Lexus IS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
998 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
United State warns of nuclear response if any hostil nations use such force on us including chemical or biological. Regardless of weather or not we use it. It is important to flex our muscle.

NEWS---

WASHINGTON (Dec. 11) - In a warning to Iraq and other hostile countries, the United States says it is prepared to use ``overwhelming force'' - including nuclear weapons - in response to any chemical or biological attack.

The threat was contained in a White House document, called the ``National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction,'' to be delivered to Congress on Wednesday.

The six-page statement underscores long-standing policy that the United States ``reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force - including through resort to all of our options - to the use of WMD (weapons of mass destruction) against the United States, our forces abroad and friends and allies.''

That passage intends to threaten U.S. nuclear retaliation as a deterrent to hostile governments, said senior administration officials who briefed journalists about the document Tuesday.

The officials emphasized that the strategy, developed jointly by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and homeland security adviser Tom Ridge, is an overall statement of the Bush administration's overarching principles. Its timing, however, coincides with other muscle-flexing by President Bush designed to show Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that the United States is serious about seeing him disarmed.

Also on Tuesday, Bush used a private White House meeting with Turkish political leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan to press for permission for U.S. troops to use Turkish bases, arguing that such a display of solidarity could persuade Saddam to give up his weapons peacefully.

The White House document gathers into one comprehensive whole several doctrines for prevention, deterrence and defense that Bush has enunciated since taking office, including a commitment to boost programs aimed at containing the damage of any chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attack.

The strategy said some unspecified states that support terrorists already have weapons of mass destruction and seek even more ``as tools of coercion and intimidation.''

``For them, these are not weapons of last resort, but militarily useful weapons of choice intended to overcome our nation's advantages in conventional forces and to deter us from responding to aggression against our friends,'' the document said.

``We must accord the highest priority to the protection of the United States, our forces and our friends and allies'' from weapons of mass destruction, it continued.

The broadly worded strategy does not speak with any specificity to the priorities it asserts, nor does it assign them any budget numbers. Instead, those details were contained in classified directives, described as ``substantial taskings,'' issued to relevant federal departments a couple of months ago, officials said.

The strategy's priorities will be reflected in the new budget Bush submits to Congress in February.

12/11/02 01:56 EST

Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,635 Posts
yeah, but the people who woulduse a bio/chem weapon against us don't have a "home" nation... that's the same reason why we cannot stop al queda...

that said, this flexin' of muscle is laughable from our enemies eyes, but scary from mine.

WHEN THE HELL DID WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE'D EVEN CONSIDER THEM??? WMD should NEVER be used as a bluff... that makes the US no better than Saddam, nor Bin Laden...

I'm afraid that the US is perpetuating the problems now rather than solving them. Putting americans on edge without reason in order to garner support for this "war" against nobody.

Does anyone see thru this charade or do you buy it hook/line/sinker?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,808 Posts
I agree with soy 100%. I'm too tired to elaborate any further.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,635 Posts
MY IS300 said:
I don't wanna die a f*ckin virgin!!!!!!!! :whine:
how old are you? :eek:

i was a late bloomer, 19yrs old...

POOP: Don't get me wrong, I think a hardline stance is important to preserve national pride, security, and interantional dominance but these are't bottle rockets.... Nukes, and the # of nukes at our & our enemy's disposal around the world is a very dangerous thing... everyone here i'm sure is aware of the slippery slope (sorry, cliche'd to death) we're on once a WMD is fired. Any number of scenarios will play out, none of them good for ANYONE, and especially not good for us... I don't think our international allies will approve of us dropping a nuke on anyone, not even ossama himself.

so that brings me back to my original point... WHY? i think if anything, anyone with a little intelligence would loose respect for our president for "pulling out that card" so damn early. Everyone knows we have it, so what kind of deterrent is that, saying we'll use it? Or maybe its not... maybe he's alying the groundwork to start deploying tactical nukes... which I'm thouroghly against as well. :shame:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,289 Posts
it would be intresting to see him try to use one of those things, i bet they dont work, after sitting so long :roll: how depressing would that be if we shot one at iraq, shoot them all off, and crack the earth in half, that guy is a cokehead idiot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,001 Posts
s0yb0mb said:
Does anyone see thru this charade or do you buy it hook/line/sinker?
Who knows. That was why i brought this up as well. Im still a bit in shock and trying to form my opinions on it. I have to belive this is a bluff, but it is scary either way.

if we are bluffing then eventually we will have to use WMD to prove that our word is strong. Conversly if we are not bluffing we may be using them to defend ourselves from the rest of the planet. With all the nations on edge that posess WMD, I see a lot of them launching against any enemys if we use them against Iraq. Whats to stop N Korea or India or someone else that is threatening already, but holding back because we urge them to? Wouldnt we be saying that its ok as long as the us says so? If I was one of these other countrys Id tell the world to fuck off and id use mine after the us did.
 

·
Chocolate Goodness
Joined
·
34,363 Posts
s0yb0mb said:
yeah, but the people who woulduse a bio/chem weapon against us don't have a "home" nation... that's the same reason why we cannot stop al queda...

that said, this flexin' of muscle is laughable from our enemies eyes, but scary from mine.

WHEN THE HELL DID WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE'D EVEN CONSIDER THEM??? WMD should NEVER be used as a bluff... that makes the US no better than Saddam, nor Bin Laden...

I'm afraid that the US is perpetuating the problems now rather than solving them. Putting americans on edge without reason in order to garner support for this "war" against nobody.

Does anyone see thru this charade or do you buy it hook/line/sinker?
This pretty much sums how I think. I am seeing this thing from a third party perspective and let me tell you, sometimes what has been said and all these threats scare me senseless. No need for so much talk on world doom. It doesn't make anybody look good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,282 Posts
jupiterfish said:
it would be intresting to see him try to use one of those things, i bet they dont work, after sitting so long :roll: how depressing would that be if we shot one at iraq, shoot them all off, and crack the earth in half, that guy is a cokehead idiot.
nice assumption. the nukes would obviosluy be a last resort. the guy has common sense. jeebus. and i don't think he would make the decision without consulting or getting some sort of majority agreement from the rest of our govt.

stop being such alarrmists. i agree with soy that maybe he shouldnt have spoken so soon since you would imagine everyone knows what we are capable of.....but just in case they forgot....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,282 Posts
TXLeXTC said:
s0yb0mb said:
Does anyone see thru this charade or do you buy it hook/line/sinker?
Who knows. That was why i brought this up as well. Im still a bit in shock and trying to form my opinions on it. I have to belive this is a bluff, but it is scary either way.

if we are bluffing then eventually we will have to use WMD to prove that our word is strong. Conversly if we are not bluffing we may be using them to defend ourselves from the rest of the planet. With all the nations on edge that posess WMD, I see a lot of them launching against any enemys if we use them against Iraq. Whats to stop N Korea or India or someone else that is threatening already, but holding back because we urge them to? Wouldnt we be saying that its ok as long as the us says so? If I was one of these other countrys Id tell the world to f*ck off and id use mine after the us did.
you raise an really good point and that is why i dont think this will ever come to fruition unless we are in a much dire situation. if we can persuade india and pakistan to take it easy i am sure we can show some constraint ourselves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,808 Posts
Soy -

I totally agree.... hardline tactics are the only way to deal with these people. However, threatening to use nukes against an enemy without a country supporting them is like trying to kill a cockroach with a missile. Its just not the way to deal with the problem. Bush making threats, whether he intends to follow them through or not, only insights the enemy to one-up him, and makes him look totally irrational to the rest of the world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,635 Posts
HoustonGGP said:
jupiterfish said:
it would be intresting to see him try to use one of those things, i bet they dont work, after sitting so long :roll: how depressing would that be if we shot one at iraq, shoot them all off, and crack the earth in half, that guy is a cokehead idiot.
nice assumption. the nukes would obviosluy be a last resort. the guy has common sense. jeebus. and i don't think he would make the decision without consulting or getting some sort of majority agreement from the rest of our govt.

stop being such alarrmists. i agree with soy that maybe he shouldnt have spoken so soon since you would imagine everyone knows what we are capable of.....but just in case they forgot....
Alarmists???

last I checked this was a democracy and if we object to ANY use of WMD as a political tool then I think we have the right to scream bloody murder!

Its more than overkill, its wrong on so many levels, and the people he's consulting are goddamn morons if they think anyone is going to be "scared" by the threat. it just stregthens our enemies resovle against us and the world's view that we are a war-mongering, bully-nation.

WALK SOFTLY AND CARRY A BIG STICK.

I'll tell you what... seeing a that gunship blow the hell out of that camp in afghanistan or seeing some men clad in black combat gear doing tactical strikes/assasinations w/ a surgeon's precision would instill more fear in me (if i were an enemy) than any laughable threat of WMD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
998 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
I feel his firm verbal stands may scare other nathions. But it's not a threat it's just a security warning. And just like the people who responded to this thread with nervousness, so will countries that house terrorists.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,676 Posts
Its a sad day when nuclear war is Oked.

I told you GWBush would be the demise of the world as we see it. He's so clueless... he dosnt see that the reprecussions of a nuclear war would harm more innocent people than wipe out his "axis of evil" what a turd.

Oh well.... Im living for today. I hope my turbo project is completed and i get to drive around boosted before the end of the world :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,480 Posts
I'm moving to Canada. WMD's don't work there because of the cold and overall pity for the people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
416 Posts
DJPoop said:
Soy -

I totally agree.... hardline tactics are the only way to deal with these people. However, threatening to use nukes against an enemy without a country supporting them is like trying to kill a cockroach with a missile. Its just not the way to deal with the problem. Bush making threats, whether he intends to follow them through or not, only insights the enemy to one-up him, and makes him look totally irrational to the rest of the world.
There *is* a country.

The threat is implicitly directed at Sadaam, warning him not to use bio/chem weapons against US troops should the US invade Iraq.

A similar warning was given prior to the Gulf War, with an implied agreement that the US would not to go all the way to Baghdad so long as Sadaam refrained from using WMD.

Of course, since Sadaam's removal is the main goal of any potential invasion of Iraq, that agreement no longer applies.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
About this Discussion
32 Replies
17 Participants
T Man
Lexus IS Forum
Community dedicated to Lexus IS Enthusiasts. Come in and enjoy our articles, galleries and information on aftermarket parts for the IS300, IS250, IS350.
Full Forum Listing
Top