The Pot calling the kettle black

[Yorick]

Rumsfeld Won't Rule Out Nuclear Bomb Against Iraq
By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Thursday refused to rule out the U.S. use of nuclear weapons in the possible war with Iraq, but noted atomic weapons have not been unleashed in hostilities since 1945.

"Our policy historically has been generally that we will not foreclose the possible use of nuclear weapons if attacked," Rumsfeld said at a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

He said the United States would not "rule out various options," but said "those weapons ... have not been fired in anger since 1945."

Rumsfeld's comments came during questioning by Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, who expressed alarm that the Bush administration may be considering lowering the threshold for possible use of nuclear weapons.

"As you well understand, the nuclear weapon is not just another weapon in an arsenal. And until now we've always kept them in a class of their own for good reason because of the enormous destructive power and our profound commitment to do all we can to see that they are never used again," Kennedy said.

Rumsfeld said, "Does the (Defense) department have an obligation and have they in successive administrations of both political parties had procedures whereby we would conceivably use nuclear weapons? Yes."

Kennedy then asked whether the United States was "seriously considering using any nuclear weapons against Iraq?"

"The only person in the United States who has the power to use weapons of that nature is the president of the United States," the defense secretary responded. "It seems to me that if one looks at our record, we went through the Korean War, we went through the Vietnam War, we've gone through the war on terror and we've not used nuclear weapons. That ought to say something about the threshold with respect to nuclear weapons."

Rumsfeld added, "We have every confidence that in the event force is to be used in Iraq that we can do what needs to be done using conventional capabilities."

The only use of nuclear weapons in wartime came in August 1945 when the United States used atomic bombs against two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, during World War II.

The United States is assembling a large military force in the Gulf region for a possible war with Iraq.

President Bush has said the United States will lead a coalition to topple Saddam Hussein if the Iraqi president fails to comply with U.N. resolutions requiring him to give up any weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq denies possessing such arms.

[Yorick]

O.k. so if Bush uses WoMD such as a nuclear bomb, isn't he a Saddamist? He'll be bombing innocents... looks it's unspeakable. The horror of a nuclear bomb is the worst thing on this planet.

I cannot believe this is even being discussed. There is no way, no human reason that anyone should repeat Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

I'm going to go and contemplate this. This is quite distressing.

I realise the likelyhood is that they won't be used, but the fact they would even consider the Nuclear bomb is sheer hypocritical madness in my book.

[Iron_Ranger]

Well if your not going to even contemplate it why post about it?

I doubt they will be used..Maybe when he says 'No options are ruled out' he means in a reatalitory act..??

[skywalker]

Actually Yorick, I believe Bush and his Administration are engaging in a propaganda campaign designed to scare countries like Iraq, North Korea, and Iran and maybe even Al Qaeda. A practice that can be dangerous if we are challenged to putup or shutup. North Korea appears to be matching the US with their own rhetoric. This escalation of tensions has not been helped by Rumsfeld's jabs and nasty comments either. The whole thing got started by the Axis of Evil comment and has escalated ever since.

Just my [img]graemlins/2cents.gif[/img] .

Mark

[ 02-14-2003, 06:08 AM: Message edited by: skywalker ]

[johnny]

Were not talking about "Hiroshima" type of nukes. They MIGHT be using small tactical nukes, there's a difference you know.

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: Well if your not going to even contemplate it why post about it?

This type of comment is unnecesary, Iron Ranger. It serves no purpose other than to provoke the other party. My advice for future to you and anyone else who is tempted to post like that: Don't do it.

[Sir Taliesin]

Standard war rectoric is all that is. Basically, he was telling Saddom, if you don't use them, then we won't use them. We told him much the same thing before the Gulf War. There was a brewhaha about it then too. Seems less so now though.

I doubt, VERY seriously, that we'd use them even if he did use his own WoMD against us. Of course, we might bomb his power base and home town to oblivion. That would be Tirkrit (think that is the right spelling) in retalation. Most of his best soldiers come from there. That is also where his tribe is located. I understand that they aren't looked on with a whole lot of favor, by the rest of the tribes in Iraq.

[Memnoch]

Originally posted by skywalker: Actually Yorick, I believe Bush and his Administration are engaging in a propaganda campaign designed to scare countries like Iraq, North Korea, and Iran and maybe even Al Qaeda. A practice that can be dangerous if we are challenged to putup or shutup. North Korea appears to be matching the US with their own rhetoric. This escalation of tensions has not been helped by Rumsfeld's jabs and nasty comments either. The whole thing got started by the Axis of Evil comment and has escalated ever since. Just my [img]graemlins/2cents.gif[/img] . Mark

It's brinkmanship all over again, isn't it.

[Ronn_Bman]

The US did not "rule out" the use of WoMD during Gulf War I either. In fact, it was pointed out to Saddam Hussein that if he used WoMD, we would have the option to retaliate in kind.

I think Rumsfield summed it up pretty well, the US has gone through Korea, Vietnam, the entire COLD WAR, the Gulf War, and the WAR on TERROR without using Nuclear weapons. I didn't see anything that said the threshold was being lowered. What I saw him saying that the threshold has always been high and still is.

Put up or shut up? Put up what, or shut up what? We've had nuclear contingency plans for the past half century, and guess what? The nukes we have are pointed at someone. They aren't in a storage locker.

Bush isn't going to use nukes. Senator Edward Kennedy is more concerned with his own importance and personal political agenda than whether or not the US uses nukes, and he doesn't mind playing the "nuclear war" card to further his point. And it IS a card because there is no real chance that the US will use nuclear weapons in Iraq.

The nuclear threat is something we should all be concerned about. Not just US nukes, but Russian nukes, French nukes(yes they have them), British nukes, etc. The US is certainly not more likely than any of the nations mentioned to actually use nuclear weapons in the current situation.

[Timber Loftis]

Paraphrase:

Having a superior weapon is worthless without showing the willingness to use it.
- Sparhawk