BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Nukes at dawn

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Rev. Wright
13:14 / 09.03.02
quote: Pentagon to Prepare Nuclear Weapons, Report Says
Sat Mar 9, 7:16 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Citing a classified Pentagon (news - web sites) report, the Los Angeles Times reported on Saturday that the Bush administration has told the Defense Department to prepare, on a contingency basis, plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries.


The military was also directed to build smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations, the newspaper reported.

The countries named in the secret report -- provided to Congress Jan. 8 -- were China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea (news - web sites), Iran, Libya and Syria, the Times reported.

The three contingencies listed for possible use of the weapons were "against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or "in the event of surprising military developments," according to the newspaper.

"The report says the Pentagon should be prepared to use nuclear weapons in an Arab-Israeli conflict, in a war between China and Taiwan, or in an attack from North Korea on the south. They might also become necessary in an attack by Iraq on Israel or another neighbor," The Times said.

"Officials have long acknowledged that they had detailed nuclear plans for an attack on Russia. However, this "Nuclear Posture Review" apparently marks the first time that an official list of potential target countries has come to light," analysts told the Times.

"This is dynamite," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear arms expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. "I can imagine what these countries are going to be saying at the U.N.," he told the newspaper.

Arms control advocates told the Times "the report's directives on development of smaller nuclear weapons could signal that the Bush administration is more willing to overlook a long-standing taboo against the use of nuclear weapons except as a last resort.

However, conservative analysts said that the Pentagon must prepare for all possibilities as other countries, and some terrorist groups, are engaged in weapons development programs. Their position was that smaller weapons have a deterrent role because rogue nations or terrorists might not believe that the United States would use more destructive multi-kiloton weapons, the Times reported.

Jack Spencer, a defense analyst at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, told the newspaper the contents of the report did not surprise him and represent "the right way to develop a nuclear posture for a post-Cold War world."

The Times reported that a copy of the report was obtained by defense analyst and Times contributor William Arkin.

The Pentagon refused to comment.
 
 
Captain Zoom
14:12 / 09.03.02
This takes me right back to sleepless nights in the mid-Eighties. I swear to god if Dubya gives my kid the kind of nightmares I used to have about nuclear war, I'll kill the fucker myself.

Zoom.
 
 
Murray Hamhandler
14:56 / 09.03.02
What time is the next ship off this fucking planet leaving? I am soooo on it. Fuck this fucking shit.
Arthur Sudnam
 
 
seamonkey
15:46 / 09.03.02
This takes me back to 9th grade and all the controversey over "The Day After" (anyone remember that? It was the Americanized version of "Threads". The latter was much better as I recall).

I wish it was not so but unfortuantely we seem to have an administration bent on achieving self-fullfilling prophecy. I mean, W. is a born-again right? And isn't armageddon a BIG part of their end-time scenario? I'm not trying to be deliberately alarmist, but still, its all a bit too coincedental now. Of course, one could also argue that the apocalypse would be bad for business, but no one said the powers-that-be have to make any sort of sense: I recall hearing on Art Bell one night something about what the major credit card companies would do in the event of the end o' the world. Essentially, the idea would be to let people have unlimited credit. If the end did occur, then it wouldn't make any difference. But if it turned out to be a false alarm, then those companies would make a financial killing, running interest rates up through the ceiling and probably destroying the credit ratings of 9/10ths of the populace. Dontcha' just love capitalism?

Seriously though, that is something I've wondered about, how one could reconcile the goals of capitalism with religious beliefs that may not only believe in the end of the world, but also may want to cause it to occur if it didn't do so in a timely way. Wasn't that also something that popped up in the Reagan adminstration via James Watt? About how it didn't matter if the trees were all cut down because Jesus was on the way or something to that effect?

Of course, the Pentagon story could also just be more disinfo to keep everyone on their toes.
 
 
The Sinister Haiku Bureau
20:12 / 09.03.02
Threads? fairly detailed description of threads here: http://www.btinternet.com/~pdbean/threads.html
 
 
Mystery Gypt
06:49 / 10.03.02
do you have the link for this article?

[editted cuz i found it here]

[ 10-03-2002: Message edited by: Mystery Gypt ]
 
 
Rev. Wright
08:33 / 10.03.02
Solid 'Threads' link, many thanks. I've got to say that Threads was much more upsetting and depressing than The Day After. I believe Threads was banned for many years after its broadcast.

Appreciate what your saying Zoom, my kids too.
I've gotten so hardend over nuclear threat, due to the amount of my youth spent having panic attacks over it. I feel it was a real Western condition of the late 70's and early 80's that effected a generation.
Remember Protect and Survive?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
08:40 / 10.03.02
quote:Originally posted by will it work wright?:
I believe Threads was banned for many years after its broadcast.


Yeah, it was. The Powers That Be really fucking hated "Threads", which is a pretty high recommendation. You can buy it on video now, tho I don't know how heavily it's been cut.
 
 
Ganesh
08:50 / 10.03.02
God, I used to have so many nightmares after seeing 'Threads' as a teenager in the '80s...
 
 
Tom Coates
11:09 / 10.03.02
I really don't understand this kind of move - you'd have to be insane to do this surely?! I mean - it seems to me that once you use a small nuclear device in a country, then the next stage of escalation is a slightly larger one in retaliation... and so on... At least when nuclear weapons were consider 'of last resort', it was clear that the only way to GET to that kind of battle was when conventional warfare failed completely, and you had no other choice - which in a way was good, because no-one wanted Mutual Assured Destruction. But now, the moat between conventional and nuclear is gone - war can just keep gradually escalating from neighbourhood strop to nuclear war, with no ideological barrier, no statement of 'well this is the end, if I do this we're ALL fucked' to stop the buttons being pushed. For the first time in ten years, I think I actually feel unsafe in my own country because of the behaviour of an American president...
 
 
Rev. Wright
11:25 / 10.03.02
Sorry to here that its hit ya Tom. From a veteran of THE FEAR, there's not much one can do about it.

As one of my badges said in the 80's

'One nuclear bomb, can ruin your whole day.'

Be prepared!
 
 
Captain Zoom
12:33 / 10.03.02
Sorry, bit o' thread rot, but it's really one of those things that if I think about it too much I'll have a panic attack.

Anyone seen "When The Wind Blows"? Just while we're on the subject of films about nuclear destruction. It' worth seeing.

Sorry. Threadrot ends.

Zoom.
 
 
seamonkey
15:00 / 10.03.02
I've seen "When the Wind Blows" as well. I agree, it is quite good, and in some respects nearly as hard-hitting as "Threads", especially towards the end and the depiction of the effects of radiation sickness.

What really concerns me now is mention of the use of smaller nuclear weapons. I believe the military has had these battlefield "tactical" nukes for some time now, and I seriously wonder if we would even be told of their use during wartime. Such use could potentially trigger a larger-scale conflict, even a full nuclear exchange depending upon who was involved and what nations were allied with each other. For example: recently, I heard some snippets on the news from yet more tape releases of the Nixon Whitehouse. Apparently, the use of small nuclear weapons in Vietnam was seriously considered as a way to end the conflict there. One can only imagine what would have happened if that had occurred, what with the Soviets and the Chinese being involved, not to mention the backlash at home from the protest movement.

Also, the military has some particularly nasty weapons in its arsenal that can achieve almost the same level of destruction as a small nuke, sans radiation, such as the fuel air explosives that were used during the Gulf War. If such items were being used in wartime, a small nuke might go "unnoticed", at least until verification of radiation levels could be achieved. Such small nukes would probably be ideal for below-ground level bunker-busting, and I've heard before the Pentagon announcement that such small nukes would be seriously considered in any future campaigns against Iraq.

I only mention this now because of the probability that Iraq is next on W.'s "hit list". Not a good thing especially, considering the fact that Cheney is going to the MidEast very soon to drum up more support for the War on (Some) Terrorism, including a possible War with Iraq. Such a conflict would no doubt further anger the Palestinians (who supported Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War), thereby leading to yet more destablization in the region. Given what is already happening in Israel/Palestine, this doesn't bode well at all. Throw in the Muslim extremists in the region, not to mention Israeli aggression, and you've got a recipe for disaster.

Oh crap. Now I've gone and scared myself.
 
 
Naked Flame
16:56 / 10.03.02
We can't let this lie. This is a stupidly dangerous idea no matter where in the world you live.

off to write letters to the powers that be pleading sanity and restraint. does anyone have a less doomed-to-fail idea?
 
 
Magic Mutley
06:21 / 11.03.02
Letters. Definitely.

Ugggh! Brings back nasty memories. I remember a group of us in the late '70s - we were about ten or eleven at the time - looking through a copy of Jane's millitary manual, looking up the blast radius of different weapons, & drawing circles around likely targets in out area - & a good number of these took in our school...
 
 
Naked Flame
06:55 / 11.03.02
You may already have this link, but for those in the UK: Fax Your MP
 
 
Ethan Hawke
11:01 / 11.03.02
Obviously, this report was purposefully leaked by the Bush Admin.

Why would the Bushies leak such potentially damaging information? I think what we have here is partially a case of the "Madman" strategy used by Nixon during his reign (of course, Nixon was arguably really insane as his tapes show). Nixon had the "brilliant" idea of acting erratically and irrationally in order to scare other regimes out of using biological/chemical weapons for fear of a nuk-yoo-ler attack by madman Dick.

Bush is going for the same strategy, making it abundantly clear to Iran, Iraq, NOrth Korea etc. that if they use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, he has no compunctions about nuking them using the U.S.'s current generation of weapons, and hey, just for you Saddam old boy, we're developing some even deadlier nukes just in case you think you can survive.

Is this strategy irresponsible to the extreme? Of course. Will it work to deter the biological and chemical weapons programs of those countries? Sure it will.

Also, look who wasn't on the list: Two nuclear powers of shifting allegiance to the U.S., Pakistan and India. If U.S. nuclear strategy was really changing in an appreciable way (and this was a real report on the change, and not a propaganda leak) a potential nuclear conflict between those two nations would be addressed, particularly because those two countries are the only nuclear powers at war with each other.

This was a message aimed at the leaders of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc., not a fundamental change in strategy.
 
 
The Planet of Sound
11:07 / 11.03.02
I've read stuff about Dubya's nuclyar wish list including China and Russia in British tabloids today. Deary me...
 
 
The Natural Way
11:39 / 11.03.02
Isn't it pretty standard practise for the American Govt. to *re-aim* their big guns? Or is this something different?
 
 
MJ-12
11:48 / 11.03.02
This seems to be abandoning a fifty year (stated) policy of No First Use, Runce.
 
 
The Natural Way
11:51 / 11.03.02
Right...well, I don't have time to read up on this right now, but I don't believe I mentioned first use, just the realigning of weapons. Have the Americans mentioned first use? Yeah, that would be scary.
 
 
MJ-12
11:57 / 11.03.02
from the article
quote:The three contingencies listed for possible use of the weapons were "against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or "in the event of surprising military developments," according to the newspaper.
 
 
The Natural Way
12:58 / 11.03.02
I still don't see how that equals America getting first dibs on a nuclear strike. Oh, maybe...I don't know. Carry on.
 
 
Naked Flame
13:55 / 11.03.02
Runce, and anyone else who needs the severity of this situation explained:

Essentially, this declaration says: we, the US political/military/industrial complex, pick the targets we want to pick, and if they a) turn out to be tougher than we thought or b) 'surprise' us (in a worryingly vague way) then we hereby give notice of our willingness to utterly destroy all life, cockroaches excepted, within any territory we think the threat resides.

This is a bit of a step up from the previous line, which was essentially that nukes would only be used in the event of someone else using them first- a strike on the US or one of its allies. That was the political reality of the fact of mutually assured destruction: no superpower would initiate a nuclear war, but both would be willing to finish one (and, probably, civilisation.) This is why people aren't happy with the Star Wars/Son of Star Wars concept, as the idea that one side might be immune from nuclear attack creates potential for that side to strike without fear of extinction.

%Naturally, if that side is the good guys, everyone will be perfectly safe.%

I've been uncomfortable with the star wars idea for a while, not least because nobody ever quite explained whether or not the rest of the US' allies would be included in the umbrella- that would be one grey area that one would imagine could become a smoking, glowing area in the event of nuclear war. This declaration is an attempted extension of US military power in the opposite, agressive direction, resting on the argument that it's OK for the 'good guys' to use these weapons of mass stupidity, so long as they really want to.

Clear enough for ya?
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
14:00 / 11.03.02
quote:Originally posted by Flame On:
I've been uncomfortable with the star wars idea for a while, not least because nobody ever quite explained whether or not the rest of the US' allies would be included in the umbrella- that would be one grey area that one would imagine could become a smoking, glowing area in the event of nuclear wary


As I understood it last time I looked at the Star Wars plan, it doesn't include US allies in the umbrella (could be quite difficult anyway, seeing that the composition of the group 'US allies' is, ah, mutable...). The plan relies on the use of land at Fylingdales and somewhere else in the UK (land given to the US by the Crown - they already maintain military bases over here as you know), but doesn't actually protect any territory on this side of the pond.
 
 
The Natural Way
14:09 / 11.03.02
Hold on. I was trying to establish if the *previous line* had been replaced w/ something new.... that's what my posts were about.

If you persist w/ the patronising "ARE WE CLEAR?" stuff then, let me tell you, the wedding's off. And then what're you gonna do w/ that pretty dress?
 
 
Naked Flame
14:55 / 11.03.02
quote: Hold on. I was trying to establish if the *previous line* had been replaced w/ something new.... that's what my posts were about.

I answered your question in full and asked if you needed any more explanation. next time, if you have a problem with the way I post, please PM me and we can avoid threadrot. As for the dress, I'll pass, lace is just so '80s on guys.

I just get a little impatient having to reiterate the obvious, and your previous posts indicated that you didn't know about the background but wished to contribute to the debate in defence of the US anyway, which response is precisely the sort of thing that irks when we're talking about an actual armageddonistic possiblity, not to mention the sort of complacency that allows such possibilities to become actual.

[ 11-03-2002: Message edited by: Flame On ]
 
 
Rev. Wright
15:08 / 11.03.02
I may be wrong, but one thing taht has come to my attention today with regards who fires first, is the term 'Mini Nukes'. Cute, huh?
Basically what appears to be the situation is that a first strike scenario would involve 'bunker busters', small tactical nuclear devices, on bombs with uranium armour peircing heads. All very nice, coz they even admit to wanting to cut down the fallout on these new bombs. Lovely, cheers.

This advance in nuclear tech, is the scary bit. It means that several grades of nuclear device are being developed for various roles, which are not seen as full scale attacks.

Instead of the odd Cruise missile launch, we may well see teh deployment of Mini Nukes.

Hey isn't Russia and China mentioned in the re-aiming strategy. I don't think they were overly implied as 'axis of evil' states.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
15:38 / 11.03.02
Flame on, I've got one problem with your explanation of the situation - I believe the US has never said they wouldn't use nuclear weapons first. The "First Strike" option was a part of Nixon's "madman" strategem (see my post above).

The only way this "leak" would really change things is if the U.S. went ahead and tested these new mini-nukes or bunker buster nukes.

Oh, and the Star Wars plans currently punted about don't really protect ANY territory whatsoever. None of the technologies in any danger of being tested would create a nuclear "umbrella." At the very best, they would muck with the MAD formula where in the event of a full-scale launch from the USSR or China, we might destroy enough of their incoming warheads so that we'd have enough of our own missiles left for a second salvo. Might. Since current nuclear strategy of both the US and USSR is to aim most of the MIRVs at missile fields rather than population centers, we're building star wars essentially to protect our nuclear weapons.
 
 
MJ-12
16:03 / 11.03.02
Todd, No First Use has been a long-standing US policy. Nixon's crazy man bit was a crazy man bit, not an extension of policy decisions.

That being said, wargames conducted in central Europe during the cold war frequently, ended up with NATO being overwhelmed by the WP within a week and having field commanders ask for nuclear release, so how stricly that policy would be adhered to in a backs to the wall situation is anyone's guess. But this new wrinkle is, as I read it, an explicit redirection of policy towards, "no first use unless we feel like it."
 
 
Baz Auckland
17:08 / 11.03.02
About the 'no 1st us' policy. Did anyone see last week regarding the news that Nixon was thinking aboutnuking Hanoi?

Do Syria and Libya really pose that much of a threat that the USA would consider vaporising their populations? I thought both of these countries were in the good books now.... ... well, at least Libya is trying to get itself off the USA's shitlist.

How can they even consider nuking anyone? The years of armies facing each other safely far from major population centres ended a long time ago. Can we really look at what was done to the civilian city of Hiroshima and not blink about doing the same to Bagdhad or Beijing.... ...odds are such a bombing wouldn't even kill Saddamn anyways! ...<speechless by overdose of absurdity>...
 
 
Naked Flame
17:12 / 11.03.02
One thing that's nagging at me. Why leak this? I mean, it wasn't an official announcement, but then they got a name from the Pentagon to back it up... that's usually an indicator that the term 'leak' isn't exactly accurate. How does it serve the US to have this info publically aired?

And why is my spidey sense telling me that the NBC clause is aimed specifically at Iraq?

OK, now I'm being paranoid.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
17:53 / 11.03.02
God, I feel like I'm the victim of the "Ignore Button" already.

Look at my post on the first page as to why they would leak it. It's simple. It's the bully's version of psychological warfare.
 
 
MJ-12
17:54 / 11.03.02
quote:Originally posted by todd:
God, I feel like I'm the victim of the "Ignore Button" already.


you get used to it
 
 
Magic Mutley
06:33 / 12.03.02
quote: The three contingencies listed for possible use of the weapons were "against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or "in the event of surprising military developments," according to the newspaper.

I'd take contingency one as clear first use - & contingency three could mean anything.

Yeah, my thoughts were that this sounds like Bush playing the madman. The problem is that this game only works against an enemy that isn't willing to take the consequences of calling your bluff.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply