Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Udie on March 12, 2002, 06:53:45 PM
-
Ok the press reported the other day about the nuke list that the executive branch had shown congress....
I will admit that at first I thought some scumbag congressman leaked it out. I almost posted here about it because the day before I had been saying that congress leaks like a siv (sp?) I'm starting to think a bit diferent about it now. OK I have no clue who leaked it, the Bush admin or congress. BUT I'm starting to think that Bush's team did or are happy that it was leaked.
I think had Bush not wanted the info out, he would have blown a gasket about it by now. I haven't heard him say much about it at all. I Think some were on the sunday shows defending the plan but I haven't really seen much about it in the past few days. I think he meant for it to get out into the public arena. A kind of warning to sadam that if he uses chem, bio or nuke weapons that his country is toast. Also a warning to other countries too that we are deadly serious about the war on terrorism.
What do you guys think? Was this a good thing for this to be leaked to the press? Do you think congress or the white house did it?
-
Is New Jersey on that list?
-
Looks like a serious "warhead gap" between California and Texas. You-all better not ever piss us off!!:eek: :p
State Warheads
Alabama 0
Alaska 70
Arizona 10
Arkansas 430
California 1437
Colorado 138
Connecticut 20
Delaware 0
Florida 230
Georgia 406
Hawaii 345
Idaho 0
Illinois 0
Indiana 0
Iowa 0
Kansas 20
Kentucky 0
Louisiana 530
Maine 320
Maryland 0
Massachusetts 0
Michigan 630
Minnesota 0
Mississippi 0
Missouri 155
Montana 315
Nebraska 255
Nevada 260
New Hampshire 190
New Jersey 100
New Mexico 410
New York 1900
North Carolina 0
North Dakota 1510
Ohio 0
Oklahoma 0
Oregon 0
Pennsylvania 0
Rhode Island 0
South Carolina 1962
South Dakota 365
Tennessee 0
Texas 630
Utah 0
Vermont 0
Virginia 542
Washington 1172
West Virginia 0
Wesconsin 0
Wyoming 247
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel
Is New Jersey on that list?
Is it possible to make New Jersey MORE radioactive?
-
>Is it possible to make New Jersey MORE radioactive?
We can DREAM can't we? ;)
Wab
-
I was hoping that this was a list of places that needed to be nuked and that New Jersey was #1.
-
I know all the US military guys have probably heard of the "SIOP", the "Single Integrated Operations Plan".
Basically: (from http://WWW.FAS.ORG)
"Strategic War Planning System (SWPS-SIOP)
The Global Command and Control System Strategic War Planning System-Single Integrated OPLAN (SWPS-SIOP) supports the USSTRATCOM mission to deter major military attack, especially nuclear attack, on the United States and its allies, and employ forces if deterrence fails. It is the joint system required to develop, verify, and produce the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) -- the nation’s strategic warfighting plan -- and related products."
The SIOP is continually updated.
http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/2001/ja01/ja01lastword.html
"In 1998, Kristensen shows, China was reinserted into the SIOP—or Single Integrated Operational Plan—after a 16-year hiatus. The reinsertion was the result of Presidential Decision Directive 60, signed by then–President Bill Clinton in November 1997, which codified the 1994 Nuclear Posture Review and followed from a little known Stratcom study called “Sun City Extended.” "
The SIOP obviously is going to be updated again. I don't know if the leak was deliberate, but it wouldn't suprise me.
In any event, the only "news" here is the leak.... not the update of the SIOP.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Wesconsin 0
wtf? looks like a sportscaster typed that out
back to topic...
Yes Udie, I agree. But how is Team Bush benefitting from this leakage? IMO it gives the image of a cowboy/bully looking for a fight. Iraq? Sure I'll support this... but cut the crap... don't just finish up daddy's business. I dont think stirring unrelated names ("partners" in the war on terrorism) into the pot is a good idea.
-
Originally posted by Octavius
But how is Team Bush benefitting from this leakage?
Before I respond to that, Bravo to Toad for using the FAS website. Great site full of information. Even if you don't agree with thier analysis.
The Bush team benefits from this disclosure so long as they are dead set on a policy of nuclear deterrence. Republican administrations have historicaly been very vocal in their support I think the Reagan administration best reflects this with thier "Kill the Bastards" (Copyright: The Onion lol) policy. Anyhow, for deterrence to work the US needs to ensure that the rest of the world knows what to expect if they cross a certain threshold. In the past, our public policy was "No first use." We essentially said "if you use nukes against us, there will be a devestating response, and we'll turn your cities to glass and sew your crops with salt. Considering there has been a shift in Russian Nuclear Doctrine (see this (http://home.earthlink.net/~acesarz3/papers/nuclear.htm) paper for more information) it seems logical that we alter our own nuclear policy to reflect the depolorization of geopolitics in the post cold war era ( or the post-post cold war era, or whatever we're going to call this).
So, this release of information helps contribute to the over all policy of deterrence, by reminding the world that despite the fact that we did not use nukes in response to Sept. 11th, we do still have them, and indeed we have our eyes on nations that are on a short list of potential targets. But even better, because this is a leak, and not an official release, the Bush Administration can say "well of course we're looking into our nuclear posture, that's a given, but we didn't mean for this to get out, and we didn't want to jerk the interntaional community by the chain" The fact that it wasn't an official release insulates them from some of the "Cowboy" criticism that they would have surely gotten had it been official. I mean, they did get criticized, but I think it would have been much worse had they been bragging about this.
-Sikboy
PS:
For a deeper look at deterrence, check out the lit review of this paper (http://home.earthlink.net/~acesarz3/papers/silerchina.htm) It's very similar to the lit review from the above cited paper, but draws a different conclusion.
-
This is one of my favorite subjects. Had to punt it at least once :)
-Sikboy