alpha 0 #1 January 26, 2003 This is outrageous! I bet North Koreans would now feel vindicated for pulling out of Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. -------------------------------------------- US may use nukes January 26, 2003 THE United States is considering using nuclear weapons in a possible future war against Iraq to destroy underground command posts and stop Iraqi forces from using weapons of mass destruction, a top US private military expert has warned. Citing multiple sources, William Arkin said plans for using nuclear weapons against Iraq are being fleshed out at the US Strategic Command in Omaha, Nebraska; inside planning offices of the Joint Staff at the Pentagon and at an "undisclosed location" in Pennsylvania where US Vice-President Dick Cheney used to spend time during terrorism alerts. "Nuclear weapons have, since they were first created, been part of the arsenal discussed by war planners," Arkin writes in an article slated for publication in The Los Angeles Times today. "But the Bush administration's decision to actively plan for possible preemptive use of such weapons, especially as so-called bunker busters, against Iraq represents a significant lowering of the nuclear threshold," he said. US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signed in December 2001 a classified nuclear posture review that opened the possibility for nuclear weapons to be used against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack, Nations such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria were added to the list of possible targets. According to Arkin, the review also called upon the military to develop plans to attack foreign weapons of mass destruction facilities, even if the enemy did not resort to them first. This work is currently under way at the Strategic Command, which Arkin says has already prepared a "Theatre Nuclear Planning Document" for Iraq to be used by the of Bush added and the Central Command, which will be executing an invasion of Iraq if Bush opts for one. A former US Army intelligence analyst, Arkin is no longer part of the US military establishment. But he is known for his strong Pentagon connections and extensive knowledge of military issues. Defence Department spokesman Major Ted Wadsworth refused to confirm or deny the report, saying: "That's something that policymakers have to talk about." Agence France-Presse Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JJohnson 0 #2 January 26, 2003 You can bet they won't use them if it means ruining all that good oil. Sounds like a bit of sabre rattling to try and scare the countries we may have to fight. JJJJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faber 0 #3 January 26, 2003 I really hope US DONT use them..How week is it to use nukes when there are precisions bombs as we have to day.. I cant rember the # but i mean that DK news ment that apox 80%of the bombs US would drop in a war at this time would be precisions bombs.. NUKES DONT HELP THE PEOPLE OF IRAK and it deafntly dosnt help in the Korea-issue.. Nukes should only be used as the least defens,or if you are ataced by nukes.. Stay safe Stefan Faber Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faber 0 #4 January 26, 2003 Quote Sounds like a bit of sabre rattling to try and scare the countries we may have to fight. yes,i seccond that.But you dont have to scare the rest of us.. and think of the doubbel moral... "you may not make nukes so we atack you by one" Stay safe Stefan Faber Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zinger 0 #5 January 26, 2003 "Sounds like a bit of sabre rattling to try and scare the countries we may have to fight." Quote Sounds like Sabre Rattling in a high degree to me. If I wanted to scare a dictating,murdering madman and sons into thinking they are not safe hundreds of feet below ground in a concrete and steel palace also protected by weapons of mass death that is what I would say also. ------Have a good one!-------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Faber 0 #6 January 26, 2003 Quote into thinking they are not safe hundreds of feet below ground in a concrete and steel palace also protected by weapons of mass death that is what I would say also. It dosnt help unles you know where he is...And then you could use an acurate bomb,that first explode when it gets xft in... I think that IF(cant belive it will come to that),you drop an nuke in Irak,then you also hurt the people,for the nex 50years(and still dont get the guy..)then they are better off whit Sadam..And so am i..Idont need to xhale that shit.Then youll get a new desise in US..MeLets just find that F### and get rid of him and his kompanes,but in a way so we dosnt hurt the people of Irak more than needed.. Stay safe Stefan Faber Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zinger 0 #7 January 26, 2003 I don't think they will drop a nuke, Nor do I think they should, But the threat of it is almost as powerful at times of need and now is a good time I believe. ------Have a good one!-------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rgoper 0 #8 January 26, 2003 QuoteUS may use nukes I remember asking "who's policing the police" it would be sooooo unkewel if we improvised this weaponry. Sadaam's son was on t.v. the other day just about inviting the US to attack, he said if we do "New York will look like it was a picnic" i believe the insane sob myself. not enough people are taking this seriously enough.--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diverdriver 5 #9 January 26, 2003 Wait a minute. The French don't like us going into Iraq to oust Saddam. We have basicly ignored their protests. Now, when they can't get anything done.....the FRENCH PRESS (Agence France-Presse) reports that we are planning to use nukes. Everyone is now in a tissy. Isn't that very convenient. Hmmmm.......who's wagging the dog now? Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zinger 0 #10 January 26, 2003 I can't prove this yet because it's so top secret there is no public proof and I heard it on "Fox News" so you filter this information your self but it makes ALOT of sense to me. This Military advisor said that there is rumor that the French have a "Day after Embargo Treaty" with Iraq, And it's worded in such a way that gives the French cheaper oil prices the day after the embargo is lifted from Iraq, And the more the French due to prevent war and lift this embargo the cheaper they get the oil. Like I said I heard it on the News so I don't know how true it is and can't prove it so don't anyone nit-pick...lol.. ------Have a good one!-------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkydiveMonkey 0 #11 January 26, 2003 So the US are asking Iraq not to use chemical weapons, and then they're planning dropping nukes all over the place? ____________________ Say no to subliminal messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites LouDiamond 1 #12 January 26, 2003 QuoteAgence France-Presse Well we all know that if it's in the paper/news that it's GOT to be true. I'd look a little closer at who wrote this article and what their agenda is and which direction the spin is in. If it's any consolation, every time planning for a comflict occurs they plan for the worst case scenario and Nukes always come in as a last resort option. I wouldn't get too excited over this article, it's mostly propoganda used to shake up the nieve public."It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Vance 0 #13 January 26, 2003 With 17 years in the USAF with about half of that working around nukes, I can say that if the US were to use nukes on Iraq, it would only be because they used chemical or bio weapons on us first or as a pre-emptive stike to prevent their use on us. Sarin, tabun, mustard gas, anthrax and whatever else Iraq may possess does some really nasty stuff to a body and it is an extremely long and painful way to die. Could it be sabre rattling? Sure it could be. But if I'm sitting in Gulf and we get gassed by Saddam, we sure as hell better show him that there is a severe price to pay. Just my 2 bits. Can't we all just go skydiving? Vance Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites gemini 0 #14 January 26, 2003 So what else is new? In war games in 1970, one of my jobs was to plot the fallout pattern when nukes were used against an armored division. The US has always been ready to use them if necessary to counter an overwhelming attack, or a chemical or biological attck. The only thing new here is that they would be used as bunker busters. Sounds like an offensive use to me. Blue skies, Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Opie 0 #15 January 26, 2003 If we're not willing to use them, consider to use, or threaten to use them what's the point in having them? The threat of the U.S. using nukes may be what keeps Saddam from killing thousand of his own citizens and our soldiers with chemical & biological weapons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Faber 0 #16 January 26, 2003 nope now he just wan away and then the people get nuked(he s the devil but he aint stupid) Stay safe Stefan Faber Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Opie 0 #17 January 26, 2003 Quotenope now he just wan away and then the people get nuked(he s the devil but he aint stupid) Saddam succesfully getting away while his country got nuked? Possible yes. But no reason for us not to be willing to threaten use of all we have available to us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Faber 0 #18 January 26, 2003 So lets start a nuke war rigt? Becours then it would be 3. time US use them..Whos next... Who should i be afraid of? 1 the one that just have one? or2 the nation who use them.. Nuke aint the answer(NEVER)then i would prefere a regular war.. unless you want the shit at your continent,but i dont think so Stay safe Stefan Faber Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites gemini 0 #19 January 26, 2003 QuoteWho should i be afraid of? 1 the one that just have one? or2 the nation who use them.. Ummhh...let's see. Does the nation that has one have the reputation of being aggressive and attacking it's neighbors? Does the nation who uses them, use them in every military incident; use them without warning; use them in retaliation for chemical or biological attacks? It's not a black or white issue. The US used nukes twice. To end the war with Japan and save the lives of untold millions of American servicemen and Japanese servicemen and civilians. Hundreds of thousands were killed by the bombs. War is a dirty business and should not be entered into lightly. People will die and some of them will be innocents. So if there is a war, get in, bring as much force as is necessary to defeat the opposition, and get out. Had we not wimped out in 91 we might not be where we are today. Blue skies, Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Opie 0 #20 January 26, 2003 Quote So lets start a nuke war rigt? Becours then it would be 3. time US use them..Whos next... Who should i be afraid of? 1 the one that just have one? or2 the nation who use them.. Nuke aint the answer(NEVER)then i would prefere a regular war.. unless you want the shit at your continent,but i dont think so I have not said anywhere that we should use nukes. What I did say is that if you're not willing to use what you have then why have it at all. If we promise to everyone in the world that we (the U.S.) will never use nukes, then why should we have them at all. People being suprised is what's suprising to me about a news article mentioning that the use of nukes has been considered in a war with iraq. The U.S. should always consider every option available to them in a war. (note- I am in no way saying that we should be going to war with iraq.) Just because it was considered or theatened doesn't mean it has happened, and if we will never consider using them we should start the destruction of all of the nuke weapons now. Can you assure us that every other country/terrorist will do the same now and in the future? You should be afraid of every country that has nukes and many other types of weapons. If you are only afraid of the ones that use them, well, you're too late Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #21 January 26, 2003 QuoteWait a minute. The French don't like us going into Iraq to oust Saddam. We have basicly ignored their protests. Now, when they can't get anything done.....the FRENCH PRESS (Agence France-Presse) reports that we are planning to use nukes. Everyone is now in a tissy. Isn't that very convenient. Hmmmm.......who's wagging the dog now? Chris It was confirmed today on Meet the Press by the White House Chief of Staff that if Iraq uses any WMD, we reserve the option of responding in the same manner. This was his answer in direct response to a question asking if we were planning on using nukes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkydiveMonkey 0 #22 January 26, 2003 Quote What I did say is that if you're not willing to use what you have then why have it at all. so you're saying becuase you have them you should use them? That's not a good atitude.____________________ Say no to subliminal messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites trilete312 0 #23 January 26, 2003 Quote This is outrageous! I bet North Koreans would now feel vindicated for pulling out of Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. Before getting outraged, you need to look at the source of the "leaked" information. ***a top US private military expert has warned. [ Citing multiple sources, William Arkin said plans for using nuclear weapons against Iraq are being fleshed out at the US Strategic Command in Omaha*** Hello Unamed sources??? I bet the Star or the National Enquirer has run several of these stories on page three right after the story of the man who was separated at birth from A dog.----------- Ready, Set, Gooooooo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Opie 0 #24 January 26, 2003 Quote Quote What I did say is that if you're not willing to use what you have then why have it at all. so you're saying becuase you have them you should use them? That's not a good atitude. Words are important. Please read what you quoted again. "if you're not willing to use what you have then why have it at all." I did not say that because we have them we should use them. If you're unsure of what I meant just ask but please do not put words in my mouth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skycop 0 #25 January 26, 2003 PLANNING........this is PLANNING. The military has to play out the doomsday scenarios in order to be ready for all possible outcomes. War is a dirty business, nothing clean about it. One has to be ready for the unexpected. We informed(through back channels) Iraq in 91 that we reserved the right to use nukes if they decided to use chemicals or bio weapons. There's nothing new here, so everyone don't get your panties in a bunch! "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Faber 0 #6 January 26, 2003 Quote into thinking they are not safe hundreds of feet below ground in a concrete and steel palace also protected by weapons of mass death that is what I would say also. It dosnt help unles you know where he is...And then you could use an acurate bomb,that first explode when it gets xft in... I think that IF(cant belive it will come to that),you drop an nuke in Irak,then you also hurt the people,for the nex 50years(and still dont get the guy..)then they are better off whit Sadam..And so am i..Idont need to xhale that shit.Then youll get a new desise in US..MeLets just find that F### and get rid of him and his kompanes,but in a way so we dosnt hurt the people of Irak more than needed.. Stay safe Stefan Faber Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zinger 0 #7 January 26, 2003 I don't think they will drop a nuke, Nor do I think they should, But the threat of it is almost as powerful at times of need and now is a good time I believe. ------Have a good one!-------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #8 January 26, 2003 QuoteUS may use nukes I remember asking "who's policing the police" it would be sooooo unkewel if we improvised this weaponry. Sadaam's son was on t.v. the other day just about inviting the US to attack, he said if we do "New York will look like it was a picnic" i believe the insane sob myself. not enough people are taking this seriously enough.--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #9 January 26, 2003 Wait a minute. The French don't like us going into Iraq to oust Saddam. We have basicly ignored their protests. Now, when they can't get anything done.....the FRENCH PRESS (Agence France-Presse) reports that we are planning to use nukes. Everyone is now in a tissy. Isn't that very convenient. Hmmmm.......who's wagging the dog now? Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zinger 0 #10 January 26, 2003 I can't prove this yet because it's so top secret there is no public proof and I heard it on "Fox News" so you filter this information your self but it makes ALOT of sense to me. This Military advisor said that there is rumor that the French have a "Day after Embargo Treaty" with Iraq, And it's worded in such a way that gives the French cheaper oil prices the day after the embargo is lifted from Iraq, And the more the French due to prevent war and lift this embargo the cheaper they get the oil. Like I said I heard it on the News so I don't know how true it is and can't prove it so don't anyone nit-pick...lol.. ------Have a good one!-------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveMonkey 0 #11 January 26, 2003 So the US are asking Iraq not to use chemical weapons, and then they're planning dropping nukes all over the place? ____________________ Say no to subliminal messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LouDiamond 1 #12 January 26, 2003 QuoteAgence France-Presse Well we all know that if it's in the paper/news that it's GOT to be true. I'd look a little closer at who wrote this article and what their agenda is and which direction the spin is in. If it's any consolation, every time planning for a comflict occurs they plan for the worst case scenario and Nukes always come in as a last resort option. I wouldn't get too excited over this article, it's mostly propoganda used to shake up the nieve public."It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vance 0 #13 January 26, 2003 With 17 years in the USAF with about half of that working around nukes, I can say that if the US were to use nukes on Iraq, it would only be because they used chemical or bio weapons on us first or as a pre-emptive stike to prevent their use on us. Sarin, tabun, mustard gas, anthrax and whatever else Iraq may possess does some really nasty stuff to a body and it is an extremely long and painful way to die. Could it be sabre rattling? Sure it could be. But if I'm sitting in Gulf and we get gassed by Saddam, we sure as hell better show him that there is a severe price to pay. Just my 2 bits. Can't we all just go skydiving? Vance Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gemini 0 #14 January 26, 2003 So what else is new? In war games in 1970, one of my jobs was to plot the fallout pattern when nukes were used against an armored division. The US has always been ready to use them if necessary to counter an overwhelming attack, or a chemical or biological attck. The only thing new here is that they would be used as bunker busters. Sounds like an offensive use to me. Blue skies, Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Opie 0 #15 January 26, 2003 If we're not willing to use them, consider to use, or threaten to use them what's the point in having them? The threat of the U.S. using nukes may be what keeps Saddam from killing thousand of his own citizens and our soldiers with chemical & biological weapons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faber 0 #16 January 26, 2003 nope now he just wan away and then the people get nuked(he s the devil but he aint stupid) Stay safe Stefan Faber Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Opie 0 #17 January 26, 2003 Quotenope now he just wan away and then the people get nuked(he s the devil but he aint stupid) Saddam succesfully getting away while his country got nuked? Possible yes. But no reason for us not to be willing to threaten use of all we have available to us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faber 0 #18 January 26, 2003 So lets start a nuke war rigt? Becours then it would be 3. time US use them..Whos next... Who should i be afraid of? 1 the one that just have one? or2 the nation who use them.. Nuke aint the answer(NEVER)then i would prefere a regular war.. unless you want the shit at your continent,but i dont think so Stay safe Stefan Faber Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gemini 0 #19 January 26, 2003 QuoteWho should i be afraid of? 1 the one that just have one? or2 the nation who use them.. Ummhh...let's see. Does the nation that has one have the reputation of being aggressive and attacking it's neighbors? Does the nation who uses them, use them in every military incident; use them without warning; use them in retaliation for chemical or biological attacks? It's not a black or white issue. The US used nukes twice. To end the war with Japan and save the lives of untold millions of American servicemen and Japanese servicemen and civilians. Hundreds of thousands were killed by the bombs. War is a dirty business and should not be entered into lightly. People will die and some of them will be innocents. So if there is a war, get in, bring as much force as is necessary to defeat the opposition, and get out. Had we not wimped out in 91 we might not be where we are today. Blue skies, Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Opie 0 #20 January 26, 2003 Quote So lets start a nuke war rigt? Becours then it would be 3. time US use them..Whos next... Who should i be afraid of? 1 the one that just have one? or2 the nation who use them.. Nuke aint the answer(NEVER)then i would prefere a regular war.. unless you want the shit at your continent,but i dont think so I have not said anywhere that we should use nukes. What I did say is that if you're not willing to use what you have then why have it at all. If we promise to everyone in the world that we (the U.S.) will never use nukes, then why should we have them at all. People being suprised is what's suprising to me about a news article mentioning that the use of nukes has been considered in a war with iraq. The U.S. should always consider every option available to them in a war. (note- I am in no way saying that we should be going to war with iraq.) Just because it was considered or theatened doesn't mean it has happened, and if we will never consider using them we should start the destruction of all of the nuke weapons now. Can you assure us that every other country/terrorist will do the same now and in the future? You should be afraid of every country that has nukes and many other types of weapons. If you are only afraid of the ones that use them, well, you're too late Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #21 January 26, 2003 QuoteWait a minute. The French don't like us going into Iraq to oust Saddam. We have basicly ignored their protests. Now, when they can't get anything done.....the FRENCH PRESS (Agence France-Presse) reports that we are planning to use nukes. Everyone is now in a tissy. Isn't that very convenient. Hmmmm.......who's wagging the dog now? Chris It was confirmed today on Meet the Press by the White House Chief of Staff that if Iraq uses any WMD, we reserve the option of responding in the same manner. This was his answer in direct response to a question asking if we were planning on using nukes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveMonkey 0 #22 January 26, 2003 Quote What I did say is that if you're not willing to use what you have then why have it at all. so you're saying becuase you have them you should use them? That's not a good atitude.____________________ Say no to subliminal messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
trilete312 0 #23 January 26, 2003 Quote This is outrageous! I bet North Koreans would now feel vindicated for pulling out of Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. Before getting outraged, you need to look at the source of the "leaked" information. ***a top US private military expert has warned. [ Citing multiple sources, William Arkin said plans for using nuclear weapons against Iraq are being fleshed out at the US Strategic Command in Omaha*** Hello Unamed sources??? I bet the Star or the National Enquirer has run several of these stories on page three right after the story of the man who was separated at birth from A dog.----------- Ready, Set, Gooooooo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Opie 0 #24 January 26, 2003 Quote Quote What I did say is that if you're not willing to use what you have then why have it at all. so you're saying becuase you have them you should use them? That's not a good atitude. Words are important. Please read what you quoted again. "if you're not willing to use what you have then why have it at all." I did not say that because we have them we should use them. If you're unsure of what I meant just ask but please do not put words in my mouth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skycop 0 #25 January 26, 2003 PLANNING........this is PLANNING. The military has to play out the doomsday scenarios in order to be ready for all possible outcomes. War is a dirty business, nothing clean about it. One has to be ready for the unexpected. We informed(through back channels) Iraq in 91 that we reserved the right to use nukes if they decided to use chemicals or bio weapons. There's nothing new here, so everyone don't get your panties in a bunch! "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Opie 0 #24 January 26, 2003 Quote Quote What I did say is that if you're not willing to use what you have then why have it at all. so you're saying becuase you have them you should use them? That's not a good atitude. Words are important. Please read what you quoted again. "if you're not willing to use what you have then why have it at all." I did not say that because we have them we should use them. If you're unsure of what I meant just ask but please do not put words in my mouth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycop 0 #25 January 26, 2003 PLANNING........this is PLANNING. The military has to play out the doomsday scenarios in order to be ready for all possible outcomes. War is a dirty business, nothing clean about it. One has to be ready for the unexpected. We informed(through back channels) Iraq in 91 that we reserved the right to use nukes if they decided to use chemicals or bio weapons. There's nothing new here, so everyone don't get your panties in a bunch! "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
