"the comments of the British Foreign minister yesterday when he TOTALLY rejected any preemptive use of nuclear weapons"

He'll fall into line once the big boys get going.

I find it hard to believe that a nuclear weapon would be a first choice for an attack. When using such a weapon many things have to be taken into consideration. Not only will the facility attacked be destroyed, but also all living things within a certain distance will automatically be destroyed as well. Then we'll have a fallout, where the nuclear radiation could travel to countries nearby and further perhaps. The destruction could be more than just a facility but millions will die not just from the first few minute or hours, but for years to come. This is why I have to refuse to believe that a pre-emptive strike with a nuclear weapon will just not happen. Only if the danger seems impossible to stop by any other means such as diplomacy, sanctions and non-nuclear military weapons, then "maybe" nuclear can be considered if the enemy will use their nuclear weapons as well.

I think you guys are going to far saying that Bush will shoot nuclear weapons first and ask questions later. He may be an idiot at times but I don't think he's that stupid. I believe this is an exaggeration. This sounds more like something from a paranoid person. I could be wrong though.

Let me do some of COL Gene's homework for him. Here's an actual link to Seymour Hersh's story: CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer

First of all, could it be that Seymour Hersh is wrong?

Having said that, wouldn't it be the same people who griped that the Bush administration doesn't have contingency plans for every possible outcome that are griping now that we have a contingency plan for this outcome? Be honest, you'd be even more upset if we didn't have a plan for dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat.

And Hersh is needlessly hamming this up, throwing around words like "messianic" in describing Bush's alleged zeal for nuking Iran's nukes. What a waste of bandwidth this article is.

The question was that the use of such a weapon was PART of the discussion. The use of a nuclear weapon could cause the things mentioned although a penetrating type weapon would minimize the release of radiation and collateral danger. The first issue would be the reaction of the Moslem world toward the United States for just using a nuclear weapon on a Moslem country. That I believe would begin WWIII.

Maybe this is a stupid question but, does it matter if it is a nuke?

If you are blowing up a nuclear facility something is going to leak out.

I am glad that all options are on the table. I hope that the threat of destruction by any available means is enough to bring Iran to the table.

I don't think sending in a tactical nuke would be the start of WWIII. The rest of the Moslem world should be happy that we are trying to intervene. What happens when one of the other countries pisses them off? Do you think they will show restraint? Do you really want to think of Iran as a nuclear super power?

The question was that the use of such a weapon was PART of the discussion. The use of a nuclear weapon could cause the things mentioned although a penetrating type weapon would minimize the release of radiation and collateral danger. The first issue would be the reaction of the Moslem world toward the United States for just using a nuclear weapon on a Moslem country. That I believe would begin WWIII.

Col, you being military makes me wonder just how smart you really are. This is a conflict with a country more powerful than Iraq that claims to already have means to deliver a nuclear weapon and might already have one. It is only smart to have the idea on the tables for 2 reasons, 1 to show Iran that we are not kidding and that we will not hesitate to use force if necessary to stop them, 2 in the case that they do have a nuke are might consider using or use it, we will already have a strategy to defend ourselves. To have the nuke idea on the table does not mean it’s the only alternative. What other alternatives do we have on the table as well? Do you even know? Why only be concerned with the nuke on the table when we could use other means to get similar results without the radiation. We have so many types of weapons including very powerful bunkerbuster type bombs that could yield really good results. This, as I said before, is just a great exaggeration of an article with a very stupid question.

A military that doesn't have contingency plans for every weapon and every means possible isn't fit. It's facetious to say that we should have nuclear weapons and then have no plans drawn up to use them. The Col obviously goes down the news headlines thinking "Now, where's my anti-Bush hook in this?"

I don't think we should use nuclear weapons for this job, nor do I think we ever would. To spent billions on weapons and never consider how to use them would be idiotic, though. If the article was about how we have no clue how to use all these expensive nuclear weapons, the Col would be right here demanding to know why we don't plan for these things.

Transparent, as usual.

As I said, Bush had better listen to his senior Military. We saw what happened when he did not follow the war plans in Iraq. I do not think his National Guard Service, or lack of it, qualifies him to know the consequences of various types of military actions. A united Moslem world opposing us would be WORSE then Iran getting nuclear weapons. WE can only use nuclear weapons if attacked not preemptively!

Today another senior General called the conduct of the Iraq War a grave error. Gen Powell also admitted we did not have enough troops in Iraq and the current sectarian violence is the result of that action. It is clear Bush and Rummy have totally screwed up Iraq and are responsible for MOST of the American deaths and injuries.

Odd. Bush declassifying information is a high crime, and yet when someone offers information on strategic plans and ongoing military action you eat it up.

How did we get this information, Col? How do you feel when you look at your blog and see yourself on the one hand vilifying scooter libby, and an inch higher making your bones with much, much more damaging, "leaked" intelligence? If it is just irrational guesswork, then you're a tool for people like Hersh. If it isn't, you're a vapid hypocrite.

So which is it? Is this blog based on irresponsible rumor, or are you lauding a leak much, much worse than the "unforgivable offense" you cite on your blog? Pony up, grow a backbone, and deal with your knee-jerk politics head-on for once. You want to know why people don't take you seriously, that's why.

Bush declassifying information is a high crime, and yet when someone offers information on strategic plans and ongoing military action you eat it up.

When it's Bush or Libby, he's irresponsible. When it's Seymour Hersh, he's a whistle-blower. It's amazing that people don't see the dichotomy in that.

More than just a whistle-blower, though. According to what I read, these are troops on the ground, at the moment, trying to work covertly as their presence is announced in the national media. Me, I'd be seeing how long Hersh will sit in jail before he gives up his source, same as the Plamegate reporter.

The Col, though, he laps it up and makes a case against Bush out of it, about an inch above where he screams about the President "leaking" information that was in his power to leak...

The BS is unreal.

First, the issue with the Hersh story is with the source that provided classified information to Hersh not with Hersh. Once a reporter is given information under our system they can report it under freedom of speech and of the press. The issue of providing a reporter's sources must be limited to situations where the need for those sources is so great as to be essential to protect our vital security.

The actions of Bush and Cheney and their two assistants is a VERY different matter.

Bush and Cheney released the sensitive information to discredit a person who had the nerve to provide information that contradicted the President. The outing of Mrs. Wilson had nothing to do with if Saddam had WMD it was to punish Wilson and his wife. Libby has admitted that was the purpose of the release of the information. It was a concerted plan by the White House to get Wilson for saying that what Bush and Cheney were telling us about the threat from Saddam was NOT CORRECT. To date it has not been documented if either Bush or Cheney directed the outing of Mrs. Wilson but it was Rove that was the FIRST to identify her and Libby confirmed that fact.

The other release of classified issue was the PARTIAL declassification and release of Intelligence from the PDB. Bush declassifies the parts of the document that supported his arguments that Saddam had a nuclear program while concealing other sections of that VERY SAMR DOCUMENT that showed Saddam DID NOT have a nuclear program the way the Wilson report stated. The part of the PDB that Bush declassified and released has been proven incorrect and the section that Bush kept secret was CORRECT and in agreement with the Wilson Report that Bush and Cheney attacked Wilson and his wife for making public.

Bush stands up and condemns the release of sensitive information while doing that very thing himself.

He said he wanted to get to the bottom of WHO provided the sensitive information when it was Him and Cheney from the PDB information and Rove and Libby for the outing of Mrs. Wilson. Bush can not have it both ways. If release of SENSATIC+VE information harms this country, they WHY is Bush and Cheney as well as their two assistants releasing sensitive information? If as Bush said yesterday that he declassified and released information from the PDB to give the public the information about our security then WHY DUD HE KEEP SECRET those sections that showed Saddam was NOT A DANGER? If the object is to provide the information to make the true nature of the danger from Saddam clear you do not selectively release only that Intelligence that supports one position while keep other information that shows the opposite position secret. Bush used his power to classify and declassify for political PAY BACK and to provide a one sided argument that time has proven was INCORRECRT. The CORRECT Intelligence is what BUSH kept secret!

Sorry for the typo's. The system will not let me EDIT my post. WHY?

Nice to see that the C.O.L. has resorted to stealing topics and discussions from others rather than joining into discussions that wouldn't allow him to side-track and bash Bush: Should the west nuke Iran 'til it glows?

Stop feeding the troll here people. Let his posts sit unanswered. Anyone stupid enough to believe the crap put forth by the resident fool of JU gets what they deserve. The only thing anyone replying to these threads is doing (besides perhaps smacking down a very lame attempt at plagurizing topics from others) is giving others an opportunity to mark his trolling replies for what they are.

Terpfan 1980

I did not steal ANYTHING. You are just a stupid blind Bush Supporters that will not look what this man is doing to our country. No matter, the harm is done and you too will be paying for the Bush/Cheney mistakes for decades to come.