U.S. Works Up Plan for Using Nuclear Arms 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." "This is dynamite," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear arms expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. "I can imagine what these countries are going to be saying at the U.N." Arms control advocates said the report's directives on development of smaller nuclear weapons could signal that the Bush administration is more willing to overlook a long-standing taboo against the use of nuclear weapons except as a last resort. They warned that such moves could dangerously destabilize the world by encouraging other countries to believe that they, too, should develop weapons. "They're trying desperately to find new uses for nuclear weapons, when their uses should be limited to deterrence," said John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World. "This is very, very dangerous talk . . . Dr. Strangelove is clearly still alive in the Pentagon." click for entire article from the L.A. Times -- I'm about fed up with this administration. I do not want to live in fear of nuclear retaliation because Bush The War Monger and his cronies cannot find any other way to deal with these countries. arghhh!
Ya, but I bet China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria are scared ****less right now. Maybe this is more of a political move than military preperation?
While the whole proposition in itself is terrifying, its not like we haven't already had a plan in place for years. World-wide nuclear arms reduction aside, did we all of a sudden have no nuke plan within the last few years to make this an issue? Political posturing gets my vote.
I agree entirely with Lynus...nothing new here. We've had nuclear weapons since the 40's..does anyone actually believe this is the FIRST time we've worked up a plan like this?? This is just a new assessment of potential threats and targets.
I think there are two bigger problems here: 1. How did the LA Times get hold of a "secret" report? 2. Why are they publishing a report that is not in the country's best interests? I'm glad the media today wasn't around in 1944 to expose our D-Day plans.
it's on major network news now. i guess i can see the "posturing" point, but developing new weapons for limited response... that's scary. enough with the nukes...
I fail to see what the uproar is about since small tactical weapons are not a new concept. Roughly 40 years ago: http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/FP/projects/nucwcost/davyc.htm Mango
Having nukes to take out hard targets (presumably nuclear silos) is not new. Having nukes to respond to an WMD attack is not new. Those have part of American policy for a long long time. They are both part of deterrence.
Do you think China, North Korea and Russia don't have similar plans for the US? probably with less conditions. I very much doubt they are scared ****less just as much as we are.
Nothing really new. We have had nuclear attack plans and plans to use them on a more limited scale on a conventional battle front if things go against us there in a big way. What also is not new is various countries around the world trying to make these weapons. What is sort of new is now these weapons are called Weapons of Mass Destruction, since the phrase was coined to justify the first Gulf War. What is new, is that we are at peace with the old Soviet Union and China also. We are the only super power. We have no real big country threats. What is new is that we can return to the days where we blatantly threated countries we don't like with nuclear weapons. What is sort of old is that we used to do this with the Soviet Union and China shortly after WW II. Once they got nuclear weapons like we did, it became too dangerous to continue to threaten them with using nukes. So overall nothing is that new. We threaten countries with nuclear weapons when we feel that we can safely get away with it because they don't have them, too. What is not new is that we remain confident that we can threaten to use nuclear weapons against other countries, continue to refine them ourselves and yet indefinitely prevent our enemies from using nuclear weapons of any kind to attack or threaten us. What is also not new is that even though the techniques to develop such weapons are becoming less and less difficult and high tech as technology develops, we remain confident that we can solve the nuclear weapon problem primarily through military means, while sytematically weakening the UN and other international bodies that give all nations a voice.
Yeah, we really should let each country decide for themselves. I mean, who's got the right to say Saddam shouldn't have nukes if he wants them? Or better yet, we should really continue to work through multilateral non-proliferation regimes like the NPT, which has been so successful preventing countries from acquiring nukes or the capability to produce nukes (like India, Pakistan, South Africa, Israel, Japan, Argentina & Brazil )...
It might not be new, but the way it was published was clumsy and it unnecessarily mentions Russia and China as potential targets.
