DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO
George W. Bush is sneaking around again. Even as he announced his decision to "take full responsibility" for the failure of government to protect and assist the victims of Hurricane Katrina, he is quietly making plans to authorize the use of nuclear power in pre-emptive strikes.
Apparently, the trouble on the ground in Iraq has him rethinking his "shock and awe" strategy. Perhaps, all the angst he's experiencing at the hand of Sunnis and insurgents has him wondering how much more smoothly it all could have gone if he'd just had the authority to pre-emptively drop a nuclear bomb.
It would certainly have prevented a lot of bickering about water and electricity and such. In fact, it's probably the only sure-fire way to prevent trouble on the ground. Never mind that after setting off a nuclear weapon the only thing left in Iraq would be rubble on the ground. (Oh, and radioactivity. But I guess Bush and his buddies aren't concerned about that.)
Just think, if we'd totally obliterated all signs of life in Iraq we could have sent Cheney's buddies in to rebuild without worrying about angry Iraqis getting all worked up about unemployment, looted museums, and the like. Ah, well, you know what they say: Hindsight is 20/20.
For a frightening look at the Pentagon's draft plan, here are excerpts from an Agence France Presse article, compliments of Carl Van Dyke (thanks, Carl).
(I am awaiting a response from AFP re: their permission to post the full article. )
Published on Sunday, September 11, 2005 by Agence France Presse
Draft US Defense Paper Outlines Preventive Nuclear Strikes
"A new draft US defense paper calls for preventive nuclear strikes against state and non-state adversaries in order to deter them from using weapons of mass destruction and urges US troops to 'prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively.' "
"A copy of the draft obtained by AFP . . . outlines scenarios, under which it would be justified to seek presidential approval for a nuclear strike. They include an adversary using or planning to use weapons of mass destruction against US or allied forces as well as civilian populations."
" . . . a number of scenarios allow nuclear strikes without enemy weapons of mass destruction in the equation. They could be used, for instance, to counter potentially overwhelming conventional adversaries, to secure a rapid end of a war on US terms, or simply 'to ensure success of US and multinational operations,' the document indicates."
"The doctrine also gives the Pentagon the green light to deploy nuclear weapons to parts of the world where their future use is considered the most likely . . . "
"The doctrine reminds that while first use of nuclear weapons may draw condemnation, 'no customary or conventional international law prohibits nations from employing nuclear weapons in armed conflict.'"
Check back for a link to the full document, or a full doc posting (If I get permission). -- Laurie Fosner
Apparently, the trouble on the ground in Iraq has him rethinking his "shock and awe" strategy. Perhaps, all the angst he's experiencing at the hand of Sunnis and insurgents has him wondering how much more smoothly it all could have gone if he'd just had the authority to pre-emptively drop a nuclear bomb.
It would certainly have prevented a lot of bickering about water and electricity and such. In fact, it's probably the only sure-fire way to prevent trouble on the ground. Never mind that after setting off a nuclear weapon the only thing left in Iraq would be rubble on the ground. (Oh, and radioactivity. But I guess Bush and his buddies aren't concerned about that.)
Just think, if we'd totally obliterated all signs of life in Iraq we could have sent Cheney's buddies in to rebuild without worrying about angry Iraqis getting all worked up about unemployment, looted museums, and the like. Ah, well, you know what they say: Hindsight is 20/20.
For a frightening look at the Pentagon's draft plan, here are excerpts from an Agence France Presse article, compliments of Carl Van Dyke (thanks, Carl).
(I am awaiting a response from AFP re: their permission to post the full article. )
Published on Sunday, September 11, 2005 by Agence France Presse
Draft US Defense Paper Outlines Preventive Nuclear Strikes
"A new draft US defense paper calls for preventive nuclear strikes against state and non-state adversaries in order to deter them from using weapons of mass destruction and urges US troops to 'prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively.' "
"A copy of the draft obtained by AFP . . . outlines scenarios, under which it would be justified to seek presidential approval for a nuclear strike. They include an adversary using or planning to use weapons of mass destruction against US or allied forces as well as civilian populations."
" . . . a number of scenarios allow nuclear strikes without enemy weapons of mass destruction in the equation. They could be used, for instance, to counter potentially overwhelming conventional adversaries, to secure a rapid end of a war on US terms, or simply 'to ensure success of US and multinational operations,' the document indicates."
"The doctrine also gives the Pentagon the green light to deploy nuclear weapons to parts of the world where their future use is considered the most likely . . . "
"The doctrine reminds that while first use of nuclear weapons may draw condemnation, 'no customary or conventional international law prohibits nations from employing nuclear weapons in armed conflict.'"
Check back for a link to the full document, or a full doc posting (If I get permission). -- Laurie Fosner
posted by LA Fosner at 10:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home