Go Back   Club Conspiracy Forums > Current events > The Archives > North America
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-11-2005, 06:25 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default It's the end of the World


as we know it or thought we knew it!

http://www.yahoo.com

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-11-2005, 07:04 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: It's the end of the World

Seems the headline is no longer a headline:

WASHINGTON - A Pentagon planning document being updated to reflect the doctrine of pre-emption declared by President Bush in 2002 envisions the use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies.

The "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," which was last updated 10 years ago, makes clear that "the decision to employ nuclear weapons at any level requires explicit orders from the president."

But it says that in a changing environment "terrorists or regional states armed with WMD will likely test U.S. security commitments to its allies and friends."

"In response, the U.S. needs a range of capabilities to assure friend and foe alike of its resolve," says the 69-page document dated March 15.

A Pentagon spokesman said Saturday evening that Navy Cmdr. Dawn Cutler, a public affairs officer for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has issued a statement saying the draft is still being circulated among the various services, field commanders, Pentagon lawyers and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's office, .

Its existence was initially reported by The Washington Post in Sunday editions, which said the document was posted on a Pentagon Internet site and pointed out to it by a consultant for the Natural Resorces Defense Council.

The file was not available at that site Saturday evening, but a copy was available at http://www.globalsecurity.org.

"A broader array of capability is needed to dissuade states from undertaking ... courses of action that would threaten U.S. and allied security," the draft says. "U.S. forces must pose a credible deterrent to potential adversaries who have access to modern military technology, including WMD and the means to deliver them."

It says "deterrence of potential adversary WMD use requires the potential adversary leadership to believe the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective."

It says "this will be particularly difficult with nonstate (non-government) actors who employ or attempt to gain use of WMD. Here, deterrence may be directed at states that support their efforts as well as the terrorist organization itself.

"However, the continuing proliferation of WMD along with the means to deliver them increases the probability that someday a state/nonstate actor nation/terrorist may, through miscaluation or by deliberate choice, use those weapons. In such cases, deterrence, even based on the threat of massive destruction, may fail and the United States must be prepared to use nuclear weapons if necessary."

It notes that U.S. policy has always been purposely vague with regard to when the United States would use nuclear weapons and that it has never vowed not to be the first to use them in a conflict.

One scenario for a possible nuclear pre-emptive strike in the draft would be in the case of an "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy."

The Bush administration is continuing to push for development of an earth-penetrating nuclear warhead, but has yet to obtain congressional approval.

However, the Senate voted in July to revive the "bunker-buster" program that Congress last year decided to kill.

Administration officials have maintained that the U.S. needs to try to develop a nuclear warhead that would be capable of destroying deeply buried targets including bunkers tunneled into solid rock.

But opponents said that its benefits are questionable and that such a warhead would cause extensive radiation fallout above ground killing thousands of people. And they say it may make it easier for a future president to decide to use the nuclear option instead of a conventional weapon.

The Senate voted 53-43 to include $4 million for research into the feasibility of a bunker-buster nuclear warhead. Earlier this year, the House refused to provide the money, so a final decision will have to be worked out between the two chambers.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-12-2005, 12:48 AM
Thumper Thumper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 763
Default Re: It's the end of the World

God help us all...
__________________
\"six or seven men can plunge the nation into war, or, what is perhaps equally disastrous, commit it to entangling alliances without consulting Parliament at all.\"

--Andrew Carnegie
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-12-2005, 01:10 AM
Draken Draken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 896
Default Re: It's the end of the World

Quote:
BlueAngel wrote:

WASHINGTON - A Pentagon planning document being updated to reflect the doctrine of pre-emption declared by President Bush in 2002 envisions the use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies.
If you look at the situation from the "terrorists'" point of view, wouldn't Pentagon and Bush look like terrorists using WMD, by their own standard?

Couldn't the "terrorists" be "envisioning the use of nuclear weapons to deter" PENTAGON & BUSH "from using weapons of mass destruction"?
__________________
Three things are sacred to me: first Truth, and then, in its tracks, primordial prayer; Then virtue–nobility of soul which, in God walks on the path of beauty. Frithjof Schuon
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-12-2005, 01:16 AM
Thumper Thumper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 763
Default Re: It's the end of the World

Quote:
Draken wrote:
Quote:
BlueAngel wrote:

WASHINGTON - A Pentagon planning document being updated to reflect the doctrine of pre-emption declared by President Bush in 2002 envisions the use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies.
If you look at the situation from the "terrorists'" point of view, wouldn't Pentagon and Bush look like terrorists using WMD, by their own standard?

Couldn't the "terrorists" be "envisioning the use of nuclear weapons to deter" PENTAGON & BUSH "from using weapons of mass destruction"?
All one has to do is listen to Myron Fagan's audio files about the NWO to realize that this is the same bloody script being used to demonize the United States as a revived Nazi EVIL EMPIRE!
__________________
\"six or seven men can plunge the nation into war, or, what is perhaps equally disastrous, commit it to entangling alliances without consulting Parliament at all.\"

--Andrew Carnegie
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-12-2005, 01:44 AM
truebeliever truebeliever is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,768
Default Re: It's the end of the World

Relax. You're going to die from cold and exposure and possibly hunger...not from a nuke.

These silly documents are simple discussion that have been around for 40+ years. They say nothing new but the Left and Bush haters in general jump up and down and say how outraged they are and the U.N wishes people loved them more so they could have more powers to stop naughty Presidents from being naughty.

Yawn...yawn...

Whack the cage and watch them jump.

Enjoy the Police State.
__________________
[size=medium]\"The Office\" is the greatest comedy...ever. [/size]
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-12-2005, 03:04 AM
Shannow Shannow is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 311
Default Re: It's the end of the World

A few years ago, when they announced bunker busting nukes had been approved, I posted a "Pale Horse" post on another BB.

But pre-emptive nukes are another thing.

If I do a press conference, pointing at a country as being part of an axis of evil, and unless they capitulate (whether they can or cannot due to not having the ability that I attribute them), I reserve the right for pre-emptive action.

To "Pre-empt" a "Pre-emptive attack"...is that an attack in it's own right, or a defence ?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why a One World Government makes perfect sense - The Concept of a Pan-World SeC Opinions 6 10-10-2007 03:26 PM
Why a One World Government makes perfect sense - The Concept of a Pan-World SeC Opinions 8 01-22-2007 06:28 PM
World War Order vs. Fair World Order SeC Opinions 0 03-02-2006 02:56 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.