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.

-- Dumbya the moron (setting the stage @ for. WWIII), March 10, 2002

Answers

Mutant, what would you suggest doing?

-- bogsworth (running@on.8cylinders), March 10, 2002.

I see the military looking worldwide without politically correct blinders on. Preparing for the worst does not mean it will happen.

Personally I'd not include Russia- they have no animosity against us; but I'd add Saudi Arabia - Bin Laden land.

-- John Littmann (johntl@mtn.org), March 10, 2002.

By the way, this story has been out for a couple of days now; I was beginning to wonder if anyone here would pick up on it.

This is actually more of an indication of media cluelessness (and the LA Times' propensity for believing that Republican administrations are dangerous by default) than anything else.

This is almost like reporting that the sky is blue or that water runs downhill, but don't try to tell them that. Here's a news flash for them: ALL militaries, world-wide, constantly developing and refine plans for contingenies that will probably NEVER happen.

But if it does ... they'll pull out the dusty folder, blow it off and hand it to some hapless general or admiral and say, "here's what we planned in this case."

Somewhere in a basement in London there is no doubt a set of plans for invading the United States, France and Norway. The Russians continuously tweak their plans for a nuclear attack on the West and even the Japanese probably have at least one guy, an academic with an unpronounceable name, working on plans for a naval battle with North Korea.

This is what militaries do for a living. They plan for things which, 99.99% of the time, NEVER happen.

This reminds of the Time magazine cover that thundered, "Men and Women are Different!", as though this prodigy was the rediscovery of the wheel and gravity.

Most people (who are imbued with far more common sense than the average reporter) read the headline and said, "no! You THINK?!?"

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 11, 2002.

Bravo Poole!!!!

I can see the knitted brows of 'DTM’ as we speak.

-- Facts (can@be.fun), March 11, 2002.

The contingencies cited in the "secret report" (retaliation, etc.) as the excuses for making the plans will have little or no effect on the conditions for the use of the plans. It really doesn't matter why a president might call for a nuclear attack on Syria, if he (or she) does, every plan ever made that targets Syria will jump out of the cupboard and be considered.

However, the original poster, Dumbya the moron, is way behind the times. We've had plans to use nuclear weapons for going on six decades now. The first nuclear-strike planners are all dead or long since retired. Why is this any different?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 11, 2002.

Of course we always have plans for every possible kind of military scenario, and they should be constantly updated. That only makes sense.

What doesn't make sense if for the Dumbya administration to announce it to the world. That idiot can't resist the temptation to beat his chest like the big idiot neanderthal that he is, but doing this is seen as a threat by the enemy, and will ultimately get his ass kicked.

If there is any part of our government that should be "shadow" it should be the status of our plans to attack other countries. Duuuh, that's the way it's always been, until King Idiot came along.

-- Dumbshit Dumbya (beating his chest @ begging. for trouble), March 11, 2002.

Uh ... Dumbya, dood,

The plans weren't broadcast by the administration. They were LEAKED to the LA Times, probably by some member of Congress who is horrified at the thought that this administration believes that the world is a dangerous place that still needs such plans.

The Administration then *responded* to the article.

Once again, let me know if I'm going too fast here. Hey, I'll even help you out by quoting the pertinent sections of the article.

The Bush administration has directed the military to prepare contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries and to build smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations, according to a classified Pentagon report obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

The secret report, which was provided to Congress on Jan. 8, says the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria ...

By the way, as I recall, you also wail when Bush refuses to tell things to Congress. Heh. Well, this is a glorious example of WHY he is reluctant to do so.

Tell Congress, and you're telling the Washington Post, the LA Times, and any other liberal newspaper with an institutional axe to grind against Republicans.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 11, 2002.

If this *is* a classified document, then the LA Times is violating the law for publishing it. It may have been a classified document at one time but has long since been downgraded, as all secret documents are. Further this report is not worthy of discussion or publication. Just yet another example of the stupid liberal media being stupid in oh so many ways.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 11, 2002.

The Los Angeles Times is one of the most liberal fish wraps on this planet. However, of the 732 city residents that can read English only 47 of them have any comprehension skills.

-- So (cr@t.es), March 11, 2002.

Soc,

You got it. I think I've related the story about the "poll" back in 1999 that the LA Times called me on. Talk about push-polling; they asked questions like, "if Bush is elected, do you think the Clinton economy will continue to expand?"

The CLINTON economy? Gimme a break.

(I told them that I objected to the question, but the phonedrone who was polling me had to go by the script.)

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 11, 2002.

Poole Foole,

This is definitely NOT a secret classified report if it ended up with Reuters! Our government is certainly capable of protecting its secrets when they need to. Dumbya intentionally wanted this to "leak" out because he is afraid of his "axis of evil" and wants them to know that he is thumping his chest. Unfortunately the idiot doesn't realize that they have plans of their own, and since he is acting in a threatening manner they now see no choice but to act pre-emptively.

-- (Antichrist Dumbya @ End. Times), March 11, 2002.

Now, flawless logic like that cannot be assailed. I shan't even make the attempt.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 11, 2002.

We're all going to die.

-- Ghost of (future@sho.ck), March 11, 2002.

"Unfortunately the idiot doesn't realize that they have plans of their own" but of course you, oh wise and all-knowing one, most certainly realize that other countries have their plans. Shaking head at the sheer stupidity and arrogance of some posters.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 11, 2002.

You're not all gonna die here. I've run out of oatmeal. We'll have to evacuate with the sheeple.

-- helen (camp@helen.mothballed.due.to.funding.cuts), March 11, 2002.

Maria, this person is no run-of-the-mill idiot. It uses polysyllabic words like "pre-emptively". Ooooooh.

-- (Roland@hatemail.com), March 11, 2002.

Then you have Roland, who is an idiot savant. He is a genius when it comes to noticing details about words, but he is a complete imbecile about what they actually mean. This confuses and frustrates him to the point where he feels the need to attack the messenger.

-- (LMAO!@moron.Roland), March 11, 2002.

LOL, I "attack the messenger"? You're the one does all the name calling around here.

-- Roland (ROTFL@ad hom.VOMit), March 11, 2002.

LOL! Oh really??

Well, let's just take a closer look at the ORDER in which the name-calling occurred...

"Maria, this person is no run-of-the-mill idiot. It uses polysyllabic words like "pre-emptively". Ooooooh.

-- (Roland@hatemail.com), March 11, 2002.

Then you have Roland, who is an idiot savant. He is a genius when it comes to noticing details about words, but he is a complete imbecile about what they actually mean. This confuses and frustrates him to the point where he feels the need to attack the messenger.

-- (LMAO!@moron.Roland), March 11, 2002."

You're even more of a moron than I suspected! You don't even realize that when you attack someone FIRST, you should expect an attack in return. Duuuuh.

You fit the mold of a classic Repug. It's okay for you hypocrites to attack others, but when they respond, all of a sudden it's THEIR fault! How pathetically ignorant.

-- Heee haaaww (you repug scum @ crack. me up!), March 12, 2002.

No, little guy, you started the attacking by your selection of a rude screen name (Dumbya the moron), ie, you set the tone.

In fact you always select a rude screen name so you are always the attack rabbit.

Deal with it.

Helpful hint: pick a single screen name so that people can refer to you directly. I suggest Scumbo.

-- (roland@hatemail.com), March 12, 2002.

So?? Are YOU Dumbya?

After 8 years of calling Clinton everything from a rapist to Satan and traitor, you should be able to handle it. If not, tough shit. It just proves what a hypocritical scumbag you are.

-- lol (get@over.it), March 12, 2002.