When would Bush launch a nuclear first strike?

[terrya]

Only if the United States was directly threatened? Or a pre-emptive strike in the "War on Terra", as he would put it?

[Killarney]

1. Anytime Cheney told him to.

[gWbush is Mabus]

2. or just to drum up support before an election

[louis-t]

3. only if online voting

gets paper backup.

[7th_Sephiroth]

4. well

north korea, they dont have any oil so no halliburton employees or oil refinery equipment so goodbye NK

[jokerman93]

5. I think he has every intention

I think he has every intention of going "nucular" when he reinstalls himself for another four years. I fully expect it, but now he knows he needs to find better excuses for shit he does.

[bkcc]

6. When his poll numbers needed a shot in the arm.

He'd just aim 'em at some country full of brown-skinned people and launch.

Then he'd create an excuse for doing it that would change every other day.

[Commendatori]

7. After the next 9/11 he'll start rattling that saber, and if

Middle East countries don't cough up who Cheney - err, Bush - orders coughed up, you'll see a "small demonstration of our resolve."

[terrya]

8. I fully expect him to do it.

I never thought a President would actually consider the ultimate. But not only do I think Bush is capable of ordering a nuclear strike, I think he will.

[sazdem]

13. Exactly

who do you think he is going to nuke?

[TahitiNut]

24. Most likely: (1) North Korea, (2) Iran

And watch for a simultaneous nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India.

[RichJohnson1976]

15. I think most did consider it...At least prior to the end of the Cold War

Well, we know Truman did, that ones obvious. Ike...Well, difficult to say but he was a General and thus I am sure he considered all contingincies. Kennedy probably had his finger on the freakin button on a few occasions. Johnson surely at least considered it in Vietnam, as did Nixon. Ford and Carter....Well maybe not those two. Reagan...well, I don't think we need to even discuss that one! As for the later 3, well, circumstances were different. Bush Sr. never really had the need although I am sure he had plans early in his administration before the U.S.S.R. broke up, but the threat was much weaker then as the Warsaw Pact was falling apart. Clinton, Not sure...by his presidency the only need would have been in China and they were pretty quiet during his years. Bush Jr., well, I am sure he has and we'll leave it at that.

[Nevernose]

16. Operation Vulture, I believe it was called

It was the plan to use nukes to bail the French out of Dien Bien Phu; the plan resurfaced again a few years later as a proposal to bail the marines out of Khe Sanh. It was apparently seriously considered in the case of assissting the French -- the A-bombs were supposedly loaded onto the airplane and ready for final presidential approval.

I read somewhere that the closest we ever came to an actual nuclear war was in '71, with the Chinese, which was one of the reasons that Nixon was so keen to open trade relations with them, but I remember few, if any, of the details.

[newyawker99]

20. Hi RichJohnson1976!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[teryang]

9. In the event of any "military surprise"

They've stated this already in public policy documents.

Because a large portion of our limited conventional ground forces are committed and deployed at the very end of remote lines of logistic support in Iraq, we are actually quite vulnerable. So we sent out the nuclear threat ahead of time to warn regional powers not to interfere.

I don't think we've gone to war at any time since WWII with such a small Armed Forces. The budget's as big as the Vietnam peak to benefit the contractors but everyone knows we have a huge manpower problem. The authorized force levels are very low historically.

[Q]

10. Just why do you think they're busy building 'battlefield nukes'?

- They want 'usable' nukes for 'limited strikes'. They've already budgeted millions of dollars to build these things and have every intention of adding them to the arsenal and using them.

[bowens43]

11. When his approval rating falls below 40% n/t

[aden_nak]

12. November 1st.

Nuff said.

[RichJohnson1976]

14. Seriously

The only thing that comes to my mind is if China invaded Taiwan. I think our only strategy for dealing with China on their turf would involve Nukes.

[Nevernose]

17. * ain't gonna lift a finger to protect Taiwan

Although, to be fair, I don't think any president would, not since the Chinese got nukes and ICBMs. Taiwan, IMO, is all about threat and bluster.

[RichJohnson1976]

21. But if he did...

Given the best of conditions I think we have to go nuclear with china if we were fighting in their backyard.

[neoteric lefty]

18. When he knows he has a second term

and has suspended constituional rights like IGC wants to in Iraq. That is when he will use them.

[truthspeaker]

19. after a few too many light beers

"Whaddya mean liquor stores are closed on Sunday?! Nuke those bastards!"

[mmonk]

22. He wouldn't unless extraordinary circumstances

There would be nothing to rule or plunder.

[TahitiNut]

23. The political calculus would be that the country would have no choice but

... to support the administration in the immediate aftermath of such an act. It's an entirely likely and plausible scenario if only for that reason.

[Nihil]

25. Even if Bush is dumb enough, Cheney (probably) isn't

Bush would not be allowed to launch unless the USA was locked down
good & solid against retaliation.

At the moment, even with the increase in Fatherland Security, the fence
around the country is simply not secure enough to risk a return strike
in any form. Although Bush is a bully, he is also a coward. He will
not attack until he's built a good wall around his own base.

The time to get worried will be when Patriot II and Patriot III are
being implemented, when the Fatherland Federal Police force has been
tested a few times and when the most dangerous domestic terrorists
have been incarcerated in appropriate detention camps.


Note: The above is assuming that the original post meant "launch a
nuclear first strike AGAINST someone else". If you are widening the
scope to include a faked "terr'ist" strike against a US (or even European)
city then all bets are off. That could take place at any time (though
Autumn would be my bet) as it will directly precipitate the lock-down
that would be required for further global war.

Not a nice thought with which to end the day.

Nihil