Keenspot

by **BabyJ** on Sun Mar 10, 2002 1:56 am

==================================== <A HREF="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20020309/ts_nm/bush_nuclear_dc_2" TARGET=_blank>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20020309/ts_nm/bush_nuclea r_dc_2</A> 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. 
------------------
<A HREF="http://www.fat-jesus.com" TARGET=_blank>http://www.fat-jesus.com</A> <A HREF="http://fatjesus.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>http://fatjesus.keenspace.com</A> <A HREF="http://owlie.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>http://owlie.keenspace.com</A> <A HREF="http://presidentass.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>http://presidentass.keenspace.com</A> [This message has been edited by BabyJ (edited 03-10-2002).]

by **theangryQ** on Sun Mar 10, 2002 5:38 am

RRRGH!This proves my theory that conservatives are bred by aliens who want to take over the earth, though not very overtly. The conservatives will kill EVERY LIVING THING ON EARTH and then their breeders will have a really easy time taking over. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by BabyJ:

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."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, let's make everyone hate us even more!

by **El SillY** on Sun Mar 10, 2002 7:01 am

Stupid stupid stupid!-El SillY, stupid...------------------
In hell there is no pie, [insert scream here]

by **Hawaiian_mage** on Sun Mar 10, 2002 10:01 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>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<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wait, so the strategy there is that we're going to use nuclear weapons as defense since the terrorists probably think we wouldn't be stupid enough to use them again, that way we can take them by surprise? Does that make any sense at all? What am I missing here?[This message has been edited by Hawaiian_mage (edited 03-10-2002).]

by **justinpie** on Sun Mar 10, 2002 11:25 am

Honest! It wasn't attempted manslaughter! I was just adopting an assailant posture.

by **BabyJ** on Mon Mar 11, 2002 1:34 am

Remember! No talk of anti-war!
<A HREF="http://www.michaelmoore.com/attack_Ian_Harvey.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.michaelmoore.com/attack_Ian_Harvey.html</A> ------------------
<A HREF="http://www.fat-jesus.com" TARGET=_blank>http://www.fat-jesus.com</A> <A HREF="http://fatjesus.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>http://fatjesus.keenspace.com</A> <A HREF="http://owlie.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>http://owlie.keenspace.com</A> <A HREF="http://presidentass.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>http://presidentass.keenspace.com</A>

by ***Kludge*** on Mon Mar 11, 2002 1:40 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by BabyJ:
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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>"surprising military developments?" Can anyone think of any recent military developments that haven't taken these fuckers by surprise?That last contingency might as well be a carte blanche.

by **theangryQ** on Mon Mar 11, 2002 2:29 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by El SillY:
 my flower pot idea seems more and more appealing by the minute.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What flower pot idea?

by **El SillY** on Mon Mar 11, 2002 2:33 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Dezro:
 No, I don't think that it's possible. Unless the world became uniformly flat except for one big mountain, and still, that's not a crater. So. Um.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, we all know that, but the problem is, he doesn't.------------------
In hell there is no pie, [insert scream here]

by **JimRob** on Mon Mar 11, 2002 4:13 am

The man who invented the phrase 'Axis of Evil' (not GWB, his former speechwriter) has just been on Newsnight and provided me with some terrified chuckles; his argument that it wasn't attacking Iraq, but defending US citizens, who were apparently much more in danger than those in the country he advocated invading... that was the high point.On the other hand, after the whole Afghanistan soup, I'm very hesitant to have opinions on any of this, which is why I've been so quiet lately. (In that, I started off angry and appalled, and gradually became more and more confused and less and less certain, until reaching my current state: that of throwing my hands in the air and saying 'I dunno, you tell me.') It's a weak way out, I know, but I feel increasingly that there's no way to assess the validity of anyone's standpoint, nor to get objective data. And certainly not when I have schoolwork and drawing to do. Any position I assume would be an arbitrary and ill-supported one, which seems irresponsible... but not to assume one is more so.Oh well. 'Consider it possible you may be mistaken' and all that.If only this wasn't so very important...------------------
<A HREF="http://toothandclaw.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>Albion Fuzz</A> (the melancholic strip)

by **El SillY** on Mon Mar 11, 2002 4:30 am

That stupid bastard won't stop till this planet is one big crater will he?-El SillY, my flower pot idea seems more and more appealing by the minute.------------------
In hell there is no pie, [insert scream here]

by **Dezro** on Mon Mar 11, 2002 4:35 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by El SillY:
That stupid bastard won't stop till this planet is one big crater will he?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, I don't think that it's possible. Unless the world became uniformly flat except for one big mountain, and still, that's not a crater. So. Um.------------------
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of the country.
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1814

by **BabyJ** on Mon Mar 11, 2002 12:20 pm

I guess when you believe in God so much you give him an office in the GOVERNMENT, the phrase 'nuke em all and let God sort them out' isn't as damning! Because if you question the ability of God to sort them out, you're a pinko, and our humble faith driven mockery of democracy wants you OUT unless you make us money!HAIL!------------------
<A HREF="http://www.fat-jesus.com" TARGET=_blank>http://www.fat-jesus.com</A> <A HREF="http://fatjesus.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>http://fatjesus.keenspace.com</A> <A HREF="http://owlie.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>http://owlie.keenspace.com</A> <A HREF="http://presidentass.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>http://presidentass.keenspace.com</A>

Keenspot

THE END TIMES (tick... tock... tick... tock..)

Who is online