Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Synikul It sounds good to me.
Any other opinions? |
Given the Bush administration's tendency to "go ahead and do what they like" regardless of world viewpoint, I don't think it sounds good at all.
Considering however the date that this publication was released (shortly after North Korea's most recent demand of the US) it might simply be a load of bullshit. However, taking into consideration as well that the US is already on its way out the door as the leading world power, it might be a last ditch effort on the US Administrations part, to attempt to hold onto that position.
Quote:
A "summary of changes" included in the draft identifies differences from the 1995 doctrine, and says the new document "revises the discussion of nuclear weapons use across the range of military operations."
The first example for potential nuclear weapon use listed in the draft is against an enemy that is using "or intending to use WMD" against U.S. or allied, multinational military forces or civilian populations.
Another scenario for a possible nuclear preemptive strike is in case of an "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy."
~
To deter the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, the Pentagon paper says preparations must be made to use nuclear weapons and show determination to use them "if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use."
~
Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee who has been a leading opponent of the bunker-buster program, said yesterday the draft was "apparently a follow-through on their nuclear posture review and they seem to bypass the idea that Congress had doubts about the program." She added that members "certainly don't want the administration to move forward with a [nuclear] preemption policy" without hearings, closed door if necessary.
|
The US is hardly in a position where they can be feeling confident in their ability to perceive where WMD may be located, nevermind who might be "intending to use them" Iraq is a very clear current example of that. That's the cover they used in the start and they had to change their story about their reasons once it was discovered that the WMD were nonexistant.
While I understand that they would want to stop the use of biological weapons, again I have to wonder how accurate they could be, as well as are they forgetting the ramifications of dropping nuclear bombs on places? They have pretty widespread effects too... I suppose the US has put a price comparison on lives worldwide, and the life of an innocent over in the middle east just can't compare to the value of a life of an innocent (or even a non-innocent for that matter) in the US.
That last bit up there, I'm not exactly thrilled about either. Congress is the level where the government activities have an opportunity to be halted if the public is informed, and against the change trying to be made. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but the mention of "behind closed doors if necessary" sounds like they're going to try their damndest to get this one to go through, and keep it as much under wraps as possible. I could be reading the last bit I quoted there wrong though.
I don't think it sounds good at all, I think it screams of a great deal of potential trouble.
Linear Mode
Latest Threads
