A new Bush administration strategy calls for the preemptive use of military and covert force before an enemy unleashes weapons of mass destruction and underscores the United States' willingness to retaliate with nuclear weapons for chemical or biological attacks on US soil or against American troops overseas. (DTRA file photo)...
King George is now ready to preemptively strike alleged terrorists and terrorist nations
Well the United States of America has now decided that it will further threaten the world by proclaiming that when it thinks that there is a threat to the U S, it will militarily strike the targets before they can launch their weapons of mass destruction.
This means that we will never really give peace a chance because we will unilaterally strike our alleged enemies and then declare that we had proof of their mischief which got blown up in our attack on evil. And that will satisfy the world.
Only the most evil of nations with the most sinister of motives would preemptively strike another nation.
It is better to allow the other nation to strike first than we for us to continue to lose credibility and prestige in the world. Preemptive strikes remind us of Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan.
I think that it is better to take a few losses in the name of peace rather than to continue to bully the world. We should be able to use our covert capabilities to quietly inform those who are preparing to attack us that the price of the attack will be too high.
But if you grew up on cowboys and Indian movies and TV shows when you were a kid like little George, then you want to shoot first and ask questions later: assuming that you are the bad guys that is.
Washington is ready to use A-arms in a biowar
Mike Allen and Barton Gellman/WP
The Washington Post Thursday, December 12, 2002
WASHINGTON A new Bush administration strategy calls for the preemptive use of military and covert force before an enemy unleashes weapons of mass destruction and underscores the United States' willingness to retaliate with nuclear weapons for chemical or biological attacks on U.S. soil or against American troops overseas.The strategy introduces a more aggressive approach to combating weapons of mass destruction, and it comes as the United States prepares for a possible war with Iraq. A version of the strategy that was released Tuesday by the White House said the United States would "respond with overwhelming force," including "all options," to the use of biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear weapons on the nation, its troops or its allies. However, a classified version of the strategy goes even further: It breaks with 50 years of U.S. counterproliferation efforts by authorizing preemptive strikes on states and terrorist groups that are close to acquiring weapons of mass destruction or the long-range missiles capable of delivering them. The policy aims to prevent the transfer of weapons components or to destroy them before they can be assembled. In a top-secret appendix, the directive names Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya among the countries that are the central focus of the new U.S. approach. Administration officials said that did not imply that President George W. Bush intended to use military force, covert or overt, in any of those countries. He is determined, they said, to stop transfers of weapons components in or out of their borders. The policy sets out the practical ramifications of Bush's doctrine of preemption, contained in a national security strategy released in September, which turns away from the Cold War doctrine based on deterrence and containment. The preemption doctrine favors taking on hostile states before they can strike. It broadens a warning that was made to Iraq on the eve of the Gulf War of 1991. A letter from President George H.W. Bush promised "the strongest possible response" if Iraq were to use chemical and biological weapons against U.S. and allied troops. But the new policy is more specific and describes the consequences of an enemy's use of weapons of mass destruction. "The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force - including through resort to all of our options- to the use of WMD against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies," the document says, using the acronym for weapons of mass destruction. Although the document does not mention Iraq by name, the timing of its release sends an unmistakable message to the Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, about the potential consequences of using nonconventional weapons in a future war. A senior administration official, briefing reporters on the new strategy, said those options included nuclear force. The official said the 1991 letter had had its intended effect. Saddam "didn't cross the line of using chemical or biological weapons," the official said. "The Iraqis have told us that they interpreted that letter as meaning that the United States would use nuclear weapons, and it was a powerful deterrent." In the past, U.S. officials saw some advantage in keeping the world guessing about how the United States would respond to evidence that a country or a terrorist group was hiding weapons of mass destruction deep underground. And Bush administration officials were at pains Tuesday to insist that there was nothing new in their formulation. Under Bush, however, Pentagon officials also appear to have taken a step closer to the possible, limited use of nuclear weapons by pursuing new and more usable ones. A review of nuclear policy completed by defense officials a year ago put added emphasis on developing low-yield nuclear weapons that could be used to burrow deep into the earth and destroy underground complexes, including stores of chemical and biological arms. This has raised questions about whether the administration is lowering the threshold for using nuclear weapons. Officials deny that they are doing so. But they also argue that the strategic calculations necessary for combating terrorism and hostile nations must inherently be different from those used during the Cold War, when deterrence meant simply convincing the Soviets that the United States, if attacked, could and would wipe it out. Against today's new enemies, the administration has argued, it may be necessary to strike preemptively and with nuclear weapons that would keep fallout to a minimum. The administration published a broader national security strategy in September, and the preparation of a separate policy on weapons of mass destruction reflects the seriousness with which the administration takes the threat of attacks from rogue states and terrorist organizations. "Every administration seems to come under criticism for not having a strategy," the official said. The six-page strategy released by the White House was a declassified extract of a top secret directive signed by Bush in May after resolving interagency disputes dating to January. It is among the first major policy collaborations of the National Security Council and the new Homeland Security Council, whose chairman is Tom Ridge. The new strategy does not repudiate "traditional measures" of diplomacy, multinational arms control agreements and export controls. But in its classified form, and in the interagency process that drafted it, the directive is premised on a view that "traditional nonproliferation has failed, and now we're going into active interdiction," according to one participant who spoke without authority from the White House. Active interdiction, the official said, "is physical - it's disruption, it's destruction in any form, whether kinetic or cyber." Explaining the new approach, one official gave the hypothetical scenario of a ship using the Philippines as a transshipment point for special weapons to Libya. "We're going to interdict or destroy or disrupt that shipment or, during the transloading process, it is going to mysteriously disappear," the official said. The official spoke as Spanish special forces, with U.S. intelligence support, stopped a North Korean ship bound for Yemen with Scud missiles.
How can we manifest peace on earth if we do not include everyone (all races, all nations, all religions, both sexes) in our vision of Peace?
The WorldPeace Banner
To the WorldPeace Peace Page