1. It seems Dick Cheney's response to reports of the US' intention to use nuclear weapons against 6 or 7 countries is that they were "exaggerated." I am concerned by this. Does he intend to attack 6 or 7 countries without using nuclear weapons, or less countries than that with nuclear weapons?
  2. 27 Comments

  3. by   Stargazer

    Quote or source link, please? Thanks.
  4. by   micro

    yes, Don,

    I agree.........

    not that I don't agree that terrorism needs to be targetted and decreased and yes, in ideal world stopped......

    and not that I do not support USA current stance along with allies......but

    when does it stop......and when does it become political, war $$$$$ and partisan..............

    I don't know the answers.......but i do have ????????

    hey, Don,
    good to see you.......tell all hi over there from me over here
  5. by   fergus51
    I think Cheny was talking about a contingency plan, not an actual plan they are intending to implement any time soon. The leader of one of the countries (North Korea I think) said that even mentionning the fact that the US can use nuclear weapons is a threat to use them. I say to them "stop your whining!". Every country with nuclear weapons should have plans on when to use them. Don't you think it would be a little silly for the US to have these weapons of mass destruction with no plans for when they should/could be used and when they shouldn't/couldn't be used?
  6. by   donmurray
    The Pentagon Nuclear Posture Review was completed in January and "leaked" to the Los Angeles Times, around two weeks ago. It lists Russia, China, Libya Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Syria as potential targets against which first strike nuclear attacks could be launched. It also suggests the use of "smaller" nuclear weapons in specific battlefield situations! One possible justification for their use could be "in the event of surprising military developments"
    Only two, perhaps three, of these states possess a nuclear capability, and a posture which threatens the others fundamentally undermines the long-adhered to non-proliferation treaty, and the pledge made by President Kennedy, along with the UK, China, Russia, and France, never to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear power. This pledge has been renewed at all subsequent NPT reviews. A review is due next month in New York at the UN.
  7. by   donmurray
    The New York Times, this week said.
    "If another country were..... contemplating pre-emptive strikes against a list of non-nuclear powers,..... Washington would rightly label that nation a dangerous rogue state."
    Sadaam must be laughing his evil head off as his wilder assertions about the US appear more credible.
  8. by   fergus51
    COMTEMPLATING. Not planning, not doing. THINKING ABOUT. I am not always a fan of George W. Bush (I didn't vote for him) or American foreign policy in general, but what is the big deal about discussing hypotheticals? Shouldn't a country have military plans to deal with every possible contingency? Don't you think that is more responsible than not?

    I am personally not super concerned with a non-proliferation treaty when we (meaning all nuclear powers) will always have the capability to destroy the entire world. No country is ever going to destroy all their weapons of mass destruction, because they have to worry about the next guy who isn't getting rid of his (Even a bleeding heart liberal like me can see that). Nor am I concerned about not using nuclear weapons against a country that doesn't have nuclear capability. I don't see any difference in killing a bunch of Russians because their gov has nuclear weapons or a bunch of Syrians when their gov doesn't. The sick part is the killing, not who is being killed.
  9. by   Marj Griggs
    I have to agree with Don. I'm more frightened now than I was on 9/11. Pre-emptive strike or unwarrented aggression?
  10. by   Nittlebug
    Has anybody seen the movie THIRTEEN DAYS? You absolutely must see this movie and have your kids see it too.

    Every little thing we do sends a message around the world and eventually generates some kind of response. Everything we (our goverment) say in the news gets heard around the world. It is very dangerous to go spouting off and making threatening comments. Nothing our government says should be taken lightly.
  11. by   micro
    Nothing any government says should be taken lightly.........
  12. by   fergus51
    Is everyone forgetting that our government never had the intention of saying anything about this? It was a leaked story they had to comment on.
  13. by   semstr
    Tracy, isn't that even more frightning?
  14. by   fergus51
    No. Renee, don't you think a country with nuclear weapons should have no plans on when they should or shouldn't be used?