US may use nukes

[PhillyKev 0]

Whoa...I could spend days on this site. They have examples of the leaflets we're dropping and transcrips of messages we're broadcasting over Iraq.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_art-of-war.htm

I think we need to suspend all debate on this subject until everyone reads every link on that site

[Gawain 0]

Popular Science did a story on Nuclear "bunker busters" a few months ago. The technology has to be pursued, I just hope we don't ever use them.

Another thing to remember is how nukes can be used. While their main purpose has always been mass destruction, they can also be used to generate powerful electro-magnetic pulses, which could fry the circuitry that runs Saddam's chemical and/or biological weapons systems, air defense, etc.

Of course, there are other delivery systems which may be in development (a version of the Tomahawk is a rumor I heard once upon a time) which can do the work without the radioactive contamination.

As for the doctrine of when they'd be used, PhillyKev pointed out some excellent material in this thread, but fundamentally, the position itself doesn't appear to be new. I don't know many details beyond that.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,100]

> . . . .fundamentally, the position itself doesn't appear to be new. I
>don't know many details beyond that.

The big difference seems to be that previously they were deterrents; they were to be used as retaliation against a CBN attack from an enemy. Now they will be considered more as first-line weapons, to be used in place of conventional weaponry (i.e. the low yield bunker-buster.) In our own words, we will now consider using them "in the event of suprising military developments." That's a big change.