One day after a U.S. Defense Department document leaked to the press stated that the U.S. may use nuclear weapons against terrorists who threaten the use of weapons of mass destruction, a terrorist organization has posted on the Internet a notice of intention to use chemical weapons in Iraq.
The “Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations,” (PDF) which was last updated 10 years ago, makes clear that “the decision to employ nuclear weapons at any level requires explicit orders from the president.”
But it says that in a changing environment “terrorists or regional states armed with WMD will likely test U.S. security commitments to its allies and friends.”
“In response, the U.S. needs a range of capabilities to assure friend and foe alike of its resolve,” says the 69-page document dated March 15. — Associated Press
Trust me, don’t try to read the DOD document without some strong coffee. I fell asleep twice trying to read it. It’s very dry, but very telling. And it leaves open the possibility of a nuclear first strike against terrorists.
And how do the terrorists respond to this?
As the US and Iraqi forces continue their week long occupation in Tel Afer, an al-Qaeda linked organization has threatened for a chemical attack if the operation is not ended within 24 hours.
An Internet notice from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi from the Iraqi division of al-Qaeda and other organizations like Ansar al-Sunnah said, “If the Tel Afer operation does not end in 24 hours, Ceyh al-Taif al-Mansura military office has decided to organize attacks towards important and strategic targets of the occupation and Iraqi forces using chemical weapons developed by the Mujaheeden.” — Zaman Online
I tipped off The Jawa Report to this story before posting it here, and they managed to find out that the press got an important detail wrong.
The threat, it seems, was not from Zarqawi, but from another terror organization. Not sure why media reports have this wrong. There has been a definite upswing in terrorist communiques and threats in the past 24 hours, all as a response to the Tel Afar offensive. — The Jawa Report
It’s about time to end this war in Iraq, and another Hiroshima and Nagasaki might just be the best way to do it. The possibility is definitely on the table now.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Bad Behavior has blocked 3422 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
shorty114
Sep 13, 2005
Are you delusional?? Nuking the land doesn’t just wipe out everyone and everything in the blast, but it also showers the land with radiation, making it a radioactive wasteland. I agree that the Iraq war has to be ended, but if you nuke Iraq, you’re just killing an area of land. That won’t be able to be used for anything in the next few years.
Michael Hampton
Sep 13, 2005
Nothing but the oil pipelines.
I’m not delusional, per se, but I’ve been accused of being insane.
As for the nukes, that’s up to the President, and given the way the terrorists operate, I’m not sure what target you could possibly nuke.
Gert
Sep 16, 2005
IOError, do you regularly suffer from these input/output errors? You certainly sound confused enough. I mean, what’s it to be: to nuke or not to nuke? And do you apply this kind of tunnel vision to other aspects of your life as well?
In any case, congratulations, you’re definitely the first blogger I’ve come across that’s in favour (well, in your case: in two minds) about nuking terrorists.
Do: read up on the sort of destruction even a low yield nuclear weapon wreaks.
Don’t: stand for president.
Michael Hampton
Sep 16, 2005
The point, which you seem to have missed, is that while it may be an option, you’d have to get all the terrorists to gather in one place to nuke them effectively. Otherwise it’s pointless.
And I’m quite aware of what sort of damage a nuclear weapon would do.