Defense is one of the vital areas of a nation, and I don't criticize the need to seek possible threats posed on your country and surpress them. Even then, I'm finding several problems with this:
Why "nuclear"? Why the insistence on causing such a massive destruction for winning wars? Is that simply because they haven't used their nuclear "toys" for 56 years and they're anxious to see how they work in real conditions...?
While this inform may be sound in strategic terms, its diffusion is a diplomatic disaster. The sole mention of Russia could tighten relations between both countries (and maybe with the whole European block) for years.
Finally, it wouldn't be so serious if it wasn't because this was prepared/asked by Pres. Bush himself. This places his wills in favor of such solutions. While I think the higher echelons of an armed force should think about plans like that to protect the interests of a nation, it's not proper for a president in time of relative 'peace' (meaning: he's not in war with any of those countries at the time, maybe with the exception of Iraq).
I eagerly await for your opinions.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
There's absolutely no excuse for this. Bush has single-handedly made perhaps the dumbest political decision of his career. Dumber than Kyoto withdrawal, dumber than ABM withdrawal, dumber than continuing the US's refusing to sign any arms ban treaties (biological and chemical weaponas and landmines), dumber than refusing the ICC.
This is what you get when you elect a dumb-as-a-rock president and surround him with commie-huntin'-ultraconservative-military-brass-advisors and stir in some Tom Clancy books to taste.
Gee, whiz, let's develop a plan to point missiles at Russia again. They won't mind. In fact, maybe they'll build an NMD of their own and we'll be free to build ours. Except they won't afford theirs. Hahaha stinky russkies! And let's not forget that tactical nukes are kewl! I mean, it wasn't like Reagan set the arms limitation process back 10 years by developing them, now, did he? And let's not forget that the best way to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be to nuke, gee, Damascus. Oh, and we should plan on nuking Iran, too. Even though they've never done anything to hurt us.
And what, the press found out? Stupid liberal media conspiracy!
[ March 09, 2002, 13:26: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by Orion Syndicate (Member # 25) on :
Does this mean that we can now bomb the US for openly advocating the usage of weapons of mass destruction?(albeit when they decide that it's the right time to destroy and irradiate everything within a radius of several hundred miles). Can we now add the US to the axis of evil?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Suddenly, everything's justifyable. 9/11 is used as an excuse each time. Civil liberties. Weapons of mass destruction. Shadow governments. Where and when does it end?
I've also just about had it up to here with the "you're either with us, or against us" bullshit - and the fact that most politicians are too weak to dare go against that policy of blackmail.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
[ March 10, 2002, 02:42: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Bah!
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
*feels it neccessary to point out that the feet-dragging over Kyoto ratification in Canada wouldn't have happened if the country to which we are tied by a free-trade-agreement and is our biggest trading partner by a factor of ten had also ratified*
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Though I'm quite sympathetic with your main thrust here, Tom, why doesn't Canada simply trade with someone else? Some less hegemonic nation?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
The whole point of laissez-faire capitalism seems to be that you trade with who its most convenient. We're close to you. We have resources. You have a market. Canada-US trade is inevitably bound to be the largest trading partnership between any two countries in the world on account of this. There's not a whole lot that can be done to direct our exports elsewhere, because the cheapest place to go is over the 49th, and likewise the cheapest way in is from the US.
When it comes to Kyoto, the size of our trade relationship with America isn't so relevant as our proximity. If we ratify and the US doesn't, American companies get a competitive edge over ours and in such a close economic partnership such as our this is bad.
In any case, the government still supports Kyoto, and although the oil industry and the national Chamber of Commerce are whinging, the government is ready to bite the bullet, though after how much further consultation is still up in the air. Nobody really knows how much it'll cost us economically, with some projections showing us profiting from the whole carbon crediting process.
Back to the topic at hand. George = dumb.
[ March 09, 2002, 18:42: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orion Syndicate: Does this mean that we can now bomb the US for openly advocating the usage of weapons of mass destruction?(albeit when they decide that it's the right time to destroy and irradiate everything within a radius of several hundred miles). Can we now add the US to the axis of evil?
Heh Heh Heh Heh Heh Heh, how ironic would that be?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Speaking of which, Tom DeLay has to get a fucking clue. He was on CNN today. I'm paraphrasing here, but:
a) He criticzed John Kerry's anti-war protests. Um, hello, Tom? The man served in the military, and in Vietnam. You did neither. And now you have the unmitagated GALL to tell him he's wrong for exercising the freedoms he defended -- while you cowered homeward? Next you'll call Max Cleland a coward.
b) He criticized Bill Clinton's policies towards the military, while failing to explain why Republicans in control of the House and Senate for six years of Clinton's term sat back and went along with it.
c) He said people shouldn't question the government. I guess its not allowed when a Republican is in office.
Anyway, that idiot needs to get a clue.
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
I don't get it.
Is Bush intentionally trying to piss off the biggest and the third largest nuclear power in the world as part of his "master plan"?
or...
Is he just dumb and say what he thinks with his ass, which is "coincidently" his brain.
And I agree with Cartman, I'm tired of U.S. using the 9/11 as an excuse for world domination.
Posted by Ultra von Magnus (Member # 239) on :
I'm tired of the US using the 7-11 as an excuse for Slurpie Domination. They've got a fuckin' monopoly.
Slush Puppies are shit. So are those fancy-assed Slushies that those Second-string convenience stores sell.
I want a Slurpie. But not from 7-11. I think that's where they test the merits of the inbreed.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Iced slurry afficianados of the world unite!
You know what? I don't understand the indignation. I usually do. I'm usually on the side of the Canadians, because I fear them and their chilly arctic ways. But...we're supposed to see something incredibly and uniquely sinister in a government...designing contigency plans? Because how terrible would it be for a nation to be prepared for all possibilities? The horror of planning for unpleasent situations!
I suppose I've just marked myself as an unthinking agent of the American Hegemon, destined to be first against the wall when the revolution comes.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
You know, now that I think about it, US probably has all sorts of contingency plans. There's probably plans to nuke Russian ICMB farms if there's a terrorist take-over, irradiate Washington if there was some uncontrollable outbreak, or level Los Angeles if it gets taken over by giant space creatures shaped like bunnies.
What's truly stupid, is Bush actually telling people there are such things. You do NOT tell people about your contingency plans!
Posted by Ultra von Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Yeah, because we all know his Pentagon advisors, and the heads of the Military, NSA, FBI, CIA, CBS, ABC, FOX, UPN, and Playboy are all golfing and not actively participating in the whole American Fortress of Solitude/Attack those damn Russkies plans. Nor are they paying attention to what the POTUS says.
That silly Bush. Never know when he'll give out the code to Cheyenne, eh?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
It isn't so much the fact that it has a contingency plan for some kind of crisis that bugs me, Simon... it's moreso the points that are raised in this story.
quote: According to the paper, the report lists three situations in which the weapons could be used.
These include "retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons" and "against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack".
The third category - "in the event of surprising military developments" - is described by the BBC's Washington correspondent, Paul Reynolds, as a "catch-all" clause.
...
The report clearly referred to nuclear arms as a "tool for fighting a war, rather than deterring them", he added.
Anti-nuclear campaigners pointed out that the reported instruction to build new tactical nuclear weapons indicated that the administration of George W Bush was more willing to lift the old taboo on using nuclear weapons except as a last resort.
[ March 10, 2002, 01:14: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
"The whole point of the doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret."
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
So. . . the other side shouldn't know you possess a weapon that will destroy everyone if you're faced with no other choice (like, say, actually losing and therefore having nothing to lose)?
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
quote:The third category - "in the event of surprising military developments" - is described by the BBC's Washington correspondent, Paul Reynolds, as a "catch-all" clause.
Personally, I thought "pre-emptive/first strike" scenarios when I read that.
You aren't not suppose tell the PUBLIC about your doomsday machine. You subtly let your enemies know... And they would return the favor.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I think the problem is that these plans aren't "What do we do if China/North Korea/Iraq attacks us?". They're "What do we do if China/North Korea/Iraq attacks Taiwan/South Korea/Israel?". Somehow, I doubt that other nations come up w/ "contigency plans" on how to butt into other people's wars.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
Though the Israelis and the SKs can probably stand on their own, we Taiwanese would very much appreciate it if the US kept Beijing off us.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Suckers!
You've been suckered in by a non-story!
BWA-HA-HA! I scoff at your alarmism!
There have always been a large number of nuclear attack scenarios considered by the government in the event of nuclear weapons release. Many of the various options have existed since the early days of the Cold War. They've just added a few new possibilities.
Does anybody remember "War Games," at the end, when the computer is running through all the simulations?
That's all these new scenarios are. New simulations for the computers to consider. Russia (or the USSR) has been in the scenarios for years. They know it already. We're in theirs. too. EVERY other non-friendly nuclear power is on that scenario list somewhere.
And with a list of objectors to Kyoto 17.000 scientists long, withdrawing from it was the right thing to do.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Well, what a surprise, not. I was expecting Rob to dodge the main issues here. Yes, we know these are just contingency plans. I believe someone has already pointed this out. But of course we have to wait for his final word on this subject.
Now, let's see if we can get back on track here, shall we? There's the fact that they're once again looking to develop small-yield tactical nuclear weapons to use as and when they feel like it, and the step away from nuclear weapons as a deterrent, towards being acceptable military assets. Please, someone entertain us by trying to defend the indefensible, and do try to come up with something a bit better than "it's not true, and even if it was true that's too bad because TEH BUSCH ROOLEZ!"
Posted by Supreme Chancellor Ultra von Magnus (Member # 239) on :
"Does anybody remember "War Games,"
No. Nobody does. No.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
One of the big drawbacks to the 'deterrent' aspect of the threat of the use of nuclear weapons has been the US's demonstrated unwillingness to let anybody ELSE suffer civilian casualties. You can blow up OUR civilians all you like, but if we kill any of yours, accidentally OR deliberately, it guarantees our 'touchy-feely' subculture will have a collective hissy fit.
Maybe we're into preparing more and smaller nukes, because we still want to blow up as little as possible, and it's silly to use 20 megatons when a kiloton will do?
You know, if you want to blow up an enemy camp surrounded by civilian towns and villages, the smaller nuke will suffice, and you'll irradiate less noncombatants. That's what the whole concept of "tactical nuke" was about.
It's good for propaganda purposes too. It shows that WE are the ones willing to use tiny bombs and attack only military targets, while our enemies still want everyone to use big, megadeath-age city-buster bombs.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The problem is that we don't trust the people who have control of the bombs. If all they have is really huge bombs, they might think before blowing stuff up. But if they have these little baby bombs that they can toss about w/ reckless abandon and "minimal" damage, they're likely to be a lot more trigger-happy.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Yeah, on the other hand, our "live with parents until thirty with a massive inferiority complex" subculture usually has a problem if the United States isn't going around acting like a bully and threatening to blow stuff up.
[ March 11, 2002, 13:14: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
That's the difference between me and you, Snay. I make my insults general, you make yours specific.
At least I had something else to say BESIDES that. You say 'bully' as if you actually believe that someone like Hussein or BinLaden wouldn't stoop to deploying and using such weapons if he had them (or as if you believe that there wasn't a NATO plan to use tac nukes against the Warsaw Pact armies if they had invaded.)
I don't see how availability of 'small nukes' (which are still about the size of the 2 dropped on Japan) will lead to their indiscriminate use now... any more than the availability of 'small nukes' (all there was before the development of the big H-bomb) led to their indiscriminate use then.
[ March 11, 2002, 13:27: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:That's the difference between me and you, Snay. I make my insults general, you make yours specific.
Yes. Bullies generally try and cast as wide a net as possible, while I try and keep my targets limited. Sort of like in war -- you're the kind of guy who'd want to nuke whole countries, while I'd opt to send in ground troops to avoid killing innocents.
And, well, no, you didn't really have anything to say Rob, except "yay nuclear weapons!" which is a fairly immature attitude to have (reminds me of a kid in my high school history class who started cheering "yeah, nuke the fucking jap fucks!" when we watched a film of a nuclear detonation -- teacher grabbed him out of the chair and him suspended for being an idiot).
Anyhoo, your last post was just you whining because you hate it when people aim insults at you after you aim insults at them. BTW, I didn't know you had an inferiority complex. I wouldn't call anything I said (with the exception of being a bully) an insult, tho.
quote:I don't see how availability of 'small nukes' (which are still about the size of the 2 dropped on Japan) will lead to their indiscriminate use now... any more than the availability of 'small nukes' (all there was before the development of the big H-bomb) led to their indiscriminate use then.
FAILURE OF LOGIC!! FAILURE OF LOGIC!!
Back then, they weren't "small" nukes, were they Rob? They were "big" nukes, because there were no nukes larger! Correct? Wow. Once again, Rob is forced to think.
Nukes = Bad.
And once we start dropping them all over the place, why shouldn't we get nuked, hmm?
Oh, but Saddam isn't really a big bully. Oh, sure, to surrounding nations, and his own people, but he really can't do much more beyond that. And, oh YEAH! He was supported by the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! So maybe we're the big teacher who turned a blind eye to the bully when he picked on weaker kids, and then only started punishing him when we realized we could get in good with all those cute moms.
Yeah, that's worse, I think.
[ March 11, 2002, 13:40: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:you didn't really have anything to say Rob, except "yay nuclear weapons!"
A lie and a mischaracterization, in one sentence. That's got to be some new kind of record.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Oh, please, Rob. You were going on about how great they'd be. Go back and look at your post, but stop it off with the cry-baby whining.
Or would you like some cheese to go along with it...?
quote:1. because we still want to blow up as little as possible, and it's silly to use 20 megatons when a kiloton will do?
2. the smaller nuke will suffice, and you'll irradiate less noncombatants
3. It's good for propaganda purposes too.
I think I've made my case to back up "Yah! Nukes!"
If you'd care to rebute, please do so. Any more empty accusations of lies and you'll be ignored.
[ March 11, 2002, 13:42: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I never said they would be 'great' I said they might be useful.
Your inability to distinguish between the two things is annoying, but unsurprising. You have pretty much the same reaction when we talk about guns, after all.
With you, it's either "A is great" or "A must be eliminated."
You seem to have no middle ground, such as "A is unpleasant and I'd be happy to be rid of it, but as long as it may be useful to me I'm going to keep it around."
Admittedly, killing less people is 'great.' It must be awkward for you to be on the side of the people who FAVOR mass destruction...
[ March 11, 2002, 13:46: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:“We will not discuss classified details of military planning or contingencies, nor will we comment on selective and misleading leaks,” Army Lt. Col. Catherine Abbott said Saturday in the Defense Department’s specific response to details in the article. But she noted that the nuclear posture review is required by law and said “it does not provide operational guidance on nuclear targeting or planning.”
quote:Both the British Foreign Office and the Italian defense minister dismissed the plans as routine military planning. A NATO spokesman said it was too early to comment. “Military forces from time to time evaluate their long-term programs even when it is hypothetical,” Italian Defense Minister Antonio Martino was quoted as saying by the ANSA news agency.
quote: On CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Powell said there was “less than meets the eye and less than meets the headline with respect to the story.” “We are always reviewing our options,” he said, adding the nuclear posture review in question was required by Congress. Powell confirmed that the new study had virtually eliminated Russia as a nuclear threat, reflecting the new post-Cold War realities, and had focused now on what the administration has singled out as the new threat facing the United States — nations developing weapons of mass destruction. “All that study said ... is that this class of nations — Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea — are developing the kinds of weapons of mass destruction that should be troubling to all of us,” he said. “We should not get all carried away with some sense that the United States is planning to use nuclear weapons in some contingency that is coming up in the near future,” Powell added. ”It is not the case. What the Pentagon has done with this study is sound, military, conceptual planning, and the president will take that planning and he will give his directions on how to proceed.”
quote: The classified report is not a plan for action, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. The posture review also includes President Bush’s plans to slash the United States’ ready nuclear stockpiles by about two-thirds over the next decade. The top Pentagon arms control official declined to discuss the contents or details of the report. But Douglas J. Feith, the undersecretary of defense, told The Associated Press that “the purpose and the effect of the administration’s nuclear policy as embodied in the nuclear policy review to make the use of nuclear weapons less likely.”
About what I thought.
Then you have folks like the Iranian hard-liners, who would have you believe:
quote:“The order indicates that the U.S. administration is going to wreak havoc on the whole world in order to establish its hegemony and domination,” said the conservative Tehran Times newspaper, which is close to Iran’s hard-liners.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Your inability to distinguish between the two things is annoying, but unsurprising. You have pretty much the same reaction when we talk about guns, after all.
With you, it's either "A is great" or "A must be eliminated."
LIAR! LIAR! I'm going to sue you for libel you stinking liar!
Wow. Felt good to get to yell at Rob for once.
quote:I never said they would be 'great' I said they might be useful.
Yeah but you were crying liar about 'Yah, Nukes!' How was that a mischaraterization? I notice you decided to attack another post altogether. Eyes. Prize. Refocus.
You apparently think its perfectly okay to nuke any city poses a threat, regardless of innocent deaths, so I don't know why you're trying to paint yourself as not being "Yay, nukes!"
Oh, and the Iran quote seems right -- Bush does want to establish dominance over the world. But, then, that's all bullies know how to do.
[ March 11, 2002, 14:29: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Can we stop playing tennis with an insult-ball?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Shoo fly.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Or I could do this...
Posted by Charles Capps (Member # 9) on :
This forum is not for personal insults.
If it stoops to this level again, users will be banned. I am very serious about this, and am very, very annoyed that I had to be called in.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)