January 31, 2003

Bush approves nuclear response

A classified document signed by President Bush specifically allows for the use of nuclear weapons in response to biological or chemical attacks, apparently changing a decades-old U.S. policy of deliberate ambiguity, it was learned by The Washington Times.
[...]
The classified document, a copy of which was shown to The Washington Times, is known better by its abbreviation NSPD [National Security Presidential Directive] 17, as well as Homeland Security Presidential Directive 4.
     The disclosure of the classified text follows newspaper reports that the planning for a war with Iraq focuses on using nuclear arms not only to defend U.S. forces but also to "pre-empt" deeply buried Iraqi facilities that could withstand conventional explosives.
[...] 
Mr. Arkin quoted "multiple sources" close to the preparations for a war in Iraq as saying that the focus is on "two possible roles for nuclear weapons: attacking Iraqi facilities located so deep underground that they might be impervious to conventional explosives; and thwarting Iraq's use of weapons of mass destruction."
     He cited a Dec. 11 memorandum from Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to Mr. Bush, asking for authority to place Adm. James O. Ellis Jr., chief of the U.S. Strategic Command, in charge of the full range of "strategic" warfare options.

I am "good to go" with this policy, particularly given the psychopathic killer Ba'athists we're taking down in Iraq.
I think what we're looking at here are the new "nuclear bunker busters" we heard about last winter that have limited radioactive fallout and limited potential of "collateral damage" to surrounding populations and property while having the capability to penetrate into either bunkered WMDs or Saddam-filled air raid shelters built under his palaces.
I would much prefer these targets to be taken out this way, then by risking who knows how many soldiers taking them out manually on the ground.
As for the eventuality that we would have to use any nukes as retaliation for a WMD-attack that had already been perpetrated on us, do not go there!
But yes, in that case, oh, yes.