US ready to launch nuke attacks on hostile countries

The shift is about to hit the fan! Baby Bush to do Lucifer´s bidding, full payment required!

this was decided in 1945 by Prescot Bush , you call this news . :dubya:

link?

YEAH!!!
NUKE EM NUKE EM!!! NUKE EM ALL
BLOW ALLOF THOSE FUKKERS TO HELLLLL!!!
GOSH DANGIT WE GONNA OPEN UP A CAN OF WUPPAS ON ALL YOU PECKERHEADS YEA BOY

The US has never had a policy of pre-emptive nuclear strikes. Never. The key word is pre-emptive. This is a first, and it should worry the heck out of everyone.

I´m sure there are just as many missiles aimed and ready to launch at the US and it´s allies.

It is becoming easier to see that two sides are aligning themselves against each other.

It seems this is the time that evil will be allowed to destroy itself, hopefully for the final time.

This is good news to the spiritually good!

First class, I say! Lets hope its over for the this prison planet and others like it!

They Already Did ....

On Japan ....

but they got Revenge ....

pick Everry prostitute woman they had and married them to invading american Officers ...

Too BAD irak ragheads arent as Smart ....

(Goats & sheep will do ..... )

:dubya:

The idea of a pre-emptive attack is a first act (an act of war) against a state you perceive as a threat. There is no country in the world that has ever embraced the idea of a pre emptive nuclear attack.

This is in stark contrast to the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) doctrine, which was the US posture throughout the cold war, which prevented either country from launching a first (pre-emptive) strike. This new pre-emptive nuclear posture the US has adopted Is a recipe for a global nuclear arms race and ultimately the destruction of humanity. It´s just a matter of time now, and it may be a short period of time.

Unreal, isn´t it? People bombed into fertilizer because their leader is demonized by the invaders.

People just want to live in a reasonable degree of comfort, but NOOOO!!!

There are bombs to use up before next year´s military budget, and third world countries´ resources to exploit.

HEY 711 WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN SMOKIN?
RUSSIA, CHINA, N.korea, pAKISTAN, INDIA have ALL stated a premptive strike policy if its called for.
AND for all practical purposes thats teh case with ALL nuclear powers
NO TIME for second guessing, if you have to you LAUNCH
SIMPLE AS THAT
NUKES ARE LIKE TESTICLES DURING A WAR
(use em or lose em)

You´re right, and by the way, there´s one headed for your left nut!!

Everyone needs to watch the movie "The Sum of All Fears"... it outlines what would happen when even one country against another - like Russia and America would happen if it came to nucular confrontation. There will be NO WINNERS - not us - not them - not the rest of the world. It will be a chain reaction to destroy our world as we now know it. IS THAT WHAT WE WANT????

Everyone needs to watch the movie "The Sum of All Fears"... it outlines what would happen when even one country against another - like Russia and America would happen if it came to nucular confrontation. There will be NO WINNERS - not us - not them - not the rest of the world. It will be a chain reaction to destroy our world as we now know it. IS THAT WHAT WE WANT????

Do you want to see your children dying an hour at a time by nucular fallout? Do you want to lose everything you have... your family ... your future - the world´s future? Even the most depressed humans still living have the seed of hope in them..

----- Quote -----
The US has never had a policy of pre-emptive nuclear strikes. Never.
-----------------

Try telling that to the Japanese...

I´d still like to see a source for the OP´s post.

nowhere in the news story that is the first post of this thread does it say anything about "pre-emptive" strikes. all it says is that our forces are now capable of striking anywhere in the world on very short notice, which is a very, very good thing, particularly from the point of view of deterrance.

that aside, the question of how many US lives are worth losing in a war with, say, north korea, is something that must be asked, as the dprk, backed and armed by russia and china, appear willing to risk war with the US by continuing to develop nuclear weapons, which could in turn be fitted to ballistic missiles(supplied by russia) that could reach US territory. the million men north korea has stationed at the border with south korea is the most compelling reason for opting for a nuclear first-strike against the communist dictatorship, but the reality is that we will first have to be the victims of a nuclear attack before we ever use our own. we will not, regrettably, use nuclear weapons in a first strike, but instead will lose many good men as we attempt to defend ourselves in an ultra politically correct world.

russia has a plan to use nuclear weapons offensively against the US. every russian plan for offensive war against the US includes a surprise nuclear first-strike. with the overwhelming evidence that russia is arming communist dictators and other rogue nations around the globe, there should be no question as to who to retaliate against should even one nuclear weapon go off in this country: russia. if we are going to use our first-strike option, we should use it now, and we should use it on russia. if we don´t, there´s every reason to believe that russia will strike first and will simultaneously eliminate our ability to respond in kind. let them read that our forces are on alert and be warned.

Good points 16680.

So who or what is behind this insanity!?

Certainly not a group of policy makers and controllers who look at the world in the same way as us sheople do.

They know things that we don´t. They have a different agenda and live in another level of "reality" than we do.

Just like the destruction of the amazon rainforest makes way for construction and soybean production, so will clearing of humanity bring about the desired affect for the elite.

The physical is history. IMO, it will help to turn within (the spirit) for answers.

U.S. Nuclear First Strike Doctrine
Is Operational

by Jeffrey Steinberg

The Bush Administration has quietly put into place contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons in pre-emptive attacks on at least two countries—Iran and North Korea. Confirmation of the new "global strike" plan appeared in the Washington Post on Sunday, May 15, in a column by William Arkin, a former Army Intelligence analyst. EIR has interviewed several senior U.S. intelligence officials, who have confirmed the essential features of Arkin´s report. They link the accelerated drive to prepare for offensive nuclear strikes against Iran and North Korea to the failure of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the dismal results of the use of "shock and awe" massive conventional bombings against Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Afghanistan war of 2003 provided the U.S. Air Force with the opportunity to test, under live combat conditions, the conventional "bunker buster" mega-bombs, which were supposed to penetrate and take out deep-underground hardened targets. But one senior U.S. intelligence source told EIR that, when U.S. troops arrived to do damage assessments, they found that the Taliban and Al Qaeda mountain bunkers were still largely intact, after being hit with the bunker busters.

The sources further emphasized that "military strategists see our vulnerabilities, especially after Iraq." U.S. military doctrine, one source said, had previously presumed a capability to engage in two sustained conflicts in two different regions of the world. "Such engagements are no longer possible, as the Iraq occupation shows. So there is now a shift to a doctrine of quick wars. The alternative to this change was to have the U.S. status as the last global superpower exposed as a fraud." The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, noted: "We have 150,000 U.S. troops and thousands of spies—the biggest spy contingent globally—and we can´t identify the Iraqi insurgents.... There was a presumption that you could invade and occupy without engaging in any kind of nation-building. And that is an oxymoron."

The source cautioned that the Bush Administration´s new global strike plans are premised on the "fantasy" that you can develop a limited nuclear weapons capability that will not radioactively contaminate the area and kill large numbers of people. His final indictment of the new Bush Administration pre-emptive nuclear war doctrine was that, ultimately, when you talk about targetting North Korea, which is the number one target for a possible Bush Administration pre-emptive nuclear strike, you are really talking about war with China.
CONPLAN 8022

The Arkin story in the May 15 Washington Post, which has been picked up by news outlets around the world, offered a chronology of the recent steps taken by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, on the road to pre-emptive nuclear war. This updated a EIR timeline of the Bush-Cheney Administration´s drive to pre-emptive nuclear war, which was published on March 7, 2003, and is reprinted below. That original story tagged John Bolton as a pivotal player in the drive to end a quarter-century American policy of no first nuclear strike against any non-nuclear power. It traced the origins of the pre-emptive nuclear war policy to the early 1990s and then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, who launched a plan to include "mini-nukes" in the conventional arsenal.

Arkin´s article continues the chronology from mid-2004: "Early last summer," Arkin wrote, "Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved a top secret ´Interim Global Strike Alert Order´ directing the military to assume and maintain readiness to attack hostile countries that are developing weapons of mass destruction, specifically Iran and North Korea.... In the secret world of military planning, global strike has become the term of art to describe a specific pre-emptive attack. When military officials refer to global strike, they stress its conventional elements. Surprisingly, however, global strike also includes a nuclear option, which runs counter to traditional U.S. notions about the defensive role of nuclear weapons."

Arkin traced the Global Strike schema to a January 2003 classified Presidential Directive, in which President Bush defined a "full-spectrum" global strike as "a capability to deliver rapid, extended range, precision kinetic (nuclear and conventional) and non-kinetic (elements of space and information operations) effects in support of theater and national objectives." Along the way, the Strategic Command (Stratcom), headquartered at Offert Air Force Base in Omaha, Nebraska, which formerly had been exclusively responsible for America´s nuclear weapons triad, was merged with the Space Command, and given responsibility for global operations involving both nuclear and conventional weapons.

Already, the September 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States, for the first time, had codified the doctrine of pre-emptive war, stating that the U.S. "must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies." Stratcom then established an interim global strike division, to devise plans by the end of 2002.

Arkin reported that "COMPLAN 8022-22 was completed in November 2003, putting in place for the first time a pre-emptive and offensive strike capability, against Iran and North Korea. In January 2004, [Admiral James O.] Ellis certified Stratcom´s readiness for global strike to the Defense Secretary and the President."

Arkin warned that "This blurring of the nuclear/conventional line, wittingly or unwittingly, could heighten the risk that the nuclear option will be used." He then detailed elements of CONPLAN 8022, which could involve the use of nuclear bunker busters, to take out hardened command structures and WMD depots in Iran or North Korea. CONPLAN 8022 could be activated if the U.S. determined there was an imminent threat of a nuclear attack, or "for a more generic attack on an adversary´s WMD infrastructure."

"The global strike plan," Arkin wrote, "holds the nuclear option in reserve if intelligence suggests an ´imminent´ launch of an enemy nuclear strike on the United States or if there is a need to destroy hard-to-reach targets." COMPLAN 8022 does not envision "boots on the ground," he said, but combines precision weapons attacks with commando-style short-term operations, thus vastly reducing the time required to stage and launch an attack.
Nuclear Bunker Busters Already Deployed?

One of the most controversial issues arising from the new Bush-Cheney Global Strike plan effort surrounds the potential use of nuclear bunker busters. The Bush Administration has attempted, in every defense budget, to add funding for research and development of a new generation of mini-nuclear weapons. This year, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has asked for more than $8 million to continue research on Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) weapons.

On April 28, Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) issued a press release, citing a just-released government-mandated study on RNEPs by the National Research Council. The study debunked the fundamental premise of nuclear bunker busters: that they will penetrate so deep below the Earth´s surface before detonating that there will be minimal radioactive fallout. Tauscher stated, "In this report, the National Research Council affirmed critical warnings about the deadly effects of nuclear fallout—both in risks posed to the local population and to troops—possibly American or allied forces .... In yesterday´s study, they conclude: ´Current experience and empirical predictions indicate that earth-penetrator weapons cannot penetrate to depths required for total containment of the effects of a nuclear explosion,´ a sentiment voiced earlier this year by National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) head Linton Brooks."

Tauscher continued, "The report finds that the majority of deeply buried targets lie only 250 meters below the surface. These findings, coupled with the ´Sedan´ tests conducted decades ago at the Nevada Test Site, clearly demonstrate that exploding nuclear ´bunker busters´ would pose an incredible risk to civilians on the ground and in neighboring areas [with] ´casualties ranging from thousands to more than a million.´ "

Beyond the issue of the persistent Bush-Cheney Administration push for more money for R&D on a new generation of bunker busters, it appears that bunker busters are already an integral part of the existing U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal. According to Greg Mello, the head of the Los Alamos Study Group, which closely monitors the U.S. nuclear weapons program, the Pentagon already has a deployable stockpile of B-61 "mod 11" bunker busters. The 1,200-pound bombs, which can be carried on B-2A Stealth bombers and even F-16 fighter jets, had been developed as a "modification" of existing bunker busters, replacing the older B-53 8,900-pound, 9-megaton "City Busters." By claiming that there were no new physical principles introduced with the B-61 "mod 11," the Pentagon sidestepped the Spratt-Furce attachment to the FY 1994 Defense Appropriation Bill, which banned any R&D on low-yield nuclear weapons (under 5 kilotons). The B-61 "mod 11" can carry a nuclear bomb with a payload as small as 300 tons.
Rumsfeld Lets It All Hang Out

So as to remove any ambiguity from the Bush-Cheney nuclear madness, on March 15, 2005, the Pentagon placed on its public website a draft version of Joint Publication 3-12, "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations." This 69-page report made clear that the Bush Administration has fully integrated nuclear weapons into the conventional war-fighting. The Executive Summary stated: "For many contingencies, existing and emerging conventional capabilities will meet anticipated requirements; however, some contingencies will remain where the most appropriate response may include the use of U.S. nuclear weapons. Integrating conventional and nuclear attacks will ensure the most efficient use of force and provide U.S. leaders with a broader range of strike options to address immediate contingencies. Integration of conventional and nuclear forces is therefore crucial to the success of any comprehensive strategy."

Elsewhere in the Executive Summary, it was declared, "The U.S. does not make positive statements defining the circumstances under which it would use nuclear weapons. Maintaining U.S. ambiguity about when it would use nuclear weapons helps create doubt in the minds of potential adversaries, deterring them from taking hostile action."

For 25 years, up to the inauguration of George W. Bush, U.S. policy was that there would be no American first-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear armed states. George Shultz, Dick Cheney, John Bolton and company have fulfilled their impulse to hold the world hostage to unilateral nuclear weapons use in the hands of a President who shows increasing signs of madness.

[link to www.larouchepub.com]

Verisimilitude, how are the Korean war preparations coming along?

T minus 2 weeks right?

Good analisys:

[link to www.nukestrat.com]

The US´s political and economic domination of weaker countries led to horrible poverty in those countries which led to tens of millions or perhaps hundreds of millions of deaths due to disease and starvation.

Also, don´t forget what they did to that native Americans.

The victims who were murdered by U.S. bombs are by far outnumbered by the victims who died by U.S. usurption of democracies for horrible dictatorships which handed over their country´s wealth to U.S. corporations.

Friends, no nation in history has inflicted as much pain and suffering on the world as the USA has inflicted.

The number of people who have starved, fallen ill, been tortured or murdered, or wounded due to US imperialism is incalculable by human means.

We´re talking about the most evil nation that has ever existed. Let´s not forget that friends.

#3676,

Yes.. I agree completely. Russia has been preparing for this war the whole time... They plan a ´counter-force´ strike to eliminate the US retaliatory response... They have been constructing city-scale nuke-proof bunkers to save their labor force (important to the commie state). They continue to deploy advanced mobile ICBMS, the TOPOL-M I think its called with multiple maneuverable warheads, able to defeat any current missile defense. They maintain advanced missile defense and seem to have competency in space. They also have advancement in more exotic laser/scaler technologies.

Mother Russia is the real worry...

Single Integrated Operational Plan

just think...

after the nuke war, oil consumption will be down to manageable levels.

uh, excuse me 899 (or should i call you mikhail?) but nobody else is as stupid to believe what you don´t even believe yourself. that doesn´t stop you from saying it, i know, but at least you could drop the pretension.

Russian worries over US energy dominance ;-)

´Moon plan to give U.S. control over energy sources´
By Vladimir Radyuhin

MOSCOW, JAN. 25. The United States is planning to use the Moon as a source of energy fuel that should help it establish ultimate supremacy on the Earth, a Russian newspaper said.

An ambitious programme to build a manned base on the Moon by 2020 unveiled by the U.S. President, George W. Bush, earlier this month was not a re-election gimmick as American and international media described it, but a strategic economically project, the authoritative Izvestia newspaper said.

A lunar base will enable the U.S. to bring back to Earth shiploads of Helium-3, a valuable fuel for thermonuclear reactors, which is abundant on the Moon but practically absent on the Earth. The newspaper quoted academician, Erick Galimov, as saying that a couple of shuttle spacecraft can bring to Earth enough liquified Helium-3 to meet all global energy needs for 12 months.

"If we had a thermonuclear reactor technology, it would be economically more efficient to deliver Helium-3 from the Moon today than generate power from fossil fuels or uranium," said Mr. Galimov, who heads the Institute of Geochemistry and Analytical Chemistry of the Russian Academy of Sciences. "Using Helium-3 in thermonuclear synthesis may prove the best way to meet global energy needs." The paper draws attention to the fact that the 2020 deadline Mr. Bush set for building a lunar base coincides with the expected construction of a thermonuclear reactor and a global energy crisis. With energy consumption in industrially developed countries growing at a rate of 10 per cent a year, thermonuclear power stations may be the only way to overcome an impending energy crux.

"Helium is ideal ecologically-safe fuel for thermonuclear technology," Mr. Galimov said. "The cost of bringing Helium from the Moon will be a fraction of the price of electric power generated today at nuclear plants." The Moon has an estimated 500 million tonnes of Helium-3 trapped in the upper layers of the lunar rock, whereas the Earth may have no more than a few hundred kg of the isotope, which is moreover embedded deep inside our planet.

The Moon colonisation plan announced by Mr. Bush will "enable the U.S. to establish its control of the global energy market 20 years from now and put the rest of the world on its knees as hydrocarbons run out," the daily said.

However, Mr. Galimov believes that Russia can complete with the U.S. in the race for the Moon. "Russia can well afford an economically profitable and inexpensive project to mine Helium-3 on the Moon," the Russian scientist said. "It will cost a mere $25-30 millions to extract Helium-3 by warming lunar soil and scraping the isotope from the surface with the help of lunar bulldozers."

© Copyright 2000 - 2003 The Hindu

Definition of a hostile country:

Any country (especially developing or 3rd world)with a leader who strives to elevate the living standards of his/her citizens, thus going against the policy of the corporate and ruling elite sponsored IMF or World Bank which seek to put a stranglehold on these countrys´ resources.

It´s not about good country/bad country. It is about money, exploitation, slavery, suffering and death of the useless eaters. However, on SOME level we are USEFUL because it is the labour and sweat off our backs which enriches the controllers to pay for armies and buy weapons to repay us with yet more suffering.

What a wonderful world!

1476, what are you, 12? did they teach you to think like that in your socialist country? if you think the leadership of nk is being prevented from improving the lot of its citizens because of anything the US is doing then you´re too dumb for words. do us all a favor and stab yourself in the eye with a fork.

Unfortunately, there are too many programmed robots like 3676 who beat the drums of war.

I can tell that your heart bleeds for the North Korean people. You exude such compassion. NOT!

Your heart pumps piss Mr. 3676.

and wrong, I´m not 12. I´m 11.

Cherish your right nut, it´s the only one you have left.

I think some posters have a little trouble with the pre-emptive part.

The US is the only country ever to use a nuclear weapon, and they used it against Japan, during an active, on going hot war. This was not a pre emptive attack.

A pre emptive attack means that you launch your nukes against another state because you perceive them to be a threat, whether they actually are, or not. Educate yourself please.

I have been educated in another country and even at that young tender age of 11, I probably was more knowledgable than many grade school teachers edumacated in the USA.

One of my more notable scholastic achievements was learning where my home was on the globe, you know, whether I lived "IN THE NORTHERN OR SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE"!!!