Pentagon recommends use of nuclear weapons in retaliation

G

Guest

Guest
WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 (Kyodo) - The Defense Department has recommended to President George W. Bush the use of tactical nuclear weapons as a military option to retaliate for last week's terrorist attacks in the United States, diplomatic sources said Tuesday.

It is unknown whether Bush has made any decision. But military analysts said the president is unlikely to opt for the use of nuclear weapons because doing so would generate rebuke from the international community and could even trigger revenge from the enemy involving weapons of mass destruction.

But the Pentagon's suggestion shows the determination of U.S. officials to retaliate for the first massive terrorist attacks on the U.S. mainland, the analysts said.

The recommendation appears intended to deter terrorists, they said.

On ABC television's THIS WEEK program Sunday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld refused to rule out the use of tactical nuclear weapons. He avoided clearly answering a simple question on whether their use can be ruled out. To a similar question, a Pentagon official also replied, ''We will not discuss operational and intelligence matters.''

According to the diplomatic sources, the Pentagon recommended using tactical nuclear weapons shortly after it became known that an unprecedented number of civilian casualties resulted from the terrorist attacks.

On Sept. 11, hijackers seized four commercial U.S. aircraft. Two of the planes slammed into the twin towers of New York's World Trade Center, while a third hit the Pentagon near Washington. The fourth plane crashed outside Pittsburgh. More than 5,000 people were left dead or missing in the attacks.

Tactical nuclear weapons have been developed to attack very specific targets. The military analysts said Pentagon officials are apparently thinking of using weapons that can reach and destroy terrorists hiding in an underground shelter, limiting damage to non-targets.

In 1986, the U.S. conducted an air raid on Libya, attempting to target Col. Muammar Qaddafi. In 1998, Washington fired a cruise missile into Afghanistan in an attempt to kill Osama bin Laden, whom the U.S. sees as behind last week's terrorist attacks.

The analysts said that since these attempts failed, it may be assumed that U.S. officials are mulling the use of tactical nuclear weapons, which can cause much greater destruction.

Declassified official documents show that since the mid-1990s, the U.S. has indicated that it does not rule out the use of nuclear weapons if a country attacks the U.S., its allies, or its forces with chemical or biological weapons.
 
endisnear

Great job misquoting the article. You forgot to include a key phrase: "As an option".

The actual quote:

The Defense Department has recommended to President George W. Bush the use of tactical nuclear weapons as a military option to retaliate for last week's terrorist attacks in the United States, diplomatic sources said Tuesday.

What you've done is lie by ommission.

Part of the military's job is to present the options we can take in every scenario. Thisn't the first or last time nuclear weapons have been one option. It doesn't mean we are going to use it.

I can see the replies now. Here we go......
 
Something to keep in mind, cruise missiles do not have to be equipped with a nuclear package, they can be loaded to fly with a conventional warhead.

And like miles said, OPTION.
 
There really isn't a lot of difference in explosive power between a tactical nuke and a fully fueled jumbo jet.
 
i would happen to agree w/ the option remark. military's job is to provide the options for this campaign. however much any of us hate the thought of them being used, they are still just that- an option. as for the power of a tactical nuke? equal to an airliner? i think not. a tactical nuke would have done much more damage. the damage done to the WTC towers was not from explosion...it was from sheer kinetic energy and the resultant collapses from the degridation of the support structure due to extremely high temperature burning.
 
Niether do worst case discussions and rational doomsday rhetoric in any scenarios.:confused:
 
He who never discusses worst-case/doomsday scenarios has their head in the sand.
 
I'm never sure to accompany it with a light Chardonnay or a full-bodied Cabernet.

I guess it depends on the sauce.
 
Yeah where is Kyodo. Maybe this loser means Kyoto, Japan. Its the only city i know that looks anything like Kyodo. Tatical nukes would be much more powerful then an airliner. I am pulling these numbers off my head so they are not exact. A tactical nuke is going to be any nuke with a yield between a one Kilo ton TNT up to about 5 Kilo tons. The USSR made some suitcase nukes in the .5 kilo ton range and we have nukes that are in the 10 kilo ton range that some people would call tactical, but I would not. I think the Dial-a-yield nukes that the navy has can go from 5 kilo tons up to a couple of 100, but again those number aren't exact.
 
Why would the Defense Department be making such statements in Kyoto? According to rand mcnally here is a kyodomari, Japan, and a Kyoto, Japan.
 
Nuclear Weapon retaliation has been presented as an "option" for every encounter the U.S. has had since 1945, from Korea, to Vietnam, to the Gulf War, to Roseanne's rendition of "The Star Spangled Banner". It's the Pentagon's job to present ALL scenarios.

But, as the man said, you don't use a one million dollar missle to destroy a fifteen dollar tent.
 
Kyodo is a news service!

And jet planes are NOT chemical or biological or nuclear weapons. Talk like this is exactly what will lose the US much of the world's support. The Pentagon similarly wished to use nukes against the Viet Cong when they were defeating the French in 1954, and against the Chinese when they were defeating the Marines in Korea. It's about the stupidest thing yet to have been said. If we figure out what cave the targets are in, there certainly will be alternatives to nukes in dealing with them. And if we don't figure out what caves they're in, this is just a mega-atrocity waiting to happen.
 
Does anyone else here think this is a huge fucking non-issue?

We aren't nuking anyone.
 
yeah, well -

Since someone obviously TOLD the Japanese journalists that ti was on the list, it might become necessary to rule it out, just as you're attempting to do. Too much fucking loose, empty talk, and I don't mean at Lit.
 
Back
Top