Hope this turns out to be false....

well I meant to respond here before i took a break but I was in Puerto Rico when I read this thread and it made me a bit upset to say the least.

Anyway, I have a response for some and a overall responce.

brb...
 
Ok, I find a number of things wrong with this article. For one thing if Philip Giraldi is a former CIA officer then he would know not to call our nuclear arsenal "tactical nuclear weapons". The US has no more tactical nuclear weapons. The definition of a tactical nuclear weapon, are nuclear weapons modeled after conventional weapons to be used directly on the battlefield such as mines, torpedoes, atomic artillery. These weapons have been eliminated from the US arsenal. The US arsenal is made up of Strategic nuclear weapons. Want proof?


http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/prolifproject/tnw/chap2.pdf

Also, (an example of a tactical nuclear weapon)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/w79.htm


I quoted this line in the article for those too lazy to read it,

The W79 development program led to deployment in 1981. Nuclear artillery shells were part of the US arsenal from the mid-1950s until 1992. Disassembly of the W79 Artillery-Fired Atomic Projectile was completed in FY 2003.
Click to expand...



Secondly, the article implies the US has a nuclear bunker buster already in its arsenal. As of today the status of the B61-11 is not operational. Its not even in the military's buget.

See the evidence;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52564-2005Jan31.html

Donald Rumsfeld is asking to include the project in the military's budget That means this weapon is NOT EVEN ACTIVE. I thought a former CIA officer would know that, I guess he washed dishes at Langley while others fought terror. He sounds like a disgruntled former employee.

Moreover, recently the Bush Administration has dropped its plans to even fund this project anymore,

Read the article;
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/26/national/main981197.shtml


Basically, take it with a grain of salt. I'm sorry but it seems you have read a web blog and you are taking it way too seriously. I doubt this in any way is factual. That is not news its just hearsay. ;)
 
To -->CanadianLoonie

CanadianLoonie,
On attacking Iran, I say go for it. Nothing like watching a superpower bleed itself to death with countless self-inflicted papercuts.
Click to expand...


So that fact that the US addresses a problem is making itself "bleed to death"? Far from it, the US is being proactive and bringing this situation to an end. You can't just sign a treaty and hope they don't continue to support terror.

It's like fighting cancer, the best way is by taking it head on with chemo and in some cases surgery. You don't go to the doctors office and tell him you want to sign a treaty with the cancer.

"Yes doc, we came to an agreement, the cancer can stay in my arm but he promised he won't spread or make me sicker. Thats the treaty we agreed to. He promised"


See if that works :roll: :bangin:
 
To --> Firecat


Firecat
However, if there was never going to be a draft. Why not get rid of selective services? Why has spending increased for them, and why are they painting their offices? Why have commercials been running telling people to register? Hmmmm.....
Click to expand...


What evidence do you have that the Selective service has been receiving an
increase in budget? Where is this located in the FY 05/06 budget? That's just not
true. Also, what commercials are you talking about? Certainly I haven't seen any
sign up for the draft commericals on TV ever. Name the specific commerical
and the message it had, otherwise your just making this stuff up. The Selective service is kept for pure emergency reasons. We have had an all volunteer
force since the late 70's. Mind you there are many other nations where military service is obligatory such as in Israel, Columbia, Peru, Ecuador, Russia, Cuba, North Korea, Pakistan etc.. the list goes on. My point is that a draft is in the constitution of many nations including many western nations, and you decide to pick on the U.S. Why? No one will start a draft and it's just kept for emergency purposes.
 
To Yayox


Yayox, the US is geared toward reducing its arsenal,

See the evidence
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/25/politics/main510180.shtml


The Treaty of Moscow, the centerpiece of the four-day summit that began on Thursday evening, will commit the former Cold War adversaries to cutting their arsenals to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads by the year 2012. The two nuclear giants currently hold about 6,000 warheads each.
Click to expand...


The U.S has a nuclear free ambition, but remember that there are countries
out there seeking nuclear weapons and to deter them the US has to
maintain a stockpile. Ask yourself this, France arguably the worlds most
anti-war liberal nation has more than 500 nuclear weapons, and they were the last
western nation to end testing in 1996. If they are so antiwar then why do they still
have nuclear weapons? They have no enemies, they don't go to war, so why do they still maintain a stockpile? Once again, no one has anything better to do than
to pick on and the U.S. I dont see France taking the lead in nuclear reduction.

Again, this is all the World's sport in play, "Hate the US".
 
LOL. I got your PM, I was gonna reply earlier but had to leave for work to get a few things done. That's where I am right now, so I'll have to be a bit brief.

I was skeptical about the report (hence the thread title). I think I made it clear on the first page that I don't really think America is going to attack Iran anytime soon (unless there is some other kind of attack on this country). That said, the article was in The American Conservative magazine, which is a pretty good publication (I think Pat Buchanan is heavily involved with).

Regarding tactical nuclear weapons. You said that the United States does not have any (anymore), I'll take your word on that. However you do admit that there was a push to develop some. The article made it clear that this was a "contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States".....So it's not like they are saying we could do this next month, they are just planning for the future (a future in which they'd hoped to have built those tactical nukes by).

But as I said above, I remain skeptical about everything.

I gotta rush now, I'll respond to the Selective service post when I get home.
 
Okay. Regarding selective service. I heard from someone about the ads reminding people to register. This friend had no reason to lie to me, and I wouldn't consider it that unusual as i'm sure some of their funds goes to advertising.

I checked the SSS annual report to Congress and you are write, there was no increase...in fact, there may have been a slight decrease in funding. However, according to the President's proposed budget, they did want to increase funding.

There is a disconnect between saying "there won't be a draft" and "it's for emergency purposes".....an emergency can pop up tomorrow. Personally, I think that 20 something million dollars is a waste, and the SSS should be shut down.
 
I think we already are in war... I think we will never see another WW.... but instead it will be guerrilla war by the little countries.. and big DESTRUCTION by the US..... big wars are imposible in this times of big media cover..... if you really want to destroy a nation it think the way to go is with guerrilla tactics... LIKE the IRA, CONTRAS, and FIDEL... it is clearly the way to go... if you want to get something accomplish.. even the same US do it... to make far wars based on OIL... and have an excuse to invade countries... to LIBERATE them!

THE axis of evil... is in NORTH AMERICA (the Continent).... in a country call the United States of America (Not North America, America or my butt for all I care :lol: )

PEACE OUT!
 
I think is more the SS than the sss... dont you think?
 
Plans like these are developed every damn day... they are only scenarios, and they are meant to be exercises iseveral areas... such as how tough would it be to logistically support the mission, how effective would it be, can the primary targets be destroyed with no or very little collateteral damage, etc...

If you had ANY clue as to how many of these plans have been developed over the years, your head would explode. Sometimes the "new media" really pisses me off. I personally beleive that there are MANY times when the publis really does not need to know everything going on... on a whole they are too damn stupid to posses the cluepon required to get it.
 
I wonder what the reaction over here would be if it was leaked that North Korea or Iran had "scenarios" for the same in America
 
Firecat said:
I wonder what the reaction over here would be if it was leaked that North Korea or Iran had "scenarios" for the same in America
Click to expand...

I am positive that they do... what am I going to do about?
 
not mad at all... I like it here... :woot:
 
LOL.... where the hell do you live??

I work at Ft. Carson, so it is close to work and my neighbors ROCK!!
 
I have not seen any evidence to agree with your assertation that all B-61s are out of service. The Mod 11 has, as you point out, not been funded. (The article does also refer to 'weapons in the existing stockpile')

Of the three 'tactical' mods of the B-61, Mods 3, 4 and 10, the first two have been withdrawn from active service, it still leaves the Mod 10 as best as I know. Given the US's long-standing policy that it will respond to chemical warfare attacks with nuclear weapons (Given the lack of chemical weapons in the armoury), it would be a bit daft for them to remove -all- means of responding from service.

See also 'Enduring Stockpile'

Curiously, however, I do note that the nuclear depth bombs/Nuke ASROC for ASW use seem to be long gone. I guess they have a vastly increased confidence in homing torpedo capability.

It doesn't surprise me that contingency plans for Iran are drawn up, it's what any sensible military planners would do. (Have to earn their pay somehow), but the first-use of nukes mentioned in that article puts up the BS flag for me. If they really want to get into a hard target, they have an entire airborne division that can just go in on the ground and do it themselves.

NTM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top