Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan

[iago]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053.html

"...would give the president the authority for a preemptive nuclear strike"

[Screenor]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053.html

"...would give the president the authority for a preemptive nuclear strike"

Eh, doesn't mean the military would listen if they didn't think it was needed. I'd like to see the president try to launch a nuclear missile by himself, considering it requires a full crew to launch one.

[Ryan Marcus]

Hehe... I don't think our president could fire a nuke even with a big "FIRE!" button...

Lets hope he can't figure it out until the end of his term ;). (Ya, politcal humor. Sue me.)

[Blaze]

Its good and bad, mostly bad.

[Newby]

That's definetely not something I'm proud of.

[Screenor]

Agreed, even though I'm uber Republican++

[trust]

I don't see the problem.

It makes it so commanders can ask the President directly for the ability to drop a nuclear warhead, instead of it sitting in Congress and potentially removing the whole thing about attacking them before they destroy us.

Plus, it's not like ANY President is going to drop a nuke unless they feel it is best for their country and the last option. Why do you think during the Cold War a nuke wasn't dropped? Because, both countries KNEW the second they did it, one would be heading their way. There's no way they're going to drop one just for the hell of it.

I'm all for this. Hooah.

[Ryan Marcus]

Somehow, I knew you would respond like that Trust. ;)

The problem here is congress should have to vote on a nuclear drop.. Allowing the president to do it without any apporval is like letting Steve Jobs disband the iPod and hoping nobody notices.. Stupied.

I am sure we have had presidents in the past, who, with this new polocy, would have dropped a nuke, and I am sure it will be shot down by the next president, because "the public" will figure it out.

[rabbit]

I don't see the problem.

It makes it so commanders can ask the President directly for the ability to drop a nuclear warhead, instead of it sitting in Congress and potentially removing the whole thing about attacking them before they destroy us.

There is almost no way the US could be destroyed because of even a few months of delayed approval in Congress.

Plus, it's not like ANY President is going to drop a nuke unless they feel it is best for their country and the last option. Why do you think during the Cold War a nuke wasn't dropped? Because, both countries KNEW the second they did it, one would be heading their way.

ONE?!  Try several thousand.

There's no way they're going to drop one just for the hell of it.

I would not say that about EVERYONE.

[RoMi]

Congress didn't vote before on dropping a nukes.  The way the system works today is if we are attacked or have inbound missles then they are deployed from our subs and silo's, under the order of the president.  The congress has nothing to do with it at that point.  This has to deal with a preemptive strike.  If there was ever a circumstance for a preemptive nuclear strike then the evidence better be damn well there, or that would be pretty much starting world war 3.

When Israel does its preemptive strikes it sends out a set of about 12 planes and hits a target.  Thats should be the only kind of preemptive strike, nothing more.

[trust]

I would not say that about EVERYONE.

You've got to realize that a President is not going to handle the office like a regular moronic American would, they're the leader of the most powerful and influential country in the world, and as such have a certain name to uphold. They're not going to dampen that, or risk nuclear war, over a petty event...it would have to be one that would put national security in very grave danger.

ONE?!  Try several thousand.

Irrelevant, the point is they knew that we'd retaliate. One is part of several thousand, anyway.

There is almost no way the US could be destroyed because of even a few months of delayed approval in Congress.

A nuclear warhead being dropped on prime US targets (the city I live in is the #1 nuclear strike target in the country) could wipe out our entire infastructure. Look how much just a hurricane hurt us, gas prices, trading, etc. Midwest farmers aren't able to use the Mississippi River for exporting and stuff now, even something as local as that is hurting the entire country. If they were to launch catastrophic attacks on prime military and economic locations (DC, NYC, Norfolk, etc.) we'd be screwed. Sometimes we need to forego set rules and do what's best for the country. If Thomas Jefferson had waited for Congressional approval, we wouldn't have gotten the Louisiana Purchase so cheaply, and maybe not at all.

Somehow, I knew you would respond like that Trust.

Well, I do have a reputation of being right to uphold.

The problem here is congress should have to vote on a nuclear drop.. Allowing the president to do it without any apporval is like letting Steve Jobs disband the iPod and hoping nobody notices.. Stupied.

And let something that could have a very short time gap for action (for example, the time we were alloted to plan the assasination attempt on Saddam) get stuck in Congressional debate and possibly tabled (or is the term 'floored'? I don't remember.)

I am sure we have had presidents in the past, who, with this new polocy, would have dropped a nuke, and I am sure it will be shot down by the next president, because "the public" will figure it out.

I doubt it, we've definitely had the chance to drop a nuke in the past, and the time that we did, it was (imho) for good reason, but that's a seperate debate entirely.

Bush needs to push some more of these radical changes and put some power back into the Executive Branch. It's his last term, he's not going up for reelection, now's the time to pave the way for future presidents.

[MyndFyre]

The problem here is congress should have to vote on a nuclear drop..

No, they shouldn't.  The next logical step in that line of logic would be to have Congress approve military maneuvers in forward areas.  The President is the absolute top end in the military chain of command (that's why his office is also deemed "Commander-in-Chief").  If Congress is going to tell the military commander how to do his job, what's to stop Congress from telling *all* military officers how to do their jobs?

Besides, there's a reason that we have a branch of government called "The Executive."  It isn't just to sound cool.  The Executive executes.  Congress is intended to make laws that limit the freedoms we enjoy (I think it's funny that there are laws that "protect" our freedoms -- we shouldn't have to have laws to protect freedoms, because they should only be limited by law).  That's why the military falls under the Executive -- they actually do stuff.

Allowing the president to do it without any apporval is like letting Steve Jobs disband the iPod and hoping nobody notices.. Stupied.

HARDLY.  Yes, let's equate killing thousands of people and causing irreparable damage to the environment with taking a product off of the market.

I am sure we have had presidents in the past, who, with this new polocy, would have dropped a nuke, and I am sure it will be shot down by the next president, because "the public" will figure it out.

Evidence such as this is not admitted into a court trial.  You know why?  It's called "speculation."  You're not sure of that.  Every President that we have had since World War II has understood the gravity and repercussions associated with using a nuclear weapon.

[rabbit]

@Trust: You've never heard of Javelin Missiles then?

@Myndy: Balance of power.  Congress has no direct control of the military.  The only thing they can do is declare war, but even still, the president can send in the military for up to 90 days as "temporary measures".

[Screenor]

x86] link=topic=2827.msg26926#msg26926 date=1126656489]

Allowing the president to do it without any apporval is like letting Steve Jobs disband the iPod and hoping nobody notices.. Stupied.

HARDLY.  Yes, let's equate killing thousands of people and causing irreparable damage to the environment with taking a product off of the market.

ROFL, so true.

As for the president having full control over the desision on wether to drop a nuke or not, it splits two ways:

(1) We have the people like Green Day, or the people who blamed Katrina on the president, (aka, the liberals), who will cause huge arguements over this, giving the US even worse of a reputation.

(2) We can react faster to an attack, however, say we have a president who is..well, somewhat (more or less) insane. That would be a problem, we've had them before, nothing is stopping it form happening again.

(C) Then there's the south.




(Ok, the south one was bullshit, first to we're my reasoning.)

[trust]

He doesn't have "full control" he can't just wake up one morning and be like "lets nuke France, they stink."