WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Headlines Nuclear Doctrine going from horrible to horrible-er.

jamesp

In Memory...
1,714
1
0
#1
Got this article from Elotana at the something awful forums...

A PRESIDENT of the United States would be able to launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes against enemies planning to use weapons of mass destruction under a revised “nuclear operations” doctrine to be signed in the next few weeks.

In a significant shift after half a century of nuclear deterrence based on the threat of massive retaliation, the revised doctrine would allow pre-emptive strikes against states or terror groups, and to destroy chemical and biological weapons stockpiles.

Presidential approval would still be required for any nuclear strike, but the updated document, the existence of which was confirmed by the Pentagon at the weekend, emphasises the need for the US to adapt to a world of worsening proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in which deterrence might fail. In that event, it states, “the United States must be prepared to use nuclear weapons if necessary”.

The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, last revised ten years ago, extends President Bush’s doctrine of pre-emptive war to cover a US nuclear arsenal that is expected to shrink to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads by 2012.

It was drafted by the Pentagon in March and posted on the internet, but did not attract widespread attention until a report on it in The Washington Post yesterday. It has since been removed from the Department of Defence website.

It came to light as Iran insisted, in defiance of the European Union, that it would continue processing uranium at its Isfahan reactor. The US has called on the UN Security Council to impose sanctions on Tehran for failing to shelve its nuclear programme.

Referring repeatedly to “non-state actors” — parlance for terrorists — the doctrine is designed to arm the White House and US forces with a new range of threats and sanctions to counter the situation of threatened nuclear attack by al-Qaeda or one of its affiliates.

The document’s key phrase appears in a list of pre-emptive nuclear strike scenarios, the first of which is against an enemy using “or intending to use WMD”.

Elsewhere it states that “deterrence of potential adversary WMD use requires the potential adversary leadership to believe that the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective”.

The 1995 version of the doctrine contained no mention of pre-emption or WMD as legitimate nuclear targets.

Hmmm.....I really think Bush is the AntiChrist now......

It says in the bible that that armageddon with occur in the seventh year of the anitchrist's rule. Well, by my calculations, that gives us about a year and a half.
 

Darklight

Oppressing your posts...
5,438
95
142
#2
so if I get the jist of it... if america "thinks" someone might have or is developing wmd's with the intent of using them, we can nuke em before they've really done anything? using weapons of mass destruction on the innocent.. isnt this one of the things we invaded iraq over? when do you become worse then the enemy?
 

ReiMeishin

Dreaming to live
585
0
0
#3
Armageddon will not happen. I base this statement on the fact that I don't want to know about it.
 

Darklight

Oppressing your posts...
5,438
95
142
#4


The more things change.. the more they stay the same...
 

jamesp

In Memory...
1,714
1
0
#5
Darklight said:
so if I get the jist of it... if america "thinks" someone might have or is developing wmd's with the intent of using them, we can nuke em before they've really done anything? using weapons of mass destruction on the innocent.. isnt this one of the things we invaded iraq over? when do you become worse then the enemy?
I think it means that we will be revamping our nuclear doctrine from "you destroy us we destroy you right back" to "you even think of attacking us we'll destroy you".
 

Darklight

Oppressing your posts...
5,438
95
142
#6
heh... UN Sanctions against america.. its gonna be fun :D
 

void

Banned - What an Asshat!
4,126
1
0
#7
maybe the nuclear winter effect will control the global warming /sarcasm
 

jamesp

In Memory...
1,714
1
0
#8
Hey, void just reminded me, did you guys know that while our summer are getting hotter our winters are getting colder, we are just about 11 degrees away from another Ice Age. If, in the next 50 years or so, the temperature lowers by 11 degrees, the trade winds coming off of the tip of Africa couldn't maintain the equilibrium.......
 

ReiMeishin

Dreaming to live
585
0
0
#9
jamesp said:
Hey, void just reminded me, did you guys know that while our summer are getting hotter our winters are getting colder, we are just about 11 degrees away from another Ice Age. If, in the next 50 years or so, the temperature lowers by 11 degrees, the trade winds coming off of the tip of Africa couldn't maintain the equilibrium.......
If we could melt some of greenland now it would cool the earth for a limited amount of time, we could delay the comming of the ice age. However, we would need a very large source of heat and the only device capable of producing controled heat over a wide area. Or, we would have to place explosives to loose a controled amount of the glacier and send it southward. However, both options would require EXTREMELY precise calculations, too much will send us into the next ice age prematurely, too little and we don't stop the ice age.
 

RageAgainst

Chaotic Neutral
7,540
685
257
#10
If country A owns a WMD, can you launch a nuclear pre-emptive strike based on the belief that country A might use it? Wouldn't that be like forcing electric chair on someone that might kill someone else?
 

Darklight

Oppressing your posts...
5,438
95
142
#11
RageAgainst said:
If country A owns a WMD, can you launch a nuclear pre-emptive strike based on the belief that country A might use it? Wouldn't that be like forcing electric chair on someone that might kill someone else?
yes'm.....
 
4,149
2
0
#12
So, if America is the only country with the right to make these pre-emptive strikes, does that mean that we have to destroy ourselves? Oh wait, we already are. Silly me.
 

RetArt

A Rampant Vagitarian
1,025
0
0
#13
I´m thinking it wont take long ´til China and Russia want this "priviledge" too.. And what-do-you-know, a Cold War II. woopti-fookin-doo.
This clearly shows Bush´s views on diminishing worlds nuclear weapons.. All the work people have done to step further from the nuclear war-scenario, and then this militant dwarf fuckballs everything.
If I´d be a small country, used by the USA foir financial profit causing poverty and hunger I´d start my own nuclear plan instantly. "they wont strike us if we can strike them". even if it would only be a small hit, maybe to the reproductive organs or whatnot.

And anoher view, yippee... if terrorists are thought to be from some country (which is of no use to the USA) you could attack that country with nukes. see afghanistan, iraq...

I so wish for Nürnberg II to get these criminals to justice... Unjustified use of force, national terrorism, partial genocide... the list just gets longer and longer by the minute...
 
1,723
92
112
#14
RetArt said:
I´m thinking it wont take long ´til China and Russia want this "priviledge" too.. And what-do-you-know, a Cold War II.
Actually, WW3 is more likely. IMO.
This scares the living shit outta me, what the fuck is that monkey thinking? Why the fuck is this country on the UN security council? They want UNSC reforms? I say we give them all the reforms they can handle.
Sanctions? Too weak. I say fucking authorize war against them if this goes through.
Those fucking tools.
I'm just angry right now, I'll probably have a different opinion later today.
 

Nailbomb

I'm just really nice.
4,475
2,799
332
#15
canadian_pov said:
Sanctions? Too weak. I say fucking authorize war against them if this goes through.
Good idea! We'll nuke Canada too. :D
 

jamesp

In Memory...
1,714
1
0
#16
And its already been shown that the UN has no power to tell the US anything. Remember, a few years ago, those pussies didn't want us to invade.....that.....what country....oh yeah, Iraq. That went over well. Im dead set on impeachment....that or pull a Pat Robertson on him, he needs to be assassinated before we all suffer more for it.

PS: please dont tell the department of homeland security on me for those last remarks......
 
2,489
456
327
#18
our congress is based on a system of checks and balances...you would htink the UN would have implemented this on all members when it was formed...but nooooooo...the US has way to much say in the world today...if anything goes wrong, it's like we absolutley HAVE to get involved
 

jamesp

In Memory...
1,714
1
0
#19
Speaking of Checks & Balances....

I was watching the Senate Judiciary committee "interogation" of John Roberts today, and one of the questions was did he agree with bill passed by congress in 1981 that would let the Senate and Congress reverse rulings made by the supreme court (Im probably not giving enough detail, but fuck it, you should have watched it yourself.). And, of course the system of Checks & Balances leapt to mind, and the fact that a bill like that could easily usurp the power of the Court, and thus skew the system forever. It took John Roberts 10 minutes of straight talking to explain that he thought that was a "bad idea".

dull_bullet said:
our congress is based on a system of checks and balances...you would htink the UN would have implemented this on all members when it was formed...but nooooooo...the US has way to much say in the world today...if anything goes wrong, it's like we absolutley HAVE to get involved
Well, on the world political scene, things are a little different. There is no commander in chief, there is no congress, and there is no judicial branch. Everything is done by commitee, which is apparently sanskrit for "powerless group of monkeys". The more powerful nations obviously have more sway, unless they are met by a coalition of many smaller nations with opposing views. If this happens, the smaller nations are summarily invaded over a few years, for lack of a better excuse, for attempting to gain weapons of mass destruction.