<strong>I guess the people here don't realize that the military plans for everything no matter how remote. I don't know what kind of situation would get us into a nuke war with one of these countries but don't you all think we should have all the information if it came to that? If you're going to have nukes you need to know how when why and aftermath of using them BEFORE you may want to use them. Duh?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I suspected you'd try and back bush on this one, but I'm sorry, but what you said means nothing, because when it comes down to it, nuclear war is more important than all the countries on the world, because if a nuclear war broke out, there would be no more countries, the world as we know it would be ****ed for a long long while. bush doesn't know what he's doing, its ****ing obvious, he's going around pissing off as many people as possible, because he can, remember this is the united states of america, no one ****s with us...and lives....unfortunatly no matter how you slice it a nuclear war is wrong, and if any nukes are dropped I sure as hell hope whoever is hit realizes the scale we're messing with here.
ridiculous, I can't believe that this could happen, its sooooo ****ing stupid.
You know what would be scary? If no one had the moral fortitude to leak this info. The American people have a need to know that their president is a goddam psychopath with the mental capacity of a five year old.
I bet hundreds of reports get written during every presidential term that consider this and worse. It won't happen, and I guarantee you that every other country is doing the same. Maybe Bush is wrong, but that isn't the point.
I'm sure the whistle blowers leaked this over a sense of right/concern for ethics and safety, but it should still make people think about who knows what and how information is secured and shared within a government.
Part of the safety of the cold war had to do with each of the major players being plugged in (quite deeply) into the activities and plans of the other. Nobody could move cause they already knew the response.
Not so sure about this new nuclear direction, though. I have to think about it.
Some of you, with the exception of Scott H, are incredibly misinformed and naive. We have had these plans for years, and they have been given to congress for years. You didn't hear about it because the criminal liberal media loved Clinton and hates Bush, though less since 9/11.
We have to be prepared for any worst case scenario that arises. This includes a missle defense system. This includes being prepared to use battlefield nukes if required. And that is what we are talking about here...not ICBM's.
As far as calling Bush a mass murdering former coke using war monger, (oh yeah, and someone "with he mental capacity of a five year old") I think that is WAY over the line. Bush wants peace, but thinks that the way to get it is "peace through strenghth". I agree.
And Bush isn't dumb. In fact, he is obviously a lot smarter than Clinton or Gore.
The world is not a nice place. It isn't getting more peaceful. We must have a deterrent ready, so that nations will think twice about attacking us. Don't you think China has stuff pointed at us? Are you kidding?
Some of you better wake up and realize that there are nations out there, like China, that are just waiting for us to become weak so they can rise to dominance once again. And there are others that would not think twice about launching an ICBM at us, such as North Korea.
If you are truly afraid of nuclear war, then you better turn around and look at what Clinton did. He allowed China to sell nuke technology depsite international laws preventing it. He allowed our nuke secrets to be stolen. his foreign policy, though popular with Europe, was a disater in general.
Don't you get it? We MUST have this deterrent and be prepared, as Scott H says, for any possible scenario. There are nations out there that hate us and would do anything to destroy us.
And don't call the President of the United States a "bastard" again. Even if you don't respect him, you better respect the office itself a bit more than that. I was pretty close to being a Clinton hater....based mostly on his polices and his behavior....but if he walked into the room right now I would stand up and say "Hello, Mr. President".
I really don't think you guys live in the same world I do. I know I live in the REAL one. I want peace, but am prepared to go to war (yes, me personally if I was needed). I know that the world is not getting more peaceful. I know we need a massive deterrent last resort.
Like I said -- first -- this is hardly a problem of Bush's own making. It's a problem sure, but what's the only alternative? The enemy has them and you don't.
It's unfair to blame Bush for this. But it should be something that makes you very uncomfortable.
I don't know, we have a precedent here. Remember the last time some foreigners had the cheek to attack us on our own soil? We retaliated with nuclear weapons to show how big and clever we are.
<strong>It's unfair to blame Bush for this.</strong><hr></blockquote>Whether you agree or disagree with this, it is a Bush admin. policy. Who's responsible, if not Bush?
This reminds me of something I read in Colin Powell's book. I know everyone here is not as "ignorant" as I am so I'm sure you've read it. Anyway in the book Powell looked at the plan to use battle field nukes to repel a Soviet tank attack in Germany. After looking at all the logistics related to using battle field nukes which included evacuation of civilians, he decided that it was not the way to go. He would only know that if there was a plan to read and the only way you have a plan is to tell people to come up with a plan.
Bush has a duty to consider every possible situation, however unpallatable it may be. Let's not confuse 'policy' with what is more likely a 'hypothetical case study.' It is certainly fraught with dangers: from a psychological standpoint, this idea of battlefield nukes combined with such demonstrated concepts as 'group-think' and 'foot-in-the-door phenomena' automatically gives me a cold sweat. But once again, we MUST think of the alternative in light of the behavior of other countries. It is naive to think that China, the Russians (with a frighteningly disorganized assembly of former soviet states), and N.Korea are NOT making similar considerations. Considering the possiblity is the responsible thing to do. It is in fact, the one behavior likely to stay the trigger finger on both this nation and others.
But it is a frightening consideration, and an uncomfortable one nonetheless. I would like to see the exact wording of the entire report before making any more judgements.
First off the headline at yahoo news is wrong. You're been lied to by the media but don't know it.
Second this is a review not a plan. It's a review not a policy paper. The US has not changed its policy at all.
Third this review is required by Congress. Bush is providing them with full information about possible US needs. So I guess that would make Daschle the nuke crazed coke freak, right?
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> some people still haven't gotten over the election.
grow up, don't be idiots. good lord, i've never seen such rabid drival outside of linux supporters at /.
so there's a plan that exists. big friggin' deal. we probably have a plan on how to take over Canada, i don't think that means that we about to attack them any time soon. sheesh.
No...of course this isn't news...the government has always had this contingency plan...example...
"I'd rather use the nuclear bomb," Nixon told Kissinger, his national security adviser, a few weeks before he ordered a major escalation of the Vietnam War.
"That, I think, would just be too much," Kissinger replied softly in his baritone voice, in a conversation uncovered among 500 hours of Nixon tapes released Thursday.
Nixon responded matter-of-factly. "The nuclear bomb. Does that bother you?" he asked. Then he closed the subject by telling Kissinger: "I just want you to think big."
He also said "I don't give a damn" about civilians killed by U.S. bombing.
See, the scary part is who has the fingers on the shiny red buttons...
Yep, the world is going straight to hell...see ya in the next life...maybe there are 72 virgins on the other side...
I don't know what the big effing deal is. You think these plans just pop out of know where? They take years to formulate. You're crazy if you think Clinton or Bush Sr didn't have similar contingency plans. If you think this is bad imagine if you were leaked China's plans. I don't know how forgiving some of you would be if you noticed YOUR city on a list of first strike.
The unfortunate truth of the matter is is that it is a plan and in the military that is import: you must consider all possible options, they probably have lengthy consideration s of much worse scenarios.
What I find objectionable, though, is that it was obviously leaked in this timely manner on purpose by the Bush administration as part of the "we are cazier than you think" attitude as a way of dissuading any lip.
This kind of propagandizing is hurting Amerrican international relations and reinforcing the often knee-jerk anti-American hatred making it seem more and more reasonable and acceptable
now this:
as for SDW# and his stupid statement like the following, tell us more about your reactionary mind set then anything that you have to say:
[quote] the criminal liberal media <hr></blockquote>
must we always wallow in th muck of such stupid discussion?!?! THat you think the media is "liberal" while it is owned by mega-conglomerates such as Disney et al, is absurd: where are the long exposes on labor politics?!?!? or the Environment?!?!? or Global Capitalism?!?!?! --nuff said!!
Also, if you lump this stupid characturization under Clinton's foriegn policy:
[quote] He allowed our nuke secrets to be stolen. <hr></blockquote>
that says enough about your reading of his politics to invalidate your opinion in my mind.
Other than that, I will agree that we need some deterence, and we should be aware of all possible scenerios. .
. its the proper way to handle a military: to be circumspect, te fact that it changes the role from passive (retaliatory) to active (responce to conventional) and that it was oppurtunely "leaked", in conjunction with this hyperbolic monomaniacal rhetoric tells me that we may be inching towards a truly dangerous political attitude: after all that's how it happened in other historical situations: people accept a little more each day... then all of a sudden it's too late
--but that's just the worst possible scenario on MY contingency plans
Comments
Though the nuclear winter following that will put me right back at square one...
<strong>Hey, it's -19 degress C right now. The immediate fallout would be kinda nice.
Though the nuclear winter following that will put me right back at square one...
not a problem. just wear a 2 foot thick suit of lead.
<strong>I guess the people here don't realize that the military plans for everything no matter how remote. I don't know what kind of situation would get us into a nuke war with one of these countries but don't you all think we should have all the information if it came to that? If you're going to have nukes you need to know how when why and aftermath of using them BEFORE you may want to use them. Duh?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I suspected you'd try and back bush on this one, but I'm sorry, but what you said means nothing, because when it comes down to it, nuclear war is more important than all the countries on the world, because if a nuclear war broke out, there would be no more countries, the world as we know it would be ****ed for a long long while. bush doesn't know what he's doing, its ****ing obvious, he's going around pissing off as many people as possible, because he can, remember this is the united states of america, no one ****s with us...and lives....unfortunatly no matter how you slice it a nuclear war is wrong, and if any nukes are dropped I sure as hell hope whoever is hit realizes the scale we're messing with here.
ridiculous, I can't believe that this could happen, its sooooo ****ing stupid.
<strong>Times like this, I thank god I'm not American.
There's a fantastic quote, by some guy at Harvard or something, that goes:
"You think education is expensive? Try ignorance."
I'd hate to have a trigger happy, rich, elite, ex-coke snorting, recovered-alcoholic idiot running my country.</strong><hr></blockquote>
the thing about the coke shit, is that coke permantently messes with your brain, and bush did more than reasonable limits(like none)
too many people overlook that bush did coke, they probably think like "clinton did pot, hell bush did cocaine! wooohooo! vote for him!"
but you know what, even if it was ralph nader proposing this contigency nuclear thing, I would still be equally pissed.
Enron? Bush did it.
Nukes? Oh yeah, BUSH too.
Dick Chenny? Oops that was Bushes fault. <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" />
[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: Macintosh ]</p>
[edited]
[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: stimuli ]</p>
I bet hundreds of reports get written during every presidential term that consider this and worse. It won't happen, and I guarantee you that every other country is doing the same. Maybe Bush is wrong, but that isn't the point.
I'm sure the whistle blowers leaked this over a sense of right/concern for ethics and safety, but it should still make people think about who knows what and how information is secured and shared within a government.
Part of the safety of the cold war had to do with each of the major players being plugged in (quite deeply) into the activities and plans of the other. Nobody could move cause they already knew the response.
Not so sure about this new nuclear direction, though. I have to think about it.
We have to be prepared for any worst case scenario that arises. This includes a missle defense system. This includes being prepared to use battlefield nukes if required. And that is what we are talking about here...not ICBM's.
As far as calling Bush a mass murdering former coke using war monger, (oh yeah, and someone "with he mental capacity of a five year old") I think that is WAY over the line. Bush wants peace, but thinks that the way to get it is "peace through strenghth". I agree.
And Bush isn't dumb. In fact, he is obviously a lot smarter than Clinton or Gore.
The world is not a nice place. It isn't getting more peaceful. We must have a deterrent ready, so that nations will think twice about attacking us. Don't you think China has stuff pointed at us? Are you kidding?
Some of you better wake up and realize that there are nations out there, like China, that are just waiting for us to become weak so they can rise to dominance once again. And there are others that would not think twice about launching an ICBM at us, such as North Korea.
If you are truly afraid of nuclear war, then you better turn around and look at what Clinton did. He allowed China to sell nuke technology depsite international laws preventing it. He allowed our nuke secrets to be stolen. his foreign policy, though popular with Europe, was a disater in general.
Don't you get it? We MUST have this deterrent and be prepared, as Scott H says, for any possible scenario. There are nations out there that hate us and would do anything to destroy us.
And don't call the President of the United States a "bastard" again. Even if you don't respect him, you better respect the office itself a bit more than that. I was pretty close to being a Clinton hater....based mostly on his polices and his behavior....but if he walked into the room right now I would stand up and say "Hello, Mr. President".
I really don't think you guys live in the same world I do. I know I live in the REAL one. I want peace, but am prepared to go to war (yes, me personally if I was needed). I know that the world is not getting more peaceful. I know we need a massive deterrent last resort.
I wish you knew the same things.
[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
It's unfair to blame Bush for this. But it should be something that makes you very uncomfortable.
I don't know, we have a precedent here. Remember the last time some foreigners had the cheek to attack us on our own soil? We retaliated with nuclear weapons to show how big and clever we are.
[/deliberately inflammatory post]
<strong>It's unfair to blame Bush for this.</strong><hr></blockquote>Whether you agree or disagree with this, it is a Bush admin. policy. Who's responsible, if not Bush?
QED
But it is a frightening consideration, and an uncomfortable one nonetheless. I would like to see the exact wording of the entire report before making any more judgements.
First off the headline at yahoo news is wrong. You're been lied to by the media but don't know it.
Second this is a review not a plan. It's a review not a policy paper. The US has not changed its policy at all.
Third this review is required by Congress. Bush is providing them with full information about possible US needs. So I guess that would make Daschle the nuke crazed coke freak, right?
[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>
grow up, don't be idiots. good lord, i've never seen such rabid drival outside of linux supporters at /.
so there's a plan that exists. big friggin' deal. we probably have a plan on how to take over Canada, i don't think that means that we about to attack them any time soon. sheesh.
"I'd rather use the nuclear bomb," Nixon told Kissinger, his national security adviser, a few weeks before he ordered a major escalation of the Vietnam War.
"That, I think, would just be too much," Kissinger replied softly in his baritone voice, in a conversation uncovered among 500 hours of Nixon tapes released Thursday.
Nixon responded matter-of-factly. "The nuclear bomb. Does that bother you?" he asked. Then he closed the subject by telling Kissinger: "I just want you to think big."
He also said "I don't give a damn" about civilians killed by U.S. bombing.
See, the scary part is who has the fingers on the shiny red buttons...
Yep, the world is going straight to hell...see ya in the next life...maybe there are 72 virgins on the other side...
What I find objectionable, though, is that it was obviously leaked in this timely manner on purpose by the Bush administration as part of the "we are cazier than you think" attitude as a way of dissuading any lip.
This kind of propagandizing is hurting Amerrican international relations and reinforcing the often knee-jerk anti-American hatred making it seem more and more reasonable and acceptable
now this:
as for SDW# and his stupid statement like the following, tell us more about your reactionary mind set then anything that you have to say:
[quote] the criminal liberal media <hr></blockquote>
must we always wallow in th muck of such stupid discussion?!?! THat you think the media is "liberal" while it is owned by mega-conglomerates such as Disney et al, is absurd: where are the long exposes on labor politics?!?!? or the Environment?!?!? or Global Capitalism?!?!?! --nuff said!!
Also, if you lump this stupid characturization under Clinton's foriegn policy:
[quote] He allowed our nuke secrets to be stolen. <hr></blockquote>
that says enough about your reading of his politics to invalidate your opinion in my mind.
Other than that, I will agree that we need some deterence, and we should be aware of all possible scenerios. .
. its the proper way to handle a military: to be circumspect, te fact that it changes the role from passive (retaliatory) to active (responce to conventional) and that it was oppurtunely "leaked", in conjunction with this hyperbolic monomaniacal rhetoric tells me that we may be inching towards a truly dangerous political attitude: after all that's how it happened in other historical situations: people accept a little more each day... then all of a sudden it's too late
--but that's just the worst possible scenario on MY contingency plans
[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>