Now we are getting somewhere.

[DESX]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050911/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/nuclear_doctrine

U.S. Envisions Using Nukes on Terrorists



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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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 and posted on a Pentagon web site.

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.

"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.

[brinstar]

great, let's use WMDs to show the world just how bad WMDs are

[Captain Insano]

great, let's use WMDs to show the world just how bad WMDs are

shutup hippie

[brinstar]

no redneck

[Ciladan]

Anyone else get the impression that the end of the world is coming up in our life time?

[Tadpole]

about time

[DangerPaul]

Anyone else get the impression that the end of the world is coming up in our life time?

Not the end, but the end of the world as we know it

[labbats]

I feel fine.

[Diekan]

What do you expect from a redneck president? I'm sure they'll gladly nuke the shit out of some country that *might* have WMD's - after all better to be sure than sorry, right?

I know not many people here are religious, but even if you aren't - check out the book of Revolations... it's actually kinda scary how many things that are spoken of are coming to pass now.

I don't think the end of the world is going to happen in our life times, but I'm quite sure man will destroy himself within the next couple of hundred years.

[ClakarEQ]

I'd hope science can invent a weapon that is some sort of middle ground to nukes. It seems we've got TNT type technology and then a huge jump to the damage and long term effects a nuke could do.

Further research into using nukes as WMD is the wrong thing to do.

[Captain Insano]

tactical nukes really aren't that bad... You can level a few blocks with very little residual radioactive fallout.

[Kaeerwen]

Considering as many times as we've been told that the terrorists could be "Right next door!" or "Walking among us without even realizing it," such a destructive weapon seems a bit unsuitable. Can we really justify killing a few blocks full of innocents in order to clear out a family with ties to terrorism?

I think it definitely needs to be thought through first.

[xaoshaen]

You realize that the only scenario discussed in the article wherein the use of nuclear weapons was approved was the sterilization of a bioweapon, right? Using a nuke to save millions of lives? Sounds reasonable to me.

You should also understand that not all nuclear weapons are WMDs.

[Zanchief]

You should also understand that not all nuclear weapons are WMDs.

WTF is a WMD anyways? It's just something Republicans came up with to scare people and it spread like wildfire.

Is there a textbook definition of what Mass means in regards to the destructive power of a weapon?

[kaharthemad]

well accoring to the left, 4 liters of Sarin Gas(able to kill off 5 city blocks in new york if deployed) is not a WMD so it must be a WRBD. So what is the current defining of Weapon of Mass destruction(WMD) and what is a Weapon for a Really Bad Day(WRBD)?

Are Tactical Nukes listed under the WRBD? Or are they considered a WMD?

[xaoshaen]

You should also understand that not all nuclear weapons are WMDs.

WTF is a WMD anyways? It's just something Republicans came up with to scare people and it spread like wildfire.

Is there a textbook definition of what Mass means in regards to the destructive power of a weapon?

Yes Zan, George Bush invented the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction"...

[Zanchief]

well accoring to the left, 4 liters of Sarin Gas(able to kill off 5 city blocks in new york if deployed) is not a WMD so it must be a WRBD. So what is the current defining of Weapon of Mass destruction(WMD) and what is a Weapon for a Really Bad Day(WRBD)?

Are Tactical Nukes listed under the WRBD? Or are they considered a WMD?

You should stick to poor grammar cause the humour thing isn't working.

[xaoshaen]

well accoring to the left, 4 liters of Sarin Gas(able to kill off 5 city blocks in new york if deployed) is not a WMD so it must be a WRBD. So what is the current defining of Weapon of Mass destruction(WMD) and what is a Weapon for a Really Bad Day(WRBD)?

Are Tactical Nukes listed under the WRBD? Or are they considered a WMD?

As a general guideline, when something has the term "tactical" in its name, it's not a WMD.

[Zanchief]

You should also understand that not all nuclear weapons are WMDs.

WTF is a WMD anyways? It's just something Republicans came up with to scare people and it spread like wildfire.

Is there a textbook definition of what Mass means in regards to the destructive power of a weapon?

Yes Zan, George Bush invented the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction"...

Who said anything about Bush?

[xaoshaen]

You should also understand that not all nuclear weapons are WMDs.

WTF is a WMD anyways? It's just something Republicans came up with to scare people and it spread like wildfire.

Is there a textbook definition of what Mass means in regards to the destructive power of a weapon?

Yes Zan, George Bush invented the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction"...

Who said anything about Bush?

Was it just the ill-defined cadre of "Republicans" then? Perhaps they're part of the Illuminati?

[Zanchief]

You should also understand that not all nuclear weapons are WMDs.

WTF is a WMD anyways? It's just something Republicans came up with to scare people and it spread like wildfire.

Is there a textbook definition of what Mass means in regards to the destructive power of a weapon?

Yes Zan, George Bush invented the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction"...

Who said anything about Bush?

Was it just the ill-defined cadre of "Republicans" then? Perhaps they're part of the Illuminati?

'My mistake' would have been fine.

[kaharthemad]

My point that Zanchief missed was this...alot of things that most people would consider a WMD have been dulled down by the media. Sarin was found, 4 liters worth. with a standard release mechenism like VX rockets that were recovered, with these a possible grid of 5 to 12 square blocks could be affected. Even with a standard dispersal detonator such at say 1 pound of C4 this stuff could disperse over about a 4 to 5 square block grid.

I would consider this to be somewhat of a WMD. but people tend not to agree with me.

Like other nerve agents, sarin attacks the nervous system of the human body.

When a functioning motor nerve is stimulated it releases the neurotransmitter acetylcholine to transmit the impulse to a muscle or organ. Once the impulse has been sent, the enzyme acetylcholinesterase breaks down the acetylcholine in order to allow the muscle or organ to relax.

Sarin is an extremely potent organophosphate compound that disrupts the nervous system by inhibiting the cholinesterase enzyme by forming a covalent bond with the site of the enzyme where acetylcholine normally undergoes hydrolysis. This allows acetylcholine to build up and continue to act so that any nerve impulses are, in effect, continually transmitted.

Initial symptoms following exposure to sarin (and other nerve agents) are a runny nose, tightness in the chest and contraction of the pupils. Soon after, the victim has difficulty breathing and experiences nausea and drooling. As the victim continues to lose control of bodily functions, he vomits, defecates and urinates. This phase is followed by twitching and jerking. Ultimately, the victim becomes comatose and suffocates as a consequence of convulsive spasms.

Sarin is a highly volatile liquid. Inhalation and absorption through the skin pose a great threat. Even vapour concentrations immediately penetrate the skin. People who absorb a nonlethal dose but do not receive immediate appropriate medical treatment may suffer permanent neurological damage.

Even at very low concentrations, sarin can be fatal. Death may follow in one minute after direct ingestion of about 0.01 milligram per kilogram of body weight if an antidote, typically atropine or other acetylcholine inhibitor, is not quickly administered.

It is estimated that sarin is more than 500 times as toxic as cyanide.

Sarin or GB (O-Isopropyl methylphosphonofluoridate) is an extremely toxic substance. As a chemical weapon, it is classified as a weapon of mass destruction by the United Nations according to UN Resolution 687, and its production and stockpiling was outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993.

So why is our media redefining it? This shit was found it was active Sarin. Mind you shelf life is only 4 to 6 months.


It was found in May of 2004 so on that estimate where did it come from? It had to be produced at the longest 4 months before and that is if it was Actually a pure form sample. If it was impure est was 2 to 6 weeks.

I doubt it was shipped from some other country, mainly because this stuff is about as stable as Sean Penn on meth.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html