Nuclear strike against Iraq?

I don’t know if this should be in GD, BBQ, or IMHO; but I do have a couple of questions.

I think I just heard something about a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iraq. :eek:

I’ve said before on these boards that the “good guys” are not supposed to start wars. Certainly we don’t start off with a nuclear strike. I thought I heard that Bush “hasn’t made a decision” to use nuclear weapons; but that doesn’t mean that he won’t decide to. Frankly, I think this Vush fellah is a scary individual.

  1. According to what I’ve heard (i.e., I don’t have a cite), 80% of Americans think that the UN should be allowed more time to search for WMDs and to try for a diplomatic solution. I know that a President can start a war without the approval of the voters, but is there any recourse for citizens to punish him for his (Constitutionally legal) actions when a President goes against the will of the people (aside from voting him out at the next election)?

  2. Is there a mechanism for stopping a President whose actions appear to be insane?

  3. Given that nuclear weapons are indisciminate, what is the liklihood that a President who uses them would be tried as a war criminal? (I’d like to leave Hiroshima and Nagasaki out of this question because A) I believe the reisks were not fully understood half a century ago – indeed, nuclear bombs were once considered a viable option for canal building; B) In WWII the precident of bombing civilians was set and accepted in that war, and the two atomic bombs killed fewer people than some conventional bombing raids; and C) I’d rather not start a debate over U.S. policy in WWII.)

Pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iraq? Not even Dubya is that stupid.

Johnny, where’d you hear this? Being somewhat involved with the planning for this little endeavor, I have to say a preemtive nuclear strike is surprising to all in my little office.

Um… well… the UN could demand Bush be tried as a war criminal, but I’d like to see much of anyone try to come and get him.

Admittedly, once we unelect the SOB, he would be somewhat easier to get to… unless the next president decides to follow his lead.

And the only (legal) measure for getting an insane president out of office is impeachment, that I know of. With a Republican Congress sitting, that’s pretty much impossible.

All we can really do is hope the American people come to their senses after Bush finishes getting the entire planet mad at us and digging the deficit big enough to last until 2100…

Urban Ranger: Hypothetically, then?

flyboy88: I was half-listening to CNN. It sounded as if Bush was considering it. It also sounded like he might use nukes later in the war. And it said that no definite decision had been made. But as I said, I was only half-listening.

I think the American people have come to their senses. But what do we do about the situation?

Bush scary? Nah. It’s the people who pull his wires who are scary. You know, Chaney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, et al. Don’t forget, Bush is only the amiable front man for this enterprise.

Will they nuke Iraq? I doubt it; not that this cabal has any moral problems about that. The rest of the world certainly does, however, and even Bush’s wirepullers should be able to understand the strategic disaster this would be for the already tarnished image of the US in the world. If they can’t see this, we are in even deeper trouble than I thought.

Oh, let’s not get on Chaney’s case. He’s had a hard time with all of his heart problems. I think we should do something nice for him. Maybe we could send him a few boxes of Krispy Kream doughnuts? And some nice Chicago sausages. And to get his mind off of troubling matters for a little bit, we could get him a pass to ride that new 400-foot-tall, 120 mph roller coaster in Sandusky. And maybe some desk toys. Jack-in-the-boxes, or something amusing like that.

07:56. CNN reports that they will have a live discussion about the possible use of nuclear weapons against Iraq.

The scary part for me is that the media are in on the game; they seem to be content to let the administration hint at a worse scenario than will actually unfold, so that what does unfold doesn’t seem so bad (as with, say, leaks about tax rises which don’t turn out to be as bad as was first reported).

Where is the objective, critical analysis of the administrations actions, ploys and spin ?

… pre-emptive nukes……… I can’t believe CNN can even report that with a straight face.

This may be a case of trying to scare Saddam but, if anything, it will backfire and make the rest of the world opinion turn even more against the USA and convince many that the President of the US has gone off the deep end.

There is just no way in the world the USA is going to use nuclear weapons against Iraq. No way. The US knows it, Saddam knows it and the rest of the world knows it.

08:12. CNN says they’ll talk about the possible use of pre-emptive nuclear strikes when they come back from the commercial break.

sailor: I know just enough about politics to believe this what you said is true. I think Bush is playing poker.

But what if he’s not? Wang-Ka says impeachment is the only, and unlikely, option. What can the People do?

“CNN reports that they will have a live discussion about the possible use of nuclear weapons against Iraq.”

I bet Iraq is watching CNN. They know what we are going to do to them beforehand :slight_smile:

What possible use can nuclear weapons have in this situation? What are we going to use them on? Cities? Oil fields? Troop concentrations? From a strategic and tactical standpoint, given all of the other weapons we have at our disposal, there’s nothing that has to be done in Iraq that requires nuclear weapons.

The People can shoot him in the head. But that’s not likely to happen since this is most likely the result of some doofy Bush posturing and asinine media sensationalism. It’s Superbowl Sunday after all!

If Congress had a hint that Bush was serious about using pre-emptive nuclear weapons against anyone he would be impeached in about 30 seconds. Regardless of who’s got the majority.

The US never ever rules out the possibility of using nuclear weapons in any conflict, including the one in Afghanistan. I think that this is just a rehash of what has been said before.

If W. is stupid enough to even hint at pre-emptive nuclear strikes, both UK and Australia would have even more backlashes, and Saddam can exploit this fiasco as he sees fit.

I don’t know if The People wants to be stuck with Dick Cheney, unless He does him away too.

This is what I got out of the report:

  1. The CIA reported that Saddam is unlikely to use WMDs unless they are used against him first (or if he feels threatened).

  2. The Administration claims that a pre-emptive nuclear strike has “always been an option”. They say it’s “old news”. But a Mr. Walsh, who was interviewed on CNN, says that this option is indeed new.

  3. The U.S. wants a nuclear “bunker buster” bomb to kill Saddam in his hiding place. But if we new where he was, he could have been killed already.

  4. If the U.S. says a nuclear strike is okay, Israel will feel that they have the right to use theirs. If Saddam feels threatened enough to use NBC weapons against, Mr. Walsh says Israel is likely to use nukes against Iraq.

handy: I think you are right. But nuclear brinksmanship makes me very nervous.

You have more faith in our government than I have.

My WAG - CNN is fishing for crap to use as filler for on-air time, and if they get people all scared and keep them tuned in, all the better.

FTR: I am uncomfortable with discussions of assassinating the President. We are (ostensibly) a Nation of Law. IMO, discussions of assassinating the President are not appropriate to these boards. (My joke about the Veep notwithstanding.)

I’m wondering what legal options we have if it looks like the President – any U.S. President – is considering starting the Battle of Armageddon. Could the People get together and have a recall election? Or is impeachment the only option?