Bush may use nuclear weapon on Iraq!

[etech]

Originally posted by: rufruf44

Originally posted by: etech
So much pure BS.

It's a contigency plan. The US has a contingency plan on every possible scenario they can come up with up to and including Canada firing up their tank and coming south.

The possibility of it being implenmented is about the same as Saddam being nominated and making Sainthood in the Catholic Church.

We know Bush won't do it but I wonder if Sharon has enough restraint if Israel is hit by dozens of WMD? If Israel attack Iraq, then its probably the end of any peaceful hope in the Arabian Peninsula. All the radical moslem will have their long awaited excuse to push for the destruction of Israel, in the name of self-defense/preservation.

If Iraq hits Israel with enough biological or chemical weapons then yes, I think that Israel would respond. That's actually one of the reasons I think removing Saddam is a good idea. Get him out of there before the sanctions are lifted and he can really rebuild his army and special little toys.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: etech
So much pure BS.

It's a contigency plan. The US has a contingency plan on every possible scenario they can come up with up to and including Canada firing up their tank and coming south.

The possibility of it being implenmented is about the same as Saddam being nominated and making Sainthood in the Catholic Church.

LOL! Don't joke, it was revealed a few years back that we actually do have several plans for invading and taking over Canada... No joke either...

The Pentagon has plans to attack and invade every country on Earth, they have a whole department that does nothing but sit around all day thinking up war plans...

Hopper

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Zakath15
Nice to know you're thinking of all the consequences, hopper.

Oh, I know them well enough, rest assured...

Tell me this... If Saddam used VX or Sarian gas against US Soldiers and killed say, 10,000 troops, do you think Bush WOULDN'T respond with nuclear weapons?

If he didn't, then our threats of using them in response to WMD would become a joke...

Hopper

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: rufruf44
We know Bush won't do it but I wonder if Sharon has enough restraint if Israel is hit by dozens of WMD? If Israel attack Iraq, then its probably the end of any peaceful hope in the Arabian Peninsula. All the radical moslem will have their long awaited excuse to push for the destruction of Israel, in the name of self-defense/preservation.

If Saddam uses WMD against Israel, I cannot imagine Israel would not respond with nuclear weapons against Iraq.

Hopper

 

[JellyBaby]

Saddum moved around a lot in Gulf War 1.0. Hard little ah heck to catch and bring to justice. Wide-area nookular weapons might nail him this time, once and for all.

Seriously, all options are on the table but I highly doubt nooks will be used unless Saddum somehow retaliates in a manner that seriously threatens operations.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Link

Yes, and as it says right in the story:

"Military officials have been focusing their planning on the use of nuclear arms in retaliation for a strike by the Iraqis with chemical or biological weapons, or to pre-empt one, Arkin says."

Just as I said, if they use WMD against us, we reserve the right to respond with nuclear weapons.

Hopper

 

[rufruf44]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: Zakath15
Nice to know you're thinking of all the consequences, hopper.

Oh, I know them well enough, rest assured...

Tell me this... If Saddam used VX or Sarian gas against US Soldiers and killed say, 10,000 troops, do you think Bush WOULDN'T respond with nuclear weapons?

If he didn't, then our threats of using them in response to WMD would become a joke...

Hopper

If 10,000 US troops will perish, I would be surprised if there won't be a public outcry demanding a pullback from Iraq immediately, as well as the immediate end of the Bush presidency. Even then, i'm not really sure whether he'll respond with nukes or not.

 

[Jmman]

Well, it has always been the clearly stated policy of the US that if WMD were used against us, we would retaliate in the same fashion. Nothing really new here.....

 

[zoiks]

So talking about WMD. Its unbelievable what fvcking audacity our politicians have to say that they can use their nukes and are justified in doing so.
A human life is what it is.. a life. You can take it here or in Iraq and thats what you will do..you will end a life. or a million in one shot.
Have we gone nuts or is it is Bush trying to complete dad's unfinished business at all costs.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: rufruf44

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: Zakath15
Nice to know you're thinking of all the consequences, hopper.

Oh, I know them well enough, rest assured...

Tell me this... If Saddam used VX or Sarian gas against US Soldiers and killed say, 10,000 troops, do you think Bush WOULDN'T respond with nuclear weapons?

If he didn't, then our threats of using them in response to WMD would become a joke...

Hopper

If 10,000 US troops will perish, I would be surprised if there won't be a public outcry demanding a pullback from Iraq immediately, as well as the immediate end of the Bush presidency. Even then, i'm not really sure whether he'll respond with nukes or not.

How wrong your are, youngun, how wrong you are.

 

[Harvey]

If he's even talking about it in public, he's proving once again what a moron he is. If he does it, I'll volunteer to be first to sign a petition to impeach the SOB. It will be time to find another President or another country. :disgust:

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

DU shells have almost nothing to do with Nuclear weapons. They are just very dense and are useful for piercing armor. Why we would use them around Baghdad unless it was on a tank is not clear to me.

Depleted Uranium

Most, if not all, peer-reviewed studies on DU focus on civilian use or weapons manufacturing NOT the human/environmental impact of military use. Low level radioactivity aside you are still dealing with littering toxic material every time DU shells are used.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: etech
So much pure BS.

It's a contigency plan. The US has a contingency plan on every possible scenario they can come up with up to and including Canada firing up their tank and coming south.

The possibility of it being implenmented is about the same as Saddam being nominated and making Sainthood in the Catholic Church.

LOL! Don't joke, it was revealed a few years back that we actually do have several plans for invading and taking over Canada... No joke either...

The Pentagon has plans to attack and invade every country on Earth, they have a whole department that does nothing but sit around all day thinking up war plans...

Hopper

I know about something, not much, but a little about the contingency plans. I heard a little about the one for martial law and medical responses in case the New Madrid fault ever lets go. There are probably plans for what to do if a fleet of alien spaceships suddenly appear.

So no, I am not surprised and am actually pleased to see that the US military is still planning for all contingencies. If Saddam started throwing scud missiles loaded with part of the 1.5 tons of nerve gas he has all over the Middle East then yes, I could see nukes being authorized to take out deep bunkers. Is it likely, well I already expressed my thoughts on that.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

DU shells have almost nothing to do with Nuclear weapons. They are just very dense and are useful for piercing armor. Why we would use them around Baghdad unless it was on a tank is not clear to me.

Depleted Uranium

Most, if not all, peer-reviewed studies on DU focus on civilian use or weapons manufacturing NOT the human/environmental impact of military use. Low level radioactivity aside you are still dealing with littering toxic material every time DU shells are used.

The main use for DU shells is against armour. I don't think that Saddam has many tanks left.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: etech
I know about something, not much, but a little about the contingency plans. I heard a little about the one for martial law and medical responses in case the New Madrid fault ever lets go. There are probably plans for what to do if a fleet of alien spaceships suddenly appear.

LOL!

I'd love to read what their plans are for the fleet of alien spaceships!!!

So no, I am not surprised and am actually pleased to see that the US military is still planning for all contingencies. If Saddam started throwing scud missiles loaded with part of the 1.5 tons of nerve gas he has all over the Middle East then yes, I could see nukes being authorized to take out deep bunkers. Is it likely, well I already expressed my thoughts on that.

People right now of course say no to nukes, but if the WMD start flying against our soldiers and Israel, that can change in a real big hurry.

BTW, in response to the report:

A White House spokesman declined comment Friday on Arkin's report, except to say that "the United States reserves the right to defend itself and its allies by whatever means necessary."

It is that "by whatever means necessary" that Saddam should keep in mind.

Hopper

 

[ManSnake]

Bush is not crazy enough to use the nuke.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: ManSnake
Bush is not crazy enough to use the nuke.

The President of the United States doesn't have to be crazy to use nukes, he just has to know when and where to use them properly.

 

[Reliant]

If Iraq does use WMD on US troops the sentiment will change in the country, people will want us to punish Saddam, we will want retribution for those acts.

 

[feralkid]

I say "can't pronounce 'em; can't launch 'em".....line in the sand.....line in the sand.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The President of the United States doesn't have to be crazy to use nukes, he just has to know when and where to use them properly.

NEVER and No where . . . that's the when and where! Saddam shouldn't have chemical or biological weapons b/c they should NEVER be used. That was the point of the conventions on biological and chemical weapons. The NPT exists for the same reason. We've learned a lesson . . . these weapons CANNOT be used responsibly . . . the primary reason being they are difficult to control once released hence they tend to act as weapons against civilians NOT legal combatants.

We don't need bunker busters. If we are so damn certain they're in a bunker or keeping their stash underground who cares? Let 'em crap in the corner and eat organic MREs (cockroaches) . . . they can stay there forever. If we really want them out then arm the natives and let them do it. If the natives aren't friendly we need to go home.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

anyone who wants to start a conversation about an article that MIGHT come out in the future is more or less a DUMBASS!

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
NEVER and No where . . . that's the when and where! Saddam shouldn't have chemical or biological weapons b/c they should NEVER be used.

Oh, well, I'll call Saddam up right now and tell him that BaliBabyDoc on the Internet said he shouldn't have chemical or biological weapons, so he needs to give them up RIGHT THIS SECOND!

Gimmie a break...

Hopper

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

If Iraq does use WMD on US troops the sentiment will change in the country, people will want us to punish Saddam, we will want retribution for those acts.

That doesn't make sense. You break down my door and punch me in the nose. I kick you in the groin. You pull out a .44 and put a round through my chest.

You can call me a community annoyance but you have no proof I've done ANYTHING to you. But somehow you not only have the right to try and hurt me b/c I might do something to you or help someone else hurt you in the future . . . but you also reserve the right to use any means necessary to subdue me after you enter my home.

That scenario is down right medieval . . . do you wonder why we have to buy or intimidate our allies?!

 

[zoiks]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

The President of the United States doesn't have to be crazy to use nukes, he just has to know when and where to use them properly.

NEVER and No where . . . that's the when and where! Saddam shouldn't have chemical or biological weapons b/c they should NEVER be used. That was the point of the conventions on biological and chemical weapons. The NPT exists for the same reason. We've learned a lesson . . . these weapons CANNOT be used responsibly . . . the primary reason being they are difficult to control once released hence they tend to act as weapons against civilians NOT legal combatants.

We don't need bunker busters. If we are so damn certain they're in a bunker or keeping their stash underground who cares? Let 'em crap in the corner and eat organic MREs (cockroaches) . . . they can stay there forever. If we really want them out then arm the natives and let them do it. If the natives aren't friendly we need to go home.

The case is the same for nukes as well. Once set off it cant be undone either. If we dont want Saddam to have nukes then maybe we shouldnt have them either right. You think we are responsible? I dont think so with our history. We are now issuing blunt statements about bombs and pushing countries around in the world. It used to be the middle eastern nations but now its France and Germany as well. We can do what we want right now but maybe later on in the future we may be alone. The UK may stop kissing ass at any point too in time.
I also think that maybe Bush wants this over soon so that this doesnt haunt him next year when he's up for re-election.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: yamahaXS
anyone who wants to start a conversation about an article that MIGHT come out in the future is more or less a DUMBASS!

Damn, I knew I forgot something.

The Times of India