Is The U.S. Planning a Horrific Global Nuclear War?

[Pharaoh]

All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as "a weapon of last resort" have been scrapped. "Offensive" military actions using nuclear warheads are now described as acts of "self-defence".

The distinction between tactical nuclear weapons and the conventional battlefield arsenal has been blurred. America's new nuclear doctrine is based on "a mix of strike capabilities". The latter, which specifically applies to the Pentagon's planned aerial bombing of Iran, envisages the use of nukes in combination with conventional weapons.

As in the case of the first atomic bomb, which in the words of President Harry Truman "was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base", today's "mini-nukes" are heralded as "safe for the surrounding civilian population".

Known in official Washington, as "Joint Publication 3-12", the new nuclear doctrine (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations , (DJNO) (March 2005)) calls for "integrating conventional and nuclear attacks" under a unified and "integrated" Command and Control (C2).

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info:80/article17206.htm

:dem: :dem: :dem:

[illinoisprogressive]

1. This is a scary and real possibility. With a boy king thinking that

nuclear bombs and war are just games. Not reality. This is what is the most scary.

[aquart]

2. Us against EVERYBODY ELSE?

My, won't that work well.

[SanCristobal]

3. Probably not.

Next question: Is the US planning a groovy beach party to save the surf shack from real estate moguls?

[porphyrian]

4. "The U.S." isn't planning that. Certain people in the government may be...

...but most of us, and those we just elected as our representatives, are trying to end war.

[Warpy]

5. Nukes have been burning a hole in the military's collective

pocket for a very long time. Again and again, generals have suggested their use in some conflict or other, from Korea through Vietnam and now in Iraq and possibly Iran. They've also been trying to build a small, "safe" nuke. Only the sensible precaution of having their commanders in the civilian world has stopped them.

Well, folks, there aint no such thing, not now, not ever. A small "tactical" nuke will still incinerate several square miles, burn out the retinas of anyone who happens to be looking in that direction, give a whopping dose of radiation to all civilians in the vicinity, and kick up a large amount of fallout to piss off all countries downwind from the idiocy of using one.

If this bunch uses just one, I'm sure this country will find itself on the losing end of a world war very, very quickly.

[illinoisprogressive]

7. I don't think it's the military. maybe the makers of the weapons but,

I do think the military is well aware of the dangerous nature and what the results would be. I think it's this administration with it's macho madness and thier lack of understanding the military and weapons. they don't respect them and they think it's like toys

[HeeBGBz]

6. Maybe Junior had a Decider moment

He thunk real hard and had an Epiff Fanny. Perhaps a nukular winter to cure global warming? Hmmm.

Do you like me now?

[dysfunctional press]

8. well...it may put the brakes on all this global-warming talk.

i'm not saying that we won't get our hair mussed...but a good old-fashioned nuc-u-lar winter may be just the ticket to save our beloved coastlines.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. No, no, no.

Just a neat, little, surgical nuclear war, to remind the world who's in charge.

Then we can get started on the New American Century.

[undergroundpanther]

10. I think they ARE..

Read and think about it..
http://www.opendemocracy.net/themes/article.jsp?articleId=1009&id=2
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060222&articleId=2032
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RogueElephnt.html#p4

[Pharaoh]

11. Yeah I think

they are just crazy enough to use those nukes, sad but true.