take my children and walk out to meet it, if we had any warning. That is , once I realized what a plutonium bomb could do. Who would have thought that our country would come back to this. Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Indeed, Dr. Strangelove , the movie, was true.

[Imagevision]

96. And the lower Bush numbers sink-the more likely he'll use them...!

http://downingstreetmemo.com/

[iamjoy]

141. Yee-Haw!

(as Slim Pickens would say)

aren't we oh-so-glad Dubya and friends have learned to stop worrying and love the bomb?

[YapiYapo]

122. All i'm saying

Is that in a war for ressource, nuke is more energy efficient than invading a country.Here the point is more to prevent other getting acces to that oil than using it.

What will happen if an US base in Iraq is attacked by "terrorists" with biological or nuclear weapon ?

According to you that revise of nuclear strike plan is only there to scare other country ?

[Nothing Without Hope]

125. Actually, I do think they want to nuke Iran and maybe Syria.

They've been leading up to it for years, especially the last few years. And just a day or two ago Ariel Sharon announced that Iran will have a nuclear bomb in "six months." The push by some neocons and Likud ultra-hawks to pre-emptively attack Iran has not let up.

I'll try to post on the "six months" number of Sharon's, which contradicts all the best real intelligence, tomorrow. It will be at the end of the thread.

[YapiYapo]

126. In my opinion They want to send a clear message

to every country in the middle east, that message is don't drop the dollar as oil trading exchange.

Their ultimatum is 6 month,i e we need to do something about them before 6 month.What happen in 6 month ? In 6 month we will be in march 2006 , guess what happen in march 2006 ?

That's right the iran oil bourse that will allow iran and any other willing oil producer country to trade in euro.

Seem too much of a coincidence to me...

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GH26Dj01.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=28176&NewsKind=Business%20%26%20Economy

[Nothing Without Hope]

127. Very interesting and news to me. Thanks for the links!

The oil connections just keep popping up.

[YapiYapo]

129. Oil connections seem to be everywhere in geopolitics

We are living a very interesting time.
There are billions of chinese investment in Iran (a bit less for russia) ,both won't tolerate an attack.

[StrafingMoose]

61. Same thought

if just 1 little nuke goes off in USA, Bush will have a clear path for at least another 50 years.

Seriously, what's more scary is what's gonna happen after -- not the damage itself.

[Old and In the Way]

6. I think they've been trying to do this for awhile. Battlefield nukes.

That "intended to use" is rather open-ended, isn't it? Especially, in light of how Iraq's "intention" turned out to be a complete fraud. I don't know if Congress has any say, but the boy-king in office ought not to be trusted with these decisions.

These is bad news. In the past it was the Presiden't sole decision to use them. Now we have 100's of people of unknown mental stability who could have that authority. Not good.

[punpirate]

12. Actually, something like this was in place...

... three years ago, in the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review. That document gave battlefield commanders discretion to use nuclear weapons, and made policy the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries if ordered by the president.

This, I suspect, is just a clarification of standing battle orders.

But, given that it's coming out now, and has been conveniently leaked before being signed off on by the powers that be, it's likely something's up. There's always something behind the propaganda, and *'s latest spewage about Iraq being like WWII and himself being like FDR portends something unpleasant....


edit for syntax.

[H2O Man]

57. It is part

of an effort to : (1) bully Iran; and (2) prepare for if another country we have strong ties to begins airstrikes in Iran, and Iran retaliates with powerful weapons, to reduce the country rapidly.

There was no serious thought about nuking Iraq. They were defenseless in a regular air & ground war. Iran is a very different set of circumstances.

[Wabbajack]

81. been in place two years ago, I have no doubt Bush would have nuked Iraq..

If he wanted to do that wouldn't he have but it in place then?

[Abathar]

108. I don't think so

Back in the first gulf war I was 1Lt of a partiot battery in Saudi Arabia, while I was in route to 1HQ for a meeting we took a wrong turn and was promply stopped by a squad of MP's beside a fresh piled berm. Covered in netting was a Pershing launcher - No other missle has that sharp nose and features. We were promply turned around and sent packing. Next day I checked to see on our map if we had a DP for that site - It was marked black A1 - that means we were to defend that site even if it meant allowing ourselves to be destroyed in the process. There were other sites stationed back further also, I believe they were positioned in a Just In Case screen if Saddam did anything stupid. We move nukes around all the time in case we need them, people just don't know it is all.

[Frederik]

121. Interesting

I kinda hope you're wrong about that...

[whistle]

2. Star Wars evil empire at last....Rumsfeld's wet dream

[longship]

3. OMG! A policy of nuclear preemption!!!

This is unbelievable. The US has never publically stated such a policy before. Even during the MAD days it was always defense. There very well may have been a preemptive policy but it was never discussed publically, to my knowledge.

Prediction: the Doomsday Clock ought to be moving again soon.

on edit: this is a *very* destabilizing policy.

[whistle]

7. The neo-cons own the Doomsday Clock

2002 | Seven minutes to midnight

Little progress is made on global nuclear disarmament. The United States rejects a series of arms control treaties and announces it will withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Terrorists seek to acquire and use nuclear and biological weapons.


Should have been advanced when BushCO funded nuclear research

[longship]

14. Well, the publishers of the Bulletin would disagree with you.

The first thing they would say in response to your claim is that they do not go by political whims, but only by the global nuclear threat. They don't want the clock moving back and forth month by month, or even necessarily year by year. Only when events build up to the point where the danger has clearly increased or decreased is the clock moved. It is a very seriouos affair which they take very seriously.

But I agree with you about one thing. If I were on the Bulletin's board, I would be encouraging fellow board members to make a change, especially given recent developments in other areas, mainly SE Asia and the Middle East, to say nothing of the bellicose nature of the Bush Administration.

The neocons do not run the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.

[jpak]

5. Better stock up that old fallout shelter

ChimpCo is going after I-ran and NK....

[jus_the_facts]

8. "respond with overwhelming force"....against the United States.......

.... its forces or allies, and said "all options" would be available to the president. :(

[bee]

9. Im starting to think they wont be happy until all but the 2% are dead.

I know its a pessimistic view and Im sorry... but this * administration is seriously starting to scare the shit out of me. Do they hate us? Do they? Because thats how it feels. Or all they so caught up in making money from war that death has become inconsequential.... :scared:

edited to add missed word.

[kohodog]

10. Iran: "Dick is a Killer" Cheney has you in his sights

Is there a clause that says that they will be used for political gain in the US? That is the real bottom line for these sick people.

Polls at 38% and moving south. If we get to 2008 and the neocons are still in power but out of favor, I wouldn't be surprised to see them pull the trigger on the ultimate weapon.

[tocqueville]

11. If you read the whole article you see the the utter bullshit...

There are no countries with stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons able to deliver a heavy blow to the US.

It's difficult to imagine Russia, China, N.Korea or eventually Iran sending a fleet of planes or ICBMs to the US to deliver a chemical blow or even a bacteriological one. It would be more efficient to send a couple of birds infected with a human variation of SARS....

The nuclear bunkerbuster is a myth. It will detonate practically a ground level. No weapon can reach a facility buried under 4 miles of granite...

This is similar to Cheney's doctrine in the 80s which painted a strategy of a Soviet threat they didn't possess...

The worse is that it isn't pure paranoia. It's a conscious trick to get funding for weapon development so some people can even get richer...

[Ouabache]

39. read closely - "its forces or allies," is included by Bu$hco

They are saying they would use nukes to preempt Iran on the basis that Iran was 'planning' to use a nuke 'against our forces' in Iraq. I am pretty sure.

I think even if they use a nuke on Iran, Iran probably has a plan to devastate our force in Iraq. In fact I think that will be the next big disaster for Bu$h. A day of 'Tet' in Iraq that makes New Orleans look like a pool party. I think if we attack Iran in anyway there will be a devastation of our forces in Iraq. I have been saying it for a while. Of course that may happen anyway. Face it, from a global perspective our forces are concentrated and surrounded in Iraq. Our fleet in the Gulf over there could be seen as a duck shoot too in some respects.

I also said before the election that if we did not rid ourselves of Bush his second term would be one where he flipped off a nuke or two.
He is that evil. Won't give it a second thought once he decides it is his will.

[earth mom]

119. "His" will? or "Gods" will?

:scared:

Won't somebody PLEASE step in and save the world from these wackos???!!!

[lastknowngood]

13. They will use the "republican bomb" the neutron bomb kills the

people and leaves the buildings and you can occupy the area in a mater of weeks.

[anotherdrew]

15. yes and they are developing newer versions that leave much less fallout

basicly they're working on making very "usable" nukes.

Clearly such types are vastly more likely to be used, as you don't have to worry as much about killing the "ally" you're "defending".

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

91. Behold the sparkle of champagne

"Kill The Poor" - Dead Kennedys

Efficiency and progress is ours once more
Now that we have the Neutron bomb
It's nice and quick and clean and gets things done
Away with excess enemy
But no less value to property
No sense in war but perfect sense at home:

The sun beams down on a brand new day
No more welfare tax to pay
Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light
Jobless millions whisked away
At last we have more room to play
All systems go to kill the poor tonight

Gonna
Kill kill kill kill Kill the poor:Tonight

Behold the sparkle of champagne
The crime rate's gone
Feel free again
O' life's a dream with you, Miss Lily White
Jane Fonda on the screen today
Convinced the liberals it's okay
So let's get dressed and dance away the night

While they:
Kill kill kill kill Kill the poor:Tonight

[buzzsaw_23]

16. US high tech surveillance and targeting power is the "new mode"

Mini-nukes and all sorts of electro-magnetic "Crowd Control" weapons.


US Military vs. Global South Cities

by Stephen Graham

July 20, 2005

Western military theorists and researchers are increasingly preoccupied with how  the rapid growth of cities in the global south undermine their technological advantages over non-state insurgents. In particular, a concerted effort is being made to redesign and reequip the United State military so that its raison d’ êtré becomes the violent take over and control of the mega cities of the global south. After three decades when the US military concentrated on global surveillance, power projection, and the avoidance of ground fighting in urban environments,  US high-tech surveillance and targeting power is now being redesigned to actually target and control the very micro geographies of global south cities.

With the bloody results of the urban insurgency in Iraq adding evidence to support their views every day, many leading military theorists in the US now argue that the urban terrain in poor, global south countries is a great leveller between high-tech US forces and their low-tech and usually informally organised and poorly equipped adversaries. The complex and congested terrain below, within, and above cities are thus widely viewed by US military commanders and theorists as a set of spaces which limit the effectiveness of the high-tech space-targeted bombs, surveillance systems, and automated, ‘network-centric’ and ‘precision’ weapons developed during the Cold War. A US Defense Intelligence Reference Document for example, argues  that “the urban environment negates the abilities of present US military communications equipment.”  This results in dead spots which severely undermine the principles and technologies of ‘network-centric warfare’” – the style of high-tech targeting  and killing that is the preferred mode of operation amongst the US military these days.  Global south cities are thus seen to be refuges which shelter insurgent groups from the overwhelming technological superiority of US forces. The major military think tank RAND report ed recently that this is leading to what they call the ‘urbanization of insurgency’.”

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=8346

[lala_rawraw]

17. Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan

Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 11, 2005; A01

The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.

At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States would "respond with overwhelming force" to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces or allies, and said "all options" would be available to the president.

The draft, dated March 15, would provide authoritative guidance for commanders to request presidential approval for using nuclear weapons, and represents the Pentagon's first attempt to revise procedures to reflect the Bush preemption doctrine. A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration, contains no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053_pf.html

[liveoaktx]

18. Uh... where's CONGRESS in this scenario since what they would

be doing by pre-emptively striking another country would be WAR.

[FrozeUp]

19. No kidding. Can you imagine ten years ago...

The president declaring it his divine right to attack any nation with NUCLEAR WEAPONS that he THINKS might me able to do something nasty with some WW1 mustard gas? Its absurd. These people are drunk on power and utterly absurd.

[Zynx]

22. Congress has never had anything to do with nuclear war plans

Constitution aside, no one's ever seriously argued that a pending nuclear exchange would leave any time for a meeting of Congress and a formal declaration of war. For that matter, it was quite a trick to even get Congress out of DC alive.

It's solely an Executive branch decision.

[liveoaktx]

23. Nonsense... this is the type of example that the US used for Iraq

They KNEW Iraq had WMD. I agree that in the event of a nuclear weapon heading directly to this country that the President would need to be able to ultimately, as CIC, take action. But there's way too much gray in the Bush Pre-emptive Strike doctrine.

[Zynx]

83. I agree. I'm just saying, historically, nukes were up to the President.

That's solely because of the timeframe involved with the Cold War. Actual declarations of war were pretty much out of the question.

[hardrainfallin]

20. Too bad they didn't include

weapons of mass *distraction*, because it looks like they're going to be needing some very soon (to feed the Rove machine).

Scarey timing? Or just coincidence?

[longship]

21. As I wrote in the previous posting of this article

This is a completely unprecedented change in US nuclear weapons policy. It has never been the stated policy of this country that nuclear weapons would be used preemptively. This is a most unstabilizing policy which could put putative nuclear opponent countries on a hair triggers where nuclear war could easily be triggered accidently.

I cannot measure my hate for these people. They do not know what they are doing. Their incompetence will have us all dead.

[IndianaGreen]

24. We are about to outdo the Third Reich on genocide

The nuclear cowboys, from the President on down, are a danger to the entire world and must be stopped by whatever means are necessary.

Has Doctor Strangelove materialized in the Pentagon?

[bleedingheart]

114. I fear you are correct.

[Nostradamus]

25. These weapons are for use in countries that won't give the US their oil

[Kablooie]

26. The biggest problem is ...

If we have a nuclear policy to respond only in retaliation, others are deterred because they know if they don't hit us, we won't hit them.

A preemptive policy means that if enemies think we feel threatened, they will feel forced to use their weapons against us quickly and hard before we can prempt them.

It's simply encouraging enemy regimes to attack us more than they would otherwise.

Those idiots!!

[Judi Lynn]

27. U.S. Envisions Using Nukes on Terrorists

U.S. Envisions Using Nukes on Terrorists
31 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A Pentagon planning document being updated to reflect the doctrine of pre-emption declared by President Bush in 2002 envisions the use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies.

The "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," which was last updated 10 years ago, makes clear that "the decision to employ nuclear weapons at any level requires explicit orders from the president."

But it says that in a changing environment "terrorists or regional states armed with WMD will likely test U.S. security commitments to its allies and friends."

"In response, the U.S. needs a range of capabilities to assure friend and foe alike of its resolve," says the 69-page document dated March 15 and posted on a Pentagon web site.
(snip/...)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050911/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/nuclear_doctrine;_ylt=Arj0FXlVNYZ.EZV_LbzDpV2s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

[Thor_MN]

44. Apparently, "Smart" bombs are not causing enough colateral damage

to appease the blood lust of the neocons. Now we need a bigger hammer to push in a pin.

[IndianaGreen]

45. If we are going to nuke terrorists, let's start with the White House!

Bush has outdone Osama bin Laden by a hundredth fold!

[Usrename]

28. Somebody please get *'s finger away from the red button.

His poll numbers are at an all time low. He will do anything. He is dangerous.

[FormerOstrich]

29. Every Country should be screaming about this....

attack by a nation or a terrorist group

We have already told the world we would strike terrorists whereever they are. The terrorists without borders. In essence, we could strike in any country at any time (I think we did...a drone in Egypt or Turkey???).

Is the strict interpertation is we could nuke any country at any time?

I've asked back when the "Bush Doctrine" was produced and I didn't receive an answer...Does * actually have the authority to so dramatically change our National Security Policies? Has any other president made such sweeping changes?

[Kool Kitty]

30. Dang.

Nothing but good news tonight, huh? This is truly terrifying. :scared: :nuke: :scared:

[antonialee839]

31. These bastards will end up destroying the entire planet.

[BigBearJohn]

33. U.S. Envisions Using Nukes on Terrorists

WASHINGTON - A Pentagon planning document being updated to reflect the doctrine of pre-emption declared by President Bush in 2002 envisions the use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies.

The "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," which was last updated 10 years ago, makes clear that "the decision to employ nuclear weapons at any level requires explicit orders from the president."

But it says that in a changing environment "terrorists or regional states armed with WMD will likely test U.S. security commitments to its allies and friends."

"In response, the U.S. needs a range of capabilities to assure friend and foe alike of its resolve," says the 69-page document dated March 15.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050911/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/nuclear_doctrine

[merwin]

34. Envision a world without people.

That's what Bush is taking us towards.

[shanti]

36. makes you wonder

if they know something we don't :eyes:

[aquart]

35. This president is dangerously insane.

No sense of reality whatsoever.

And no regard for human or any other kind of life.

[Hekate]

37. I said much the same thing when I read about "bunker busters"

here at DU a couple of years ago. "Usable tactical nuclear weapons" -- the idea was being put forward that they were something to be actually used.

I thought to myself that these men must be insane, absolutely insane. We lived through the terror of the Cold War and thought that phase of international relations was over -- and these lunatics lusted to bring it all back again.

And not only that, they want to take it to the next level -- no more "balance of terror" but actually to use nukes they describe as "small" that in reality have more capacity than the bombs that wiped out Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Have I mentioned lately how much I loathe these cockroaches?

Hekate

#Why won't the Chickenhawk cross the road?#
#Why isn't the Chickenhawk waitin' on the levee?#

[klyon]

63. yup the arms race is back

MAD is back in play and they don't care

KL

[truthisfreedom]

40. Pentagon plans nuclear strikes on weather, Democrats, and brown people

of all types.

ho-hum.

[NCPatriot]

42. (WP Article) Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053_pf.html

Let the games begin! (My words)

Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan
Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 11, 2005; A01



The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.

At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States would "respond with overwhelming force" to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces or allies, and said "all options" would be available to the president.

and further down...

The first example for potential nuclear weapon use listed in the draft is against an enemy that is using "or intending to use WMD" against U.S. or allied, multinational military forces or civilian populations.

Another scenario for a possible nuclear preemptive strike is in case of an "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy."

[IndianaGreen]

43. Under this plan, the US would have nuked Cuba in 1962

and the Soviet Union would have responded with a massive nuclear response. None of us would be alive to today to discuss this scenario!

This is the plan of a madman!

[mod mom]

46. Is this good policy knowing there is a madman in the WH?

[tuvor]

47. My God, what fucked-up freaks.

I'm starting to wonder just what it'll take before Americans will take back their country and NOW.

[killbotfactory]

48. we can't survive Bush fulfilling his second term

please, vote democrat, impeach this dangerous idiot

[Nothing Without Hope]

49. OH NO!!!!! We have to get this out to the media!!! Pre-emptive nuclear

strikes!!! And yes, it will definitely be on Iran. Read through all of this thread - we are in dire danger of starting World War III over oil and the neocon/PNAC insanity!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4252778
Thread title: Three extremely important threads on Iran nukes & the Bush agenda

Read the whole thing, including the links and additional info in the replies. They are dead serious about attacking Iran, possibly along with or after Israel does. And SOON, despite the best intelligence that Iran is very far from having its own nuclear bombs.

We must media blast this!!! No one is watching - they're all absorbed by the hurricane aftermath!!!

[Nothing Without Hope]

50. This is a further development of a previous official policy document

that made pre-emptive strikes official US policy, but did not specify that they coulde be nuclear:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1686257

We MUST media blast this!!! Make it public!!! FIGHT this - for they are heading for World War III over their greed for oil.

And this despite the best official, professional intelligence that Iran is many years away from having nuclear bomb capability.

[Nothing Without Hope]

51. Question: Since Congress gave the POTUS the unconstitutional power

to go to war on his own whim, would this policy, when approved, mean that the insane Mr. Bush and his greedy criminal nutjob cabal have the ability to order pre-emptive nuclear strikes without any prior warning to Congress or to us?

I fear the answer is YES. I see no reason why it wouldn't be, for this is the Rumsfeld Pentagon's plan.

[VegasWolf]

52. Bush is feeling down after people blame him for Katrina, he wants

to blow something up so that he can feel better.

:nuke:

[ClassWarrior]

53. /

[Mugsy]

54. Better link in NYTimes.

There is another report in the NYTimes that may shed some more/better light on the issue at:

Pentagon Studies Pre-Emptive Nuclear Strikes
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/politics/11nukes.html?ex=1127102400&en=591b153f5270a193&ei=5070&emc=eta1

[Time for change]

55. This is the worst and most dangerous President we've ever had

He must be removed from office.

But if we don't reverse the privitization of our elections we're likely to be stuck with Jeb until 2016.

Kicked and nominated.

[redacted]

56. KICK. ANOTHER mind-blowing story.

[paineinthearse]

58. I was very physically tired.

Now I am SICK and tired.

nominated.

p.s. Go Pnikus, one of the few "good" reporters.

[sakabatou]

59. Tinfoil hat on!

:tinfoilhat:

[ignatius 2]

60. Fucking madness..preemptive strikes my ass..this band of lunatics

will strike anyone they damn well please particularly if they are sitting on oil and then lie about the reason,ultimately morphing it into a march for freedom.

Yeah,freedom from their assets and their lives.

Impeachment is too good for this administration,orange jumpsuits and hard time,more like.

[are_we_united_yet]

66. self delete

wrong place

[Nothing Without Hope]

74. I'd like to see them rounded up and subjected to life like what was

inside the Convention Center and Superdome for all those abandoned, suffering thousands of people. Minimal and unpredictably intermittent food and water and no safe havens. No facilities for toilets or showers. Let's see what, say, 10 or 20 years of that does for the greedy sociopathic monsters. No need to give them sturdy orange jumpsuits, wall them in barefoot (nice, with what will accumulate on the floors) with the clothes on their back. Let's see how long those thousand-dollar suits hold out. And let's see - to keep them company in the heat, darkness, stench and fear:

• All Pentagon and WH personnel involved in torture or "rendition" of prisoners. I'm sure Rummy, Sanchez, and Gonzales would be stars of the party.
  
• All scheming criminals involved in the stolen elections. Blackwell could get so close to his heroes!
  
• All corrupt Congressional members who aided the downfall of our country to this sorry state for their own gain - just think how DeLay and Frist could hold court with all their toadies!
  
• All corrupt media hacks who have enabled the WH lies, propaganda, and fear- and hatemongering - Rush could have a supply of his oxycontin to share and O'Liely could broadcast his lies to people who REALLY understand them
  
• ...and just to liven things up, All Blackwater mercenaries, both those in the middle East and those now menacing New Orleans, fully armed and jackbooted, with plenty of ammunition

...you get the idea?

Yes, I know that what should REALLY be done is indictment, fair trials, and just sentences. But a little fantasy does ease the tension sometimes.

[lovuian]

64. U.S. military clearing way for nuclear weapons use

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=efec3753bfc0cad5

Big News Network.com Sunday 11th September, 2005

The Pentagon has drafted a new policy under which the military would request presidential approval for pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons.

The doctrine under consideration would have commanders requesting approval to use nuclear weapons to pre-empt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction, the Washington Post reported. The draft also contains language providing for use of nuclear weapons to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, the newspaper said.

The document was written by the Joint Chiefs of Staff but has not yet received final approval from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. It would update rules and procedures on use of nuclear weapons to make them conform more closely to a pre-emption strategy announced by the Bush administration in December 2002, the Post said.

more...

This is latest Breaking News on Big News!!! Interesting!!!

[bemildred]

65. More stupid threats. Morons. nt

[are_we_united_yet]

67. You're safer now Freeptard 'Murikan patriots

Much, much, safer.

:crazy:

[lovuian]

68. We are getting ready to attack Iran and Syria

I can't imagine a President with such low polls starting a WWIII what a freakin mess and I blame the Congress and Supreme Court for the whole mess!!!

[Javaman]

69. Use WMD's to destroy WMD's, now thats one fucked up policy...

[Nothing Without Hope]

71. WHY IS THIS NOT GETTING MORE ATTENTION?!?!? If this had been in place

during the Iraq war, that would have been NUCLEAR and who knows what nuclear retaliation would have come since then. We could be in World War III, a nuclear one, if this had been in place already.

Now they want to start it, yet what is being done to expose and stop it?

[Nothing Without Hope]

72. This needs to be reposted, with both the WaPo and NYC links.

The link to the reposted thread - in GD, I think would be best - should be posted here.

If no one does it by tomorrow, I'll do it.

THIS CANNOT BE FORGOTTEN - MUST BE EXPOSED AND STOPPED OR NUCLEAR BOMBING OF IRAN WILL BEGIN.

[Nothing Without Hope]

73. As pointed out by Mugsy upthread, here is a better link in the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/politics/11nukes.html
September 11, 2005

Pentagon Studies Pre-Emptive Nuclear Strikes

By DAVID S. CLOUD

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 - The Pentagon is preparing new guidelines governing the use of nuclear weapons that foresee possible pre-emptive strikes against terrorist groups or nations planning to use unconventional weapons against the United States.

The draft document, the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, updates procedures for using nuclear weapons that were last changed in 1995. The plan is undergoing final review by the Pentagon's joint staff and by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and it could be finished in the next several weeks, according to a Pentagon official. The document was first reported by The Washington Post.

(snip)

The scenarios for a possible attack described in the draft include one in which an enemy is using "or intending to use" unconventional weapons against the United States, its allies or civilian populations. Another scenario for a possible pre-emptive strike is in the event of an "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy."

The draft document also envisions the use of atomic weapons for "attacks on adversary installations," including "deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons."

(snip)

Hello, Iran! Its nuclear technology is in "deep hardened bunkers" and has been a target from the first despite the best available intelligence that says that Iran is 10 years away from being able to produce a nuclear bomb. And the decision to nuclear-bomb is supposedly just Bush's. This is a catastrophe. We'd be in a nuclear World War III right now if this had been the policy when the Iraq invasion was launched.

[wordout]

77. Syria not Iran

It'll be city for city. First Chicago and/or Des Moines and in retaliation; Damascus. The flag waving patriots will demand it.

[Nothing Without Hope]

78. Oh, the plan to attack Iran is well along and has been coming for years.

The plan for Syria is newer. They want to attack both of them.

Now that this thread is off the Greatest Page, it isn't getting the attention it deserves and we all need. I'll repost tomorrow if no one else does, and if so, I'll put the link to the repost here.

[Tight_rope]

75. HOLY SHIT!....They put the dummy in charge of killing anyone anytime...

Do we have enough Priest in line to start saying last rights to everyone in the world. Damn...I forgot many are in jail for molesting the youngons.

[Nothing Without Hope]

76. kick n/t

[lutefisk]

79. The argument for a "pre-emptive strike" would go like this:

"Simply stated, ******** now has weapons of mass destruction... There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us. There is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors, confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today and the ones he will continue to develop..."

"The elected leaders of this country have a responsibility to consider all of the available options and we are doing so," he said. "What we must not do in the face of a mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or willful blindness. We will not simply look away, hope for the best and leave the matter for some future administration to resolve."




http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020826-dod01.htm

[wordout]

80. Thanks for the link

Reading thru the article I found it easy to replace the name Saddam with Bush.

With 2% approval how are they going to justify the preemptive use of nukes? Who does Cheney murder? 100,000 troops on the Syrian border (there) or millions (here)?

decisions, decisions..

:mad:

[Nothing Without Hope]

90. Exactly. It's Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, BOlton...

They want to bomb Iran and it's looking like they want to bomb Syria too. And despite this information about the new draft policy of pre-emptive nuclear strikes being cited in the NYT and the WaPo, ALMOST NOBODY IN THIS COUNTRY SEEMS TO BE RESPONDING TO THIS.

What are the Congress members thinking, to let this slide????

[Nothing Without Hope]

82. kick - I will repost on this subject tonight and post the link here n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

84. Sorry - I can't repost this till tomorrow, Wednesday. Then I'll put the

link to the new page here and vice versa. This is such an important topic, yet it's receiving all too little attention. At least in OUR country.

[MHalblaub]

85. Does anybody here remember the Resolution 255

Resolution 255 (1968) of 19 June 1968
of The Security Council
http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1968/scres68.htm

"... Bearing in mind than any aggression accompanied by the use of nuclear weapons would endanger the peace of all States,
1. Recognizes that aggression with nuclear weapons or the threat of such aggression against a non-nuclear weapon State would create a situation in which the Security Council, and above all its nuclear-weapon State permanent members, would have to act immediately in accordance with their obligations under the United Nations Charter. ..."

Adopted at the 1433rd meeting by 10 votes to none, with 5 abstentions (Algeria, Brasil, France, India and Pakistan)

[Nothing Without Hope]

89. I wonder if this is one of the things Bolton was sent to destroy.

Will repost this thread late tonight - I hope this and other important issues are raised and discussed there.

[Realityhack]

86. Ahhhhh!!!

Gee... it's embarising when we loose Thousands of soldiers and find no WMD... next time lets just nuke the guy and say they were vaproized. :-(

On a more serious note these people scare me. The actualy think this is the RIGHT thing to do. Absolutely no understanding of things like the non-poliveration treaty and the uninteded concequencs of such decisions. Extreamly scarry.

Ahhhh!!!

[Megahurtz]

87. We have maniacs running the White House

so thirsty for $$$$$$$$$$$OIL$$$$$$$$$$$$ that they will destroy their own people for it!!!

This is truely terrifying.:scared:

[Imagevision]

97. US. government hijacked by renegade Bush administration as he

claims his first duty is to protect the lives of the american people?

http://downingstreetmemo.com/

[Bridget Burke]

88. "Seven Minutes to Midnight"....

www.thebulletin.org/doomsday_clock/

Keep your eyes on the clock. Time does not stand still.

[Nothing Without Hope]

92. Sorry guys - delayed again, will repost tomorrow (Thurs) AM

This vitally important topic has gotten far too little attention. This is literally life and death - the "permission" to start a nuclear World War III.

I hope they keep this thread alive until I can repost, so I can put the new link here.

[Nothing Without Hope]

93. Times (UK) has also picked up this story:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1776250,00.html

Will post on this and any other developments in this story in the new thread (a repost and update of this one) later today. I hope they don't archive this thread until I can start and link to the new one.

[Nothing Without Hope]

94. kick - will be back and repost later today n/t

[OregonBlue]

95. Help!! So what do we do? Who do we call? How does this get approved

or disapproved?

[Nothing Without Hope]

98. Excellent question. We need to get the answer and FAST. n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

99. Got sidetracked working on this very important and related thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4790112#4790843
thread title: Missing A KEY POINT in *'s speech: POWER GRAB FOR POTUS AND MILITARY

Lots of scary stuff - but if we don't study it and prepare ourselves, we will be defenseless in tryng to stop it. If Bush succeeds in making himself effectively a military dictator, these new policies of pre-emptive nuclear strike take on an even more sinister meaning - if that is possible. He could wield nuclear destruction over anyone he didn't like, anywhere. No limits.

The hours I have spent researching and building the thread at the link above means that here it is almost dawn AGAIN, and I have still not put together a repost of this important thread. That is going to have to be postponed again. But it will be done - the pre-emptive nuclear strike policy is intregral to all of this, as is Bush's apparent plans for moving toward martial law.

[Nothing Without Hope]

101. Still working on that thread - now it has become a resource, I think.

Geez, I wish I had more time/energy! There are so many vital things that need attention! II feel like the exhausted whacker in this great Jen Sorensen cartoon:

[Nothing Without Hope]

102. Keeping this alive - will try to FINALLY repost tonight

I can't BELIEVE how few people know about this or appear to care. What are they thinking!?!?!

[wordout]

103. they're polishing their sabres.

:patriot: :kick:

[Nothing Without Hope]

104. Oh yes, most definitely they are. I actually believe they are INSANE,

which is even more terrifying than if they are merely evil.

And now, sitting here at the time I had set aside to spend a couple of intense hours building a new thread on this - because I want it to have the impact and all available updated facts in the opening post - I am falling asleep in my chair. Dammit, I am going to have no choice but to put this off one more night.

I surely do hope they don't lock this old thread before I can post the new one and a link to it. Very frustrating when the energy runs out too soon. But when it does, in fibromyalgia, you really do have no choice.

So I'll be back on this. It's far, far too important to let it continue to go under the radar.

[wordout]

107. actually, i was referring to those who "appear" not to care

:kick:

[Nothing Without Hope]

105. one more kick for the night - will be back tomorrow n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

106. I WILL be back tonight for the repost. n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

109. Sorry, life intervened. Delayed for another day. I did Google and

was dismayed to see this vitally important story has seemingly disappeared. I found no followup articles. Why????

[LibertyorDeath]

110. NWH important info here

http://www.livejournal.com/users/mparent7777/1973043.html

Scroll down the page to this paragraph & start there

In other news on August 9, Homeland Security
Secretary Michael Chertoff said that if the military
were deployed inside the United States in response to
a terrorist attack, his department, not the Pentagon,
would exercise overall control, reports the Los
Angeles Times.

[Nothing Without Hope]

111. You're right. It puts the miltary firmly in Bush's thoroughly corrupt and

incompetent hands and makes the unspeakable Chertoff a god answerable only to Bush. This is even WORSE. Chertoff is directly responsible for what has happened to New Orleans and the other areas hit by the hurricane - thousands of deaths are on his hands and continue to mount up as people are STILL not reached by FEMA.

Meanwhile, New Orleans is in fascist lockdown and who knows what the mercenaries and laborers are doing under cover of secrecy? One thing that is definitely STILL happening: people are dying, more every day.

All of us need to educate ourselves about the dictatorial powers of FEMA - and Bush can invoke them at any time, for "civil unrest," for example, and Congress can only review the action after SIX MONTHS. READ THIS ARTICLE THOROUGHLY:

http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/FEMAsecretgovt1995.shtml

FEMA - The Secret Government

By Harry V. Martin with research assistance from David Caul

(snip)

FEMA was created in a series of Executive Orders. A Presidential Executive Order, whether Constitutional or not, becomes law simply by its publication in the Federal Registry. Congress is by-passed. Executive Order Number 12148 created the Federal Emergency Management Agency that is to interface with the Department of Defense for civil defense planning and funding. An "emergency czar" was appointed. FEMA has only spent about 6 percent of its budget on national emergencies, the bulk of their funding has been used for the construction of secret underground facilities to assure continuity of government in case of a major emergency, foreign or domestic. Executive Order Number 12656 appointed the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. This allows the government to increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of U.S. citizens and would restrict the freedom of movement within the United States and grant the government the right to isolate large groups of civilians. The National Guard could be federalized to seal all borders and take control of U.S. air space and all ports of entry.

Here are just a few Executive Orders associated with FEMA that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation. General Frank Salzedo, chief of FEMA's Civil Security Division stated in a 1983 conference that he saw FEMA's role as a "new frontier in the protection of individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and military installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as prevention of dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in times of crisis."

(snip - much more and we all need to read and understand it)

[LibertyorDeath]

112. You're up late I wasn't expecting such a fast response

Yes I have read alot about FEMA recently and back in the 1980's when
Reagan first created it.

There are many things happening simultaneously pushing towards a police state. They are keeping the public off ballance & distracted while
they trash civil Liberties & prepare the mechanisms to enforce marshall law.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/mparent7777/1973043.html

" After Posse Comitatus, NORTHCOM will become a
fully funded agency. NORTHCOM, of course, stands for
Northern Command, located in Philadelphia. It would
become a fifth service branch. A four-star general
would head it, who would join the Joint Chiefs as a
fifth service chief. This new fifth service branch
would be the domestic militarized law enforcement.

To get back to Chertoff’s statement, it would be
under his command.

And here’s the risk. You’ve got to understand it
from their point of view. The risk is that, when you
overturn Posse Comitatus, you have then given the
military sweeping powers to control law enforcement.

The Cabal knows that there are many senior
officers in the military who are not members of the
Cabal and, in fact, are hostile to the Cabal’s intent,
particularly in the senior officer rank. That’s why
they’re now making a push to retire a lot of the old
generals and admirals. There are many in the military
that would see a Bushonian regime in a post-Patriot
Act III environment with a militarized law enforcement
as a threat to democracy in the nation."

[Nothing Without Hope]

113. That is exactly along the lines that I am fearing this is going. Thanks.

I haven't been able to sleep at night since the night before the hurricane hit the Gulf coast. The horror just keeps unfolding every day and getting worse.

There is so much that just seems to be going under the radar as people are distracted by everything else. I feel like this:

[Nothing Without Hope]

115. Amazingly, there is some encouraging news today:

There is some indication that the outrage and pressure may head off some of this - now is not a time to hold back!!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/18/AR2005091801156.html?referrer=email
washingtonpost.com

Pentagon May Have Doubts on Preemptive Nuclear Moves

By Walter Pincus, Washington Post Staff Writer
?Monday, September 19, 2005; A05

The Pentagon may be having second thoughts about proposed revisions to its nuclear weapons doctrine that would allow commanders to seek presidential approval for using atomic arms against nations or terrorists who intend to use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons against the United States, its troops or allies.

The draft document, disclosure of which has caused a stir among some members of Congress and arms control advocates, would update rules and procedures for using nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy announced by the Bush administration in 2002. Previous versions of the unclassified doctrine have not included scenarios for using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against WMD threats.

On Sept. 9, a spokesman for the Pentagon's Joint Staff said the draft document was undergoing final clearance from the military services and the office of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, and was expected to be signed "in a few weeks" by the Joint Staff director, Lt. Gen. Walter L. Sharp.

But last week, after an article about the draft appeared in The Washington Post, a senior Pentagon official said the doctrine "is a long way from being done. It has a lot of reviews to go through and several changes have already taken place." The official would speak only on the condition of anonymity.

(snip)

[LibertyorDeath]

116. Kick

[Nothing Without Hope]

117. kick n/t

[Hardrada]

118. All useless. You can't nuke hurricanes.

[YapiYapo]

120. You can't nuke them but you can create them.

High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAARP

[Nothing Without Hope]

128. I don't believe in weather control this way. There was a recent report

by a MIT researcher who studied the intensity of all historically described hurricanes and found a highly significant increase in the frequency of the most intense storms, tracking with global warming. Sorry, don't have a link, but it's all over the news and should be findable.

With warmer water, more moisture is available to drive the storm. When hurricanes travel over cooler water, they deteriorate quickly. Both Katrina and Rita quickly intensified to Cat 5 hurricanes after entering the very warm Gulf of Mexico. I read somewhere that Galveston had its hottest summer ever this year.

[YapiYapo]

131. I was just kidding

Even if they can create hurricane there are no way to control them so it's not an usefull weapon.

About the research are you talking about this one ?



http://www.munichre.com/publications/302-04321_en.pdf?rdm=34425

[Nothing Without Hope]

124. True. The nukes are for bullying the rest of the world. But the hurricanes

are doing even worse damage, and what the hurricane didn't kill or destroy, the Bush Administration's reponse to it did.

[Nothing Without Hope]

123. No time to post the update with the new developments now.

Keeping the thread alive a little longer.

[NYC]

130. Update it when you can.

Thanks.

[Charles19]

132. How about the rules and procedures of the constitution?

[Nothing Without Hope]

135. In a flagrantly unconstitutional move, those were given to * by Congress

Any normal Supreme Court would certainly RULE it unconstitutional if it was brought before it in a challenge, but I don't know about THIS Supreme Court.

[BreweryYardRat]

133. What?

Shit...

Can we please impeach Chimpy McFucktard now?

[Nothing Without Hope]

134. Sorry - still haven't had time to research the important update. Will

try to do that later today (Friday).

[Busshianic]

136. Don't worry, They just removed the plan from their website!

Pentagon Pulls Draft That Discusses Pre-Emptive Use Of Nukes From Website

An unclassified draft of a US nuclear doctrine review that spells out conditions under which US commanders might seek approval to use nuclear weapons has been removed from a Pentagon website, a spokesman said Monday.
Lawrence DiRita, the Pentagon spokesman, said the document was taken down "because even in an unclassified world this is not the kind of thing you want flying around the Internet."

[Nothing Without Hope]

137. This is not the first time it's been pulled from the internet. It went

back up after being pulled the first time. Now it's gone again. I hope someone saved a cache copy.

The fact that it's gone from the internet does NOT mean these insane criminals won't push the policy change secretly. In their view, the POTUS can do absolutely anything he wants to do, any time.

[Lerkfish]

140. I'll see your kick and raise you one.

:kick:

[Nothing Without Hope]

138. Thank goodness this thread is still alive. Kicking now, will try to

update in the next couple of days. Readers, please feel free to do so as well! This is such a vitally important subject, yet has received relatively little attention. That badly needs to change.

[Nothing Without Hope]

139. kick n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

142. kick n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

143. kick - keeping it alive - got to research where this is now n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

144. Have not yet had time to update the research and find out what is

happening with this. So many important and frightening things are happening all at the same time!

[Nothing Without Hope]

145. kick - no time to post more today n/t

[Bridget Burke]

146. Nostalgic for Mutual Assured Destruction?

Makes Curtis E LeMay look sane.

[Nothing Without Hope]

147. kick n/t

[Kailassa]

148. and here's a kick from australia

[Nothing Without Hope]

149. Thank you, Kailassa. I'm trying to keep this alive so I can post a linked

update, but I haven't had time to do the research yet.

We may be on opposite sides of the world, but we are in the same community.
:toast:

I hope the Aussies are smarter than the US was and strike down those goon squad "anti-terror" rules instead of making them permanent or escalating them. I've posted on that subject from the other thread in this one here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4790112#4942976

We should all be learning from each other's mistakes. At least Bush's teflon is gone for now and some Americans are finally seeing him for what he is:

[Nothing Without Hope]

150. ***GREENPEACE PUT UP THE DOD PDF FILE THAT WAS REMOVED SEPT 19***

It's here:
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/US-joint-nuclear-operations.pdf

The cover page says:
“Joint Publication 3-12
Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operation
Final Coordination (2)
15 March 2005

Greenpeace has put up a couple of articles on this. In the Sept 23 one they give some "nuggets" from the Plan:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/US-joint-nuclear-operations
Sample nuggets of the collective wisdom of the warplanners:

"Executing a nuclear option, or even a portion of an option, should send a clear signal of United States' resolve. Hence, options must be selected very carefully and deliberately so that the attack can help ensure the adversary recognizes the "signal" and should therefore not assume the United States has escalated to general nuclear war, although that perception cannot be guaranteed."

<...>

"Friendly forces must receive advanced warning of friendly nuclear strikes."

<...>

"The immediate and prolonged effects of nuclear weapons including blast (overpressure, dynamic pressure, ground shock, and cratering), thermal radiation (fire and other material effects), and nuclear radiation (initial, residual, fallout, blackout, and electromagnetic pulse), impose physical and psychological challenges for combat forces and noncombatant populations alike. These effects also pose significant survivability requirements on military equipment, supporting civilian infrastructure resources, and host-nation/coalition assets. US forces must prepare to survive and perhaps operate in a nuclear/radiological environment."

It's extremely important to know where this document stands now. It was removed from the internet - but not from secret discussions within the goverment - on Sept 19.

[Nothing Without Hope]

151. kick n/t

[maddezmom]

152. locking

subject is no longer Latest Breaking News