Pentagon to prepare Nuclear Weapons

Dakota · Post by **Dakota** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 7:45 am

Here we go, folks! Armegeddon. Coming to a neighborhood near you. Source URL: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... _2&cid=578

Pentagon to Prepare Nuclear Weapons, Report Says
Sat Mar 9, 7:16 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Citing a classified Pentagon (news - web sites) report, the Los Angeles Times reported on Saturday that the Bush administration has told the Defense Department to prepare, on a contingency basis, plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries.

The military was also directed to build smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations, the newspaper reported.

The countries named in the secret report -- provided to Congress Jan. 8 -- were China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea (news - web sites), Iran, Libya and Syria, the Times reported.

The three contingencies listed for possible use of the weapons were "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," according to the newspaper.

"The report says the Pentagon should be prepared to use nuclear weapons in an Arab-Israeli conflict, in a war between China and Taiwan, or in an attack from North Korea on the south. They might also become necessary in an attack by Iraq on Israel or another neighbor," The Times said.

"Officials have long acknowledged that they had detailed nuclear plans for an attack on Russia. However, this "Nuclear Posture Review" apparently marks the first time that an official list of potential target countries has come to light," analysts told the Times.

"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.," he told the newspaper.

Arms control advocates told the Times "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.

However, conservative analysts said that the Pentagon must prepare for all possibilities as other countries, and some terrorist groups, are engaged in weapons development programs. Their position was that smaller weapons have a deterrent role because rogue nations or terrorists might not believe that the United States would use more destructive multi-kiloton weapons, the Times reported.

Jack Spencer, a defense analyst at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, told the newspaper the contents of the report did not surprise him and represent "the right way to develop a nuclear posture for a post-Cold War world."

The Times reported that a copy of the report was obtained by defense analyst and Times contributor William Arkin.

The Pentagon refused to comment.

master7 · Post by **master7** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 8:12 am

Oh great, now the world is gonna end, crap! I was beginning to like it too....

Thanks for the info Silver, just kinda depressing what our country's gonna do though

SeedOfChaos · Post by **SeedOfChaos** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 8:14 am

Originally posted by SilverDakota
The countries named in the secret report -- provided to Congress Jan. 8 -- were China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea (news - web sites), Iran, Libya and Syria, the Times reported.

The three contingencies listed for possible use of the weapons were "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," according to the newspaper.

WHAT THE F***???

The retaliation part I can understand.... but what about the other two contingencies?

Dakota · Post by **Dakota** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 8:26 am

You got that right, Master7. If you pray, now's the time to do it. If you don't, now's a good time to start.

SOC: Interesting read eh? Kinda leaves it wide open to using Nukes whenever we want. The World Community sure the heck ain't gonna like this. Like we haven't pissed off China enough here lately.

We have to to be prepared. That's a fact of life. Our Nukes will do us no good sitting in a box when 'the other guy' is searching for every means available to destroy us. I love your line from a little earlier, SOC. Gonna hijack it for awhile...

master7 · Post by **master7** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 8:32 am

Our Nukes will do us no good sitting in a box when 'the other guy' is searching for every means available to destroy us.

I think that's a quote from the movie Wargames. cool hacker-esque movie.

I think this is the first time I have really disliked our government, well.....one of the first times for a good reason.

SeedOfChaos · Post by **SeedOfChaos** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 8:38 am

Originally posted by SilverDakota
I love your line from a little earlier, SOC. Gonna hijack it for awhile...

Hehe... that fine by me.

It's debatable whether one should start praying now if he's not, but this is not the thread for it, and I'd hate to crap on a thread like this.

Of course, the nukes should have preprogrammed courses to react quickly... but then, why do we have to have nukes at all??? (I am well aware of the usual reasoning, and agree to it, in part).

IMO the only thing that'll save the human species (read: its physical existence on the dustball called Earth, I'm not talking about metaphyical salvation) is that people figure out how to live with each other in peace. Either through making man uniform, which is close to impossible, or by finding a way to create true tolerance.

Using Carlin's word, we have to stop the prickwaving... we, as in mankind, would need to come to an universal agreement of how we live together, and which is reasonable to adhere to. Of course that wouldn't be paradise, but much better than what we live in now. Utopia, I presume.

Ronald

blebs · Post by **blebs** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 8:52 am

I don't think it's anything new. They happened to have names for the countries to target. Of course, then again, look at the world situation as it stands. Not in good shape as far as I can tell.

TonyT · Post by **TonyT** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 9:13 am

hahaha! What a load of PR BS!

Anyone that believes that the US Govt has ever did away with nuclear weapons has been snowballed by previous PR. Sure, they cut back on the manufacture and deployment of nukes, according to govt press releases in the past 20 yrs, but do you honestly believe they did that? Esp since other countries like China and N Korea were building up their supply of nukes!

All of the major govt policies and strategies re nukes is confidential military info anyway. The ONLY deterrant to the use of nukes by the US govt have been the various policies forwarded by the PR depts. of govt administrations to the media.

We have been living with the threat of nuclear attack and anniliation ever since they were first tested and used. The real threat caused by the idea of nuclear weapons is NOT destruction or "the end of the world". The real threat is the HISTERIA that precedes the use of such weapons. That is why govt PR releases are able to have an effect on these "not so friiendly" countries.
It is alos why the truth about the govt's policies re nukes is not made public.

America experienced the hysteria associated with nukes in the 50's and 60's. The result was the McCarthy Inquisition and even nuke fire drills in schools! It was not until the late 60's that the public realized that any attempts to prepare for a nuke attack were futile anyway, and most of the drills and alerts were done away with. The end result of nuclear threats is "hopelessness" in the people of a land.

Think you'd survive a nuke attack? hahaha!

Dakota · Post by **Dakota** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 9:15 am

Master7: If that is a quote from Wargames, it was totally unintentional. BTW: Great movie!

SOC: True tolerance. I doubt that's possible these days. Human existence (yes physical) is in peril, IMO. I just don't have a lot of faith in mankind at this time. Nice quote from Carlin.

The world situation is pretty volitale right now. Yes, not in good shape, Blebs.

Is this anything new? Not really. We're just re-aiming our weapons against very viable threats to world peace -- which is a misnomer in itself.

ExarKun · Post by **ExarKun** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 12:43 pm

its to fishy the goverment would not allow info like this to be published, its a threat to national security, i think this whole article is bogus, some kind of PR BS to spread fear to people

Sorry I can't buy this one

minir · Post by **minir** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 1:12 pm

Hi SilverDakota

There is really nothing new here imho SilverDakota other than the fact that someone got their hands on some supposedly Confidential information.

Assuming that it is true, then it was leaked with a purpose in mind i'm sure.

The USA is making a point of stating that they will respond to further Terrorist Attacks with Might and will protect Their Friends as well as their Interests in the same manner.

Much noise will be made by those who wish us ill & used to defend Their positions of weapon making for Their own defence.

Nothing has changed really from where it was. Most Super Powers already have more than enough Atomic Strength to wipe out the Worlds Population many times over.

The News of the leak will be judged by some as a good thing & in other quarters as terrible.

Terrorism is a frightening weapon & impossible to defend against, one however can make those that Harbour Terrorists or aid them in any way Aware of the length that the USA and the Free World will go to defend itself as best they can against those who take this situation lightly.

Are we in any more Danger Now than Before by this release, i do not think so.

Will there be much Press and Discussion brought on by it, you bet.

In all honesty i believe this has been done a long time ago and it's simply the Message that is important here imho.

Just my thoughts for what they may be worth.

regards

minir

Christopher561 · Post by **Christopher561** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 1:19 pm

DUDE!!! when i first started to read it i thougtht that an Asteroid was heading for earth. just like the movie Armageddon GEZZz to youing to die!!!. i this its just stupid!

Paft · Post by **Paft** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 1:21 pm

This is total and complete insanity.

Not only have we destroyed any real chances at diplomacy with the seven, but we have also just come right out and said, "You can't fight us because we are pussies who will nuke your innocents to death". I can understand having nukes to retaliate /against nukes/, but that's the only reason. If we are just going to keep them sitting there for someone to say "Oh, we're at war", and then blast them, no.

If you don't believe in God, now's a good time to start writing/calling/whatevering Bush and telling him to get off his throne and look at reality.

Gaming-Module · Post by **Gaming-Module** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 1:52 pm

Bush is "putting up his Wanted Dead or Alive posters" now.

Dakota · Post by **Dakota** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 1:54 pm

Nuke Update:

Source URL: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... _1&cid=514

Pentagon Lists Nuclear Targets
Sat Mar 9, 1:04 PM ET
By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon (news - web sites) has informed Congress that it is devising contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against a number of countries that pose threats to the United States.

The nuclear posture review is a statement of strategy, and neither represents a change in policy on using nuclear weapons nor makes their use more likely, a senior U.S. official said Saturday. It also reflects that "there are threats out there" and there long have been contingencies for dealing with those threats, he said.

The classified report is not a plan for action, but one of policy, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Congressional sources said the report went to the Armed Services, Intelligence and Foreign Relations committees, as has been the practice (news - Y! TV) for the past several years.

The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday that contingency plans are to be prepared for at least seven nations and that the report calls for building new smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations.

The report said the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea (news - web sites), Iran, Libya and Syria, according to the newspaper.

The Times reported that the review said the weapons could be used in three types of situations: against targets able to withstand nuclear attack in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or "in the event of surprising military developments."

The nuclear posture review typically names countries, the U.S. official told The Associated Press. But the official would not confirm which countries are on the current list and whether any have been added or dropped from previous years.

In Russia, Dmitry Rogozin, who heads parliament's foreign affairs committee and has close ties to the Kremlin, told NTV television that his country "should understand that a significant part of the United States' nuclear forces are of course aimed at objects in the Russian Federation, and we should draw our own strategic conclusions from this."

The identification of Syria and Libya as potential targets could complicate the trip Vice President Dlck Cheney (news - web sites) was to begin Sunday to the Persian Gulf and the Middle East.

His main mission is to try to strengthen support among Arab leaders for the U.S.-led campaign against terrorism. Most are vehemently opposed to attacks on any Arab countries, including those the United States long has accused of fostering terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction.

Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) and other senior administration officials have give public assurances there are no plans on President Bush (news - web sites)'s desk for attacking Iraq or any other nation.

RoscoPColtrane · Post by **RoscoPColtrane** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 1:57 pm

Originally posted by ExarKun
its to fishy the goverment would not allow info like this to be published, its a threat to national security, i think this whole article is bogus, some kind of PR BS to spread fear to people

Sorry I can't buy this one

BINGO!! there is no way in heck they would EVER release information about targets for a nuclear strike...retaliation or not. Like exarkun said, its a threat to national securtiy....

Its bogus....CNN would be going nuts if it were true....think about it....

update: Hmmm..i just checked it out from that url....i still dont' believe that bush is dumb enought to alow it to ever happen....unless they fired first....then it would'nt matter anyways.....Even if they are powermongers...they don't want to die, and DC would be the primary target, along with NORFOLK, and all the other military bases in the country. Doubt it would/ could happen.

Plus didn't bush just initiaite a Global Missal defence system? Theyd blow em outta the sky over the ocean.

DesertFox · Post by **DesertFox** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 2:06 pm

Hey, this is what the English have to say about it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1864000/1864173.stm

Idiotic Bush.

DesertFox · Post by **DesertFox** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 2:09 pm

JBKM

Plus didn't bush just initiaite a Global Missal defence system? Theyd blow em outta the sky over the ocean.

Umm, he is trying, but it has so far utterly failed. So far the tests off of California have all missed the test missiles fired - basically lots of money for a false sense of security.

RoscoPColtrane · Post by **RoscoPColtrane** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 2:14 pm

Good god...these people are dumb! NUKES should NOT ever be used again. I mean in world war 2 we used them to whipe out Hiroshima and Nagisaki, right? Well now everyone has Nukes that are 200 times that large. I head on the discovery channel a couple weeks ago that one of ours would whipe our MAINE to VIRGINIA and over to DETROIOT, and that ins't even one of our "BIG" ones. This is scary sh!t, im not looking forward to a 21st century cuban missle crisis....

RoscoPColtrane · Post by **RoscoPColtrane** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 2:16 pm

Originally posted by DesertFox

Umm, he is trying, but it has so far utterly failed. So far the tests off of California have all missed the test missiles fired - basically lots of money for a false sense of security.

I don't know if i really buy that much either. WE have targetting systems in the new F-22 that can target 6 jets at once, fire six missles from over ten miles away....and destroy all six targets. I honesly don't buy that we dont' have a securtiy for this. Its been an issue since just after WW2.

TonyT · Post by **TonyT** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 2:26 pm

As I stated earlier, it is Hysteria that is the intended effect of releasing a news story such as this. You had better believe that certain other countries and peoples, esp the ones that "know" they are on that list, will experience the hysteria. This is an OLD documented military tactic, goes all the way back to "The Art of War", several thousand years ago.

Gee wiz, just look at the hysterical remarks posted in this thread already!

FYI, a nuke missle cannot be shot down out of the sky. Before he recently passed away, my father-in-law, an engineering professor at GW, was working on a federally funded project to come up with a means of detonatiing or destroying missles that travel at high velocities. They made some inroads, and his theories were accepted as reasonable and received further funding, but they are a loooooooooooong way from ever developing such a system of defense because the technology to implement it does not yet exist in the real world. It exists ONLY in mathematical equations on paper. (not stored in any computer for security reasons)

DesertFox · Post by **DesertFox** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 2:28 pm

Originally posted by JBKM

I don't know if i really buy that much either. WE have targetting systems in the new F-22 that can target 6 jets at once, fire six missles from over ten miles away....and destroy all six targets. I honesly don't buy that we dont' have a securtiy for this. Its been an issue since just after WW2.

Its been an issue, but we signed a treaty in 1972 - the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the U.S.S.R.- saying we wouldn't develop space based defense systems because if one country developed it before the other, then the balance of power would be out of whack, and something bad could happen. Anyway, Regan tried, but failed - a system called Star Wars - which cost billions. Bush is trying now, and it doesn't really matter how many missiles we can fire at stationary targets - missiles move a lot faster than an F-22. In terms on ICBM's - on the list of potential targets, Russia and China are the only countries that have them, and the missile defense is only applicable to them. The Pentagon is saying that if terrorists use biological/chemica/nukes like in a briefcase in a U.S. city, then we will nuke their home country - and then get retaliation from that country.

Its a big mess - and in my opinion a large blunder from bushy.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 2:30 pm

TonyT....what about the project that is being implemented right now to outfit AC-130's with lasers? I personally think we do have the technology to shoot a missile out of the sky but in the political poker game...we are not showing our hand.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 2:35 pm

TonyT...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... world.html

Christopher561 · Post by **Christopher561** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 2:35 pm

this thread makes me feel like our lives are flashing befor us.!!!

RoscoPColtrane · Post by **RoscoPColtrane** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 2:47 pm

I don't mean to be a jerk or anything. But do you remember when the F-117 stealth was finally released to public view? How long do you think it took to develope that wepon? How long was it before any civilains could know about it? I believe it was around 20 years. Meaning that they were working on it in the dark for that long. Same goes with the SR-71 black bird. I wasn't implying that an F-22 could Destroy an ICBM, simply saying that they are releaseing EXTREMELY advanced fighters with highly accurate guidance systems. YOu would be an idiot to think that they would release info on a new BIRD (f-22) without having somethign TOP SECRET to work on in the background. I don't buy that the us government was stupid enough to NOT develope a defence against this stuff. I don't care about treaties...they have been broken before. All im saying is...the stuff you see now. The fighter jets we use, the technology they show on tv, that is all old school, THEY Have WAY more advanced jets, way more advanced guidence systems, its out there.....

Of course they will denie it...it goes to the poker game, keeping our hand covered, maybe bluffing a little eh?

DesertFox · Post by **DesertFox** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 2:48 pm

Some stuff about missile defense

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?Did=000000110026121&Fmt=3&Deli=1&Mtd=1&Idx=10&Sid=1&RQT=309

LMK if it works - proquest is a secure site.

anyway, here is the abstract:

Abstract:
The 18-month inquiry, by the General Accounting Office, is the latest government examination of the questions raised by Dr. Nira Schwartz, a senior engineer at the contractor TRW Inc. in 1995 and 1996. Dr. Schwartz accused her employer of faking work on the sensor, which is meant to distinguish enemy warheads from decoys. TRW has long maintained that it did nothing wrong.

The Congressional investigation focused on the sensor's difficulty in distinguishing mock warheads from decoys, which an enemy would use to confuse and overwhelm an antimissile system. In war, an interceptor rocket would fire a small spacecraft known as a kill vehicle, which would scan the heavens for enemy warheads. The speeding vehicle would then smash warheads apart by force of impact. The United States is trying to build such an antimissile system, at a cost estimated to be as high as $238 billion.

Investigators found that in response, the contractors disclosed new troubles in a revision to their 60-day report, on April 1, 1998. The biggest went to the heart of Dr. Schwartz's contentions that the sensor had major problems distinguishing warheads from decoys. The revision disclosed that contractors doing laboratory replays of the flight test had to exclude two-thirds of the gathered sensor data to make such differentiation work.

TonyT · Post by **TonyT** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 3:23 pm

UOD

That article does not quote a source of the info reported about, nor does it give details, only generalities. Who knows what the truth is re laser defenses, only those govt and contractor personel working on the projects.

Also, shooting down a missle, without setting off the warhead, would depend greatly upon what rocket was being used to carry teh warhead. There is NO way a laser could accurately stay focused upon a missle traveling at 2 or 3 times the SOS while contained in a moving craft. That tech does not exist yet. It may be being developed, but there is no evidence to support it's truth.

The project my fatherinlaw was working on was based on a ground weapon that shot particles in the known patyh of a high velocity missle. The tricky part is coming up with the correct particle size and quantity, as well as what quality particle, and how to disable the missle without setting off the warhead.

Mehmet · Post by **Mehmet** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 3:27 pm

Originally posted by SilverDakota

"The report says the Pentagon should be prepared to use nuclear weapons in an Arab-Israeli conflict, in a war between China and Taiwan, or in an attack from North Korea on the south. They might also become necessary in an attack by Iraq on Israel or another neighbor," The Times said.

this is what i HATE about the US. THEY ALWAYS butt into other peoples business, see what it says up there? In an arab-israeli conflict, in a war between china and taiwan..

WTF?? if china and taiwan want to fight.. let it be that. Why the f*** does the US have to do something about it? that's why the israeli, palestinian war is still going on, if the US hadn't helped Israel, maybe half the world wouldnt hate us!

See, im with messiah and his NWO conspiracy theories.. the US wants to be the head of the world, and in any type of war, they wanna be in it..

this is getting stupid now, i bet they still dont know where osama is.

ExarKun · Post by **ExarKun** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 3:35 pm

Originally posted by TonyT
UOD

Also, shooting down a missle, without setting off the warhead, would depend greatly upon what rocket was being used to carry teh warhead. There is NO way a laser could accurately stay focused upon a missle traveling at 2 or 3 times the SOS while contained in a moving craft. That tech does not exist yet. It may be being developed, but there is no evidence to support it's truth.

Who said anything without setting off the warhead, I think UOD was just implying that if we want to destroy a missle in mid flight it can be done, now if the warhead goes off no biggie its in the atmosphere its not going to due in strucutal damage there... and the Rad poisioning will be greatly reduced

TonyT · Post by **TonyT** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 4:02 pm

now if the warhead goes off no biggie its in the atmosphere its not going to due in strucutal damage there... and the Rad poisioning will be greatly reduced

not so.

The missles are not traveling at 20,000 ' in the air.
(4 miles)

A nuke explosion set off in the air will move down toward earth and wipe out anything in it's way. The radiation would get carried by the winds and settle, because it's heavier than air.

Know any healthy folks living within 10 miles of the nuke test sites in Nevada of 40 yrs ago!

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 5:55 pm

Originally posted by TonyT

not so.

The missles are not traveling at 20,000 ' in the air.
(4 miles)

A nuke explosion set off in the air will move down toward earth and wipe out anything in it's way. The radiation would get carried by the winds and settle, because it's heavier than air.

Know any healthy folks living within 10 miles of the nuke test sites in Nevada of 40 yrs ago!

In any case my comments were just food for thought and due to my current "status" I can't comment further.

Grimson · Post by **Grimson** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 6:50 pm

Originally posted by TonyT

Think you'd survive a nuke attack? hahaha!

I wouldn't want to survive a nuke attack. Just thinking of everything that would be polluted and then it only gets worse from there.

Deus ex Machina · Post by **Deus ex Machina** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 7:48 pm

vegeto,

I think of it as sticking up for your friends... Like we did in ww1 and ww2. The adage of the US becoming the policeman of the world seems dated, but it is painfully true. As to the US butting in to others' business, I would suggest that the world has poked its nose in our affairs as well. Our poltical figures are for sale, after all.

Silver Dakota and SeedofChaos,

Douglas Adams quote, eh?!

I do not think the world has forgotten that the nuclear threat still exists. What is to be gained in restating.... (rhetorical)

david

SeedOfChaos · Post by **SeedOfChaos** » Sun Mar 10, 2002 4:23 am

Originally posted by Deus ex Machina
Silver Dakota and SeedofChaos,

Douglas Adams quote, eh?!

Yes, slightly adapted, I guess. That's where I got it from though. Neverminding how unrealistic the books are that quote hits the nail on the head, doesn't it?

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Sun Mar 10, 2002 9:59 am

Originally posted by TonyT

not so.

The missles are not traveling at 20,000 ' in the air.
(4 miles)

A nuke explosion set off in the air will move down toward earth and wipe out anything in it's way. The radiation would get carried by the winds and settle, because it's heavier than air.

Know any healthy folks living within 10 miles of the nuke test sites in Nevada of 40 yrs ago!

TonyT has a valid argument.

40 miles? The evidence is in on increased radation diesease from fallout as far away as southern Idaho. I"ve read reports that mention that if you were born between 1952 and 65 and drank raw milk.....your at risk.....(this is for southern Idaho and other surrounding states to them test sites in Nevada)

Side note, you could not pay me enough to live in sourthern Utah.

We all drank raw milk back then. At least one time or other.

As to all this hoopla....consider the Tridents....we can deploy a missle base anywhere and have done so for years.

As to nuclear war. You'd better hope it dosn't happen. Not just because of fallout but because of the vary nature of just how catastrophic it really is. Studies show that 8 warheads, detonated in an area the size of North America will bring on nuclear winter. Most of the population of the earth would starve.

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Sun Mar 10, 2002 10:05 am

personally i think people are getting riled up over nothing. although i question it being said, sometimes even the threat is enough.

i wouldnt worry to much about big Nuclear attacks, it's suicide for everyone. there is a difference between dumb and crazy and to start hitting other nuclear powers with nukes is both.

Dakota · Post by **Dakota** » Sun Mar 10, 2002 10:31 am

Originally posted by Deus ex Machina
Silver Dakota and SeedofChaos,

Douglas Adams quote, eh?!

Ahh yes! That sent me off on a Adams-tangent and searching for some of his great lines. But, that's a whole nuther thread...

Dakota · Post by **Dakota** » Sun Mar 10, 2002 10:38 am

Originally posted by Roody
i wouldnt worry to much about big Nuclear attacks, it's suicide for everyone. there is a difference between dumb and crazy and to start hitting other nuclear powers with nukes is both.

That's not what worries people. It's the crazy, fanatical suicide bombers (WTC/Pentagon) that will be the biggest threat. They'll still be playing suicide-bomber, but with a bigger firecracker.

Dakota · Post by **Dakota** » Sun Mar 10, 2002 10:43 am

Here's this morning's story for the New York Times: (Long read)

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/10/inter ... sheadlines (I think this requires membership)

March 10, 2002

U.S. Nuclear Plan Sees New Weapons and New Targets
By MICHAEL R. GORDON

WASHINGTON, March 9 — Outlining a broad overhaul of American nuclear policy, a secret Pentagon report calls for developing new nuclear weapons that would be better suited for striking targets in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Libya.

The Nuclear Posture Review, as the Pentagon report is known, is a comprehensive blueprint for developing and deploying nuclear weapons. While some of the report is unclassified, key portions are secret.

In campaigning for office President Bush stressed that he wanted to slash the number of nuclear weapons and develop a military that would be suited for the post-cold war world.

The new Pentagon report, in fact, finds that non-nuclear conventional weapons are becoming an increasingly important element of the Pentagon arsenal. But the report also indicates that the Pentagon views nuclear weapons as an important element of military planning.

It stresses a need to develop earth- penetrating nuclear weapons to destroy heavily fortified underground bunkers, including those that may be used to store chemical and biological weapons. It calls for improving the intelligence and targeting systems needed for nuclear strikes and argues that the United States may need to resume nuclear testing.

The New York Times obtained a copy of the 56-page report. Elements of the report were reported today by the Los Angeles Times.

One of the most sensitive portions of the report is a secret discussion of contingencies in which the United States might need to use its "nuclear strike capabilities" against a foe.

During the cold war, the United States used nuclear weapons to deter a Soviet attack on Western Europe.

But now, the Pentagon report says, the nation faces new contingencies in which nuclear weapons might be employed, including "an Iraqi attack on Israel or its neighbors, or a North Korean attack on South Korea or a military confrontation over the status of Taiwan." Another theme in the report is the the possible use of nuclear weapons to destroy enemy stocks of biological weapons, chemical arms and other arms of mass destruction.

Pentagon and White House officials turned down repeated requests for interviews on the report. The Pentagon issued a statement this evening noting that the purpose of the review was to analyze nuclear weapons requirements, not to specify targets.

"It does not provide operational guidance on nuclear targeting or planning," the Pentagon statement said. "The Department of Defense continues to plan for a broad range of contingencies and unforeseen threats to the United States and its allies. We do so in order to deter such attacks in the first place."

"This administration is fashioning a more diverse set of options for deterring the threat of weapons of mass destruction," the Pentagon statement continued. "That is why the administration is pursuing advanced conventional forces and improved intelligence capabilities. A combination of offensive and defensive, and nuclear and non-nuclear capabilities is essential to meet the deterrence requirements of the 21st century."

Critics responded to the report by complaining that the Bush administration was not only pushing for the development of new types of nuclear weapons, but broadening the circumstances in which they might be used.

"Despite their pronouncements of wanting to slash nuclear arms, the Bush administration is reinvigorating the nuclear weapons forces and the vast research and industrial complex that support it," said Robert S. Norris, a senior research associate at the Natural Resources Defense Council and an expert on nuclear weapons programs. "In addition the Bush administration seems to see a new role for nuclear weapons against the `axis of evil' and other problem states."

Classified versions of the report were provided to Congress in January but the disclosure now could become a public relations problem for Vice President **** Cheney, who is scheduled to leave on Sunday for a 10-day trip to Britain and Middle Eastern countries. The disclosure of the administration's ambitious nuclear plans is likely to spark criticism from European groups that have long supported more traditional approaches to arms control. Middle Eastern leaders may be alarmed to learn that the Pentagon sees Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya as potential nuclear battlegrounds.

One of the most sensitive portions of the report is its discussion of countries that do not have nuclear arms. Recalling the Cuban missile crisis, the report noted that the United States might be caught by surprise if an adversary suddenly displayed a new ability involving weapons of mass destruction or if a nuclear arsenal changes hands as a result of a coup in a foreign land.

"In setting requirements for nuclear strike capabilities, distinctions can be made among the contingencies for which the United States must be prepared," the Pentagon report states. "Contingencies can be categorized as immediate, potential or unexpected."

"North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya are among the countries that could be involved in immediate, potential or unexpected contingencies," it added. "All have long-standing hostility toward the United States and its security partners; North Korea and Iraq in particular have been chronic military concerns."

It said, "All sponsor or harbor terrorists, and all have active" programs to create weapons of mass destruction and missiles.

Among Iraq, Iran, Syria or Libya none has nuclear weapons, though Iraq and Iran are making a serious effort to acquire them, according to American intelligence.

American intelligence officials believe that North Korea may have enough fissile material for one or two nuclear weapons, but there is considerable debate as to whether it has actually produced one.

Significantly, all of those countries have signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Washington has promised that it will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states that have signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty unless those countries attack the United States or its allies "in alliance with a nuclear weapon state."

The policy was intended to discourage outsider nations from seeking to develop nuclear weapons. But conservatives argue that Washington should be able to threaten the use of nuclear weapons as a way to deter one state from attacking the United States with chemical or biological weapons.

Earlier this month, Richard Boucher, the State Department spokesman, repeated the policy but then added that "if a weapon of mass destruction is used against the United States or its allies, we will not rule out any specific type or response." His qualified statement along with the Pentagon report raises the question of whether the Bush administration still plans to abide by the longstanding policy.

One former senior American officials said that the development of new weapons to attack non-nuclear states would not in itself contradict American policy since it would be no more than a contingency. But using them would contradict the policy, he said, unless the nations violated their commitments to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty by developing nuclear weapons.

"I would not say that developing a bunker-busting nuclear weapon for use against these countries would by itself violate that pledge," the former American official said. "But using nuclear against them would unless they violated their assurance by acquiring nuclear weapons."

The Pentagon report discussed other contingencies as well. The report stated that China is also a potential adversary and is modernizing its nuclear and conventional forces. While Russia has the most formidable nuclear force, the report took the view that relations with Moscow have vastly improved.

"As a result, a contingency involving Russia, while plausible, is not expected," the report states. Still, the report said that the United States cannot be sure that relations with Russia will always be smooth and thus must be prepared to "revise its nuclear force levels and posture."

In addition to surveying the potential situations in which nuclear weapons might be employed, the report discusses the sort of force that might be needed. The Bush administration has said that it plans to reduce strategic nuclear weapons to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads, a big reduction from the 6,000 or so nuclear weapons that the United States has now.

Critics of the Bush administration say the cuts are roughly the same as the those foreseen by the Clinton administration, which agreed that future strategic arms treaty should reduce nuclear weapons to between 2,000 and 2,500 warheads. While the reductions projected by the Bush administration seem deeper, the Pentagon has changed the rules for counting nuclear weapons and no longer counts bombers or nuclear missile submarines that are in the process of being overhauled.

Adding new detail to previous briefings, the Pentagon says that its future force structure will have the following components. By 2012, the United States will have 14 Trident submarines with two in overhaul at one time. They will be part of a triad that will include hundreds of Minuteman III land-based missiles and about 100 B-52 H and B-2 bombers.

"This will provide an operationally deployed force of 1,700 to 2,200 strategic nuclear warheads and a wide range of options for a responsive force to meet potential contingencies," the report says.

But the Pentagon report said that nuclear planning is not merely a question of numbers. The Pentagon also wants to improve existing nuclear weapons and possibly develop new ones.

The report cites the need to improve "earth-penetrating weapons" that could be used to destroy underground installations and hardened bunkers. According to a secret portion of the Pentagon study, more than 70 nations now use underground installations. It notes that the only earth-penetrating weapon that exists is that B61 Mod 11 bomb and that it has only a limited "ground-penetration capability."

The report argues that better earth-penetrating nuclear weapons with lower nuclear yields would be useful since they could achieve equal damage with less nuclear fallout. New earth-penetrating warheads with larger yield would be needed to attack targets that are buried deep underground. The report said it is very hard to identify such underground targets but that American Special Operations Forces could be used for the mission.

Another capability which interests the Pentagon are radiological or chemical weapons that would employed to destroy stockpiles of chemical or biological agents. Such "Agent Defeat Weapons" are being studied. The report also argues that Washington needs to compress the time it takes to identify new targets and attack them with nuclear weapons, a concept it calls "adaptive planning."

In general, the Pentagon report stresses the need for nuclear weapons that would be more easy to use against enemy weapons of mass destruction because they would be of variable or low yield, be highly accurate and could be quickly targeted.

Pentagon officials say this gives the United States another tool to knock out enemy chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. But critics say that the Bush administration is, in effect, lowering the nuclear threshold by calling for the development of nuclear weapons that would be easier to use.

The need to maintain the capability to rapidly expand the American nuclear arsenal in a crisis, such as "reversal of Russia's present course," is also a theme of the report. The Pentagon calls the this hedge "the responsive force." The notion that the United States is reserving the right to rapidly increase its nuclear forces has been an important concern for Moscow, which has pressed Washington to agree to binding limits and even destroy some of its warheads.

The Responsive Force, the Pentagon report says, "retains the option for the leadership to increase the number of operationally deployed forces in proportion to the severity of an evolving crisis," the Pentagon report said. As part of this concepts, bombs could be brought out of the non-deployed stockpile in days or weeks. Other efforts to augment the force could take as long as a year.

To maintain the nuclear infrastructure a number of steps are planned. The Pentagon says that an "active" stock of warheads should be maintained which would incorporate the latest modifications and have the key parts.

The report says that the United States needs a new capability to produce plutonium "pits," a hollow sphere made out of plutonium around which explosives are fastened. When the explosives go off they squeeze the plutonium together into a critical mass, which allows a nuclear explosion. The Pentagon said the production of Tritium for nuclear warheads will resume during the fiscal 2003 year.

Another sensitive political point involves the report's discussion of the United States moratorium on nuclear testing. The Bush administration has refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty, but says it has no plans yet to resume nuclear testing. But the report suggests that it might be necessary to resume testing to make new nuclear weapons and ensure the reliability of existing ones.

"While the United States is making every effort to maintain the nuclear stockpile without additional nuclear testing, this may not be possible in the indefinite future," it said.

SG Broadband Community

Pentagon to prepare Nuclear Weapons

Pentagon to prepare Nuclear Weapons

Re: Pentagon to prepare Nuclear Weapons

Re: Pentagon to prepare Nuclear Weapons