I had a feeling he might have but now he claims he does.

------------------
'We have nuclear weapons': bin Laden
Last Updated: Sat Nov 10 10:23:39 2001

ISLAMABAD - Osama bin Laden says his al-Qaeda organization has nuclear and chemical weapons.

The terrorist mastermind accused of orchestrating the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States told a Pakistani newspaper his fighters will respond in kind if the United States uses weapons of mass destruction against Afghanistan.
"I wish to declare that if America used chemical and nuclear weapons against us, then we may retort with chemical and nuclear weapons," he told the Dawn newspaper. "We have the weapons as a deterrent."

Dawn, one of Paksitan's largest newspapers, said Hamid Mir interviewed bin Laden Wednesday night somewhere near Kabul.

It was bin Laden's first interview with a journalist since suicide hijackers sent passenger jets slamming into the twin towers of New York's World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and an isolated field in Pennsylvania.

Mir is a journalist sympathetic to the Taliban, and a biographer of bin Laden. He edits Ausaf, an Urdu-language paper that also published the interview.

A photograph in Dawn showed Mir with bin Laden sitting on cushions with a brown backdrop. A Kalashnikov lay by bin Laden's side.

When he asked bin Laden where he got the nuclear weapons, Mir was told to "go to the next question."

Mir says he was blindfolded and taken in a jeep from Kabul. The interview took place in a cold location where he said he could hear anti-aircraft fire.

Shortly after he arrived, Mir said bin Laden and his right hand man Ayman Al-Zuwahri arrived with a dozen bodyguards.

Most of the interview consisted of a repetition of bin Laden's anti-Western rhetoric.

Without accepting the blame, the al-Qaeda leader said the Sept. 11 attacks were justified because of U.S. foreign policy in Israel, Iraq and elsewhere.

The White on Friday discounted bin Laden's claim, but did say bin Laden had nuclear weapons on his shopping list.

"They're seeking chemical, biological and nuclear weapons," President George W. Bush on Friday. "Given the means, our enemies would be a threat to every nation and, eventually, to civilization itself."

The United States had "no credible evidence at this point of a specific threat of that kind," said National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.


Written by CBC News Online staff

--------------------

Now, I doubt that he will only use them if we use them, that's my opinion though! :(

Look what he did with suicidals and boxcutters.

One shudders at the thought of suicidals and nukes.

How do you stop this guys???!!!!!

Boy am I looking forward to going back to New York.

Screw that. If I die, I die. I'm not going to live in fear.

Yorick, glad to see you back. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I really hate to say it but the only way to deal with these people (IMO) is to kill them before they kill us! :( I know it's immoral but since they will never stop, that's the only viable option for us. :(

BTW: don't let yourself be affected by terrorists. I know you're intelligent enough to realize that if you fear, they've won. Life is no more dangerous now than before 9-11. In fact, it's less dangerous for the simple reason that we now know that there's a threath. I know you're a religeous man (please recongnize that my intent is not malicious) ask God for guidance. I'm sure you'll find out that you are not to fear but to live. That's why He put you on this Earth isn't it?

Cheers and hang in there my friend.

[ 11-10-2001: Message edited by: Ryanamur ]</p>

If he's got them he would have used them, a simple country-boy like me can figure out how to deliver nukes, with-out having ICBMs, and I'm not a siphisticated (sp/)terrorist master mind. He is not worried in the slightist about world oppinon, see 11 Sept, 2001.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by John D Harris:
If he's got them he would have used them, a simple country-boy like me can figure out how to deliver nukes, with-out having ICBMs, and I'm not a siphisticated (sp/)terrorist master mind. He is not worried in the slightist about world oppinon, see 11 Sept, 2001.<hr></blockquote>

See, if I was a terrorist, I wouldn't deliver them on my first attack. Blow up two building here, crash a few planes there, disrupt the world economy, get the ennemy to attack then, you make your real statement. It's like a game of chess. Do you use your queen to take out the other guys queen or you move her out of the way and try to take the other guys queen with your pawn? I'm a move her out of the way type of guy. Position everything the way you want and then, you check mate the other guy! He's a lunatic but he's not an idiot. You get a bigger effect out of a build up than you would out of a single strike.

Ryanamur,
You are exactly right.
Let's hope that it does not come to that sort of end in order to make a new beginning.
I'm not going to let the threat scare me though...God watches over me and I'll keep doing as I always do until He takes me out in whatever manner He deems necessary.
Until then, I'll keep praying for all of us.

Bin did say he will use nukes and chem weapons if they are used against him first. We can believe him or not. That's just what he said..could be a bluff, could be true or maybe not. I'd hate to test it out though.

[ 11-11-2001: Message edited by: skywalker ]</p>

err...

the truth is he doesnt have nuke. what does the majority fear? nuclear

so he feeds on that fear and give you info that "I have a nuke!"
he doesn't. if he does or has the ability to launch it, he'd used it already.

it is far more difficult to launch a nuke when US is highly secured after Sep 11. the terror would strick fully (and far more greater) if he had nuke and launched it on Sep 11 than crashing planes into WTC.

think of how many more people would die then? not just 5,000 (I am saying 'just 5,000' in comparison to the potential casualty caused by a nuclear attack)

John D Harris said he'd figure out how to launch a nuke. John, given your knowledge, is it easier to nuke attack US before Sep 11 or now? (consider all the prections US has taken)

nope, he doesnt have nuke. it is just an desperate empty claim in hope to buy himself some time from a man who lives in cave

nope, he doesnt have shit

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by DM of FAoIW:
err...

the truth is he doesnt have nuke. what does the majority fear? nuclear

so he feeds on that fear and give you info that "I have a nuke!"
he doesn't. if he does or has the ability to launch it, he'd used it already.

it is far more difficult to launch a nuke when US is highly secured after Sep 11. the terror would strick fully (and far more greater) if he had nuke and launched it on Sep 11 than crashing planes into WTC.

think of how many more people would die then? not just 5,000 (I am saying 'just 5,000' in comparison to the potential casualty caused by a nuclear attack)

John D Harris said he'd figure out how to launch a nuke. John, given your knowledge, is it easier to nuke attack US before Sep 11 or now? (consider all the prections US has taken)

nope, he doesnt have nuke. it is just an desperate empty claim in hope to buy himself some time from a man who lives in cave

nope, he doesnt have shit<hr></blockquote>


You wanna call his bluff? I really don't care what he's got, along as we don't use nukes or chems in Afghanistan.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ryanamur:


See, if I was a terrorist, I wouldn't deliver them on my first attack. Blow up two building here, crash a few planes there, disrupt the world economy, get the ennemy to attack then, you make your real statement. It's like a game of chess. Do you use your queen to take out the other guys queen or you move her out of the way and try to take the other guys queen with your pawn? I'm a move her out of the way type of guy. Position everything the way you want and then, you check mate the other guy! He's a lunatic but he's not an idiot. You get a bigger effect out of a build up than you would out of a single strike.<hr></blockquote>

I guess it depends on your style of chess :D Given the fact that proceeding the 11 Sept, 2001 attack Usama and his boys were running their mouths about how they would make the USA howl, and their stated goal is to bring down the great "Satan".

Personaly I think Usama is an Idiot, look at what he did, he brought a box cutter to a gun fight. A gun fight with the baddest SOB in the world, then he was not able to really follow up his first thrust with anything more than a jab. And now he has this "I got nukes" threat, after the USA news media has spent weeks talking about what if he gets nukes! Usama is puffing his orginization up, just like a animal that is facing a bigger animal.

Usama is a good tacticain (sp?) he struck at our economy while we are in a ression in hopes of bringing us down. He knows that we are in a death fight, the big question is do we?

The point should also be made that it was printed in a Pakistani newspaper. They share a border which ther can't control and he has the most to gain from bringing down there government quickly. So it is possible that this may have been a bit of sensationalism for the front page, just a thought.

It has been said by Yorick before now and I think it applies here - they are just trying to sell papers. This is possibly the one thing that will sell papers by the cart load in Pakistan right now.
(OMG! I never thought I would use the word "Yorick" without "I don't agree with..." before it!! I suppose there is a first time for everything...)

Please don't take that too seriously Yorick, please...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ryanamur:
Yorick, glad to see you back. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I really hate to say it but the only way to deal with these people (IMO) is to kill them before they kill us! :( I know it's immoral but since they will never stop, that's the only viable option for us. :(

BTW: don't let yourself be affected by terrorists. I know you're intelligent enough to realize that if you fear, they've won. Life is no more dangerous now than before 9-11. In fact, it's less dangerous for the simple reason that we now know that there's a threath. I know you're a religeous man (please recongnize that my intent is not malicious) ask God for guidance. I'm sure you'll find out that you are not to fear but to live. That's why He put you on this Earth isn't it?

Cheers and hang in there my friend.
<hr></blockquote>

Thankyou my friend. [img]smile.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
The point should also be made that it was printed in a Pakistani newspaper. They share a border which ther can't control and he has the most to gain from bringing down there government quickly. So it is possible that this may have been a bit of sensationalism for the front page, just a thought.

It has been said by Yorick before now and I think it applies here - they are just trying to sell papers. This is possibly the one thing that will sell papers by the cart load in Pakistan right now.
(OMG! I never thought I would use the word "Yorick" without "I don't agree with..." before it!! I suppose there is a first time for everything...)

Please don't take that too seriously Yorick, please...<hr></blockquote>

[img]smile.gif[/img] I won't. I think we got off on the wrong foot mate. You walked into a thread that was the result of provocation (plenty of it unwitting), frustration and despair.

Apparently we agree on matters metaphysical though mate.

Oh, and I love Britain too. [img]smile.gif[/img] Believe it or not.

It's highly unlikely bin shiten has nukes, first of all, it's unlikely he could get a nuke missle, let alone the technical equipment (computers, launchpads ect..) to lauch the missle. If he did have one it would be a something he'd have to get in by plane... And with the security as tight as it is I highly doubt a big metal container with a biohazard sticker on it would get anywhere near the US... Even so.. you can't buy a nuke at a corner store...

Chemical weapons I'm not so sure about, although I especially hope he doesn't have viral weapons (virus). One modified cold virus and you could make anthrax look like the flu in comparison...

BTW... Don't get so scared about bin shiten.. he's a TERRORist..meaning he tries to scare people.. don't let him get to you..

Love from Canada.

I don't think Bin Ladin has nukes either. I think he would have used them if he had, even if he did want to lead up to it with suicide planes against the WTC; the start of attacks against the Taliban would have been the perfect time to use them, from his standpoint. But he has not.

Unfortunately he doesn't need ICBM's or even planes to deliver them. Back in WWII when they were still figuring out how to build nukes in the first place and they thought they would be really big (in size), the original plan was to just sail the nuke into a harbor in a ship and set it off. There is no reason that wouldn't work now. Most cargo
comes in those huge containers and many don't get opened by customs. But even if they all were, you could just set off the bomb before the ship gets to customs. As long as the ship is in port,,,

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Witchdoctor:
I don't think Bin Ladin has nukes either. I think he would have used them if he had, even if he did want to lead up to it with suicide planes against the WTC; the start of attacks against the Taliban would have been the perfect time to use them, from his standpoint. But he has not.

Unfortunately he doesn't need ICBM's or even planes to deliver them. Back in WWII when they were still figuring out how to build nukes in the first place and they thought they would be really big (in size), the original plan was to just sail the nuke into a harbor in a ship and set it off. There is no reason that wouldn't work now. Most cargo
comes in those huge containers and many don't get opened by customs. But even if they all were, you could just set off the bomb before the ship gets to customs. As long as the ship is in port,,,<hr></blockquote>


well, you have to realize that if the nuke is set off on ground, the damage will be significantly reduced

as I learnt six years ago back in high school, there are two ways to launch a nuke depending on purposes. one is to drop the bomb from a plane, this way covers widest area and kills most of the ground targets. the second is to drop the nuke and set it off close to the ground, the explosion would destroy bunkers and underground units but covers significantly smaller areas

I learnt this six years ago, so the technology may be much different back then.

Nuke and missile are quite separate things. For sure he has no missile able to carry nuclear weapon across ocean. I dont know if he has usable nuclear head, I believe he would already use it: in response for american attacks in Afghanistan, presence in Saudi Arabia.
IMHO or how would I use nuclear head: small truck in centre of city and suicidal operator.
Talking about missiles and planes is a big misunderstanding . Also biological and chemical weapons wont be used with missiles. Accurate and long range missiles are very rare and expensive, only US, Russia and China can afford it. They are not pocket weapons. Continental ballistic missiles requires a lot of infrastructure. Iraqui SCUD missiles mounted on vehicles after adaptation had range 600 km. Korean test missiles have range more then 1000km. But accuracy! No country will risk to launch nuclear/chemical/biological missile against US or Israel because missile can be tracked - all countries will know who launched missile.

I do not believe he has one because I don't believe he would "tip his hand" by admitting it. If he did have one, the only reason for not using it, up to this point, would be as Ryanamur stated to wait for something big.

I don't believe he would wait too long.

Just a small addition. Two Pakistanis nuclear researchers admited to have met with Al-Queda members in Afghanistan. That was on CNN this morning.

Up 'til now, the Bush Administration said they had no reports of possible nukes in Al-Queda's hands... this could prove to be one such report.

BTW: Please everyone, don't be scared about Bin having nukes. Just live life as it's meant to be lived: have fun!

Osama Bin Laden or any other terrorist's use of a nuke does not worry me as much as the after effect :(

The death and devastation caused by the use of a single terrorist nuke is nothing compared to the events that could be set in motion by such an attack.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
Osama Bin Laden or any other terrorist's use of a nuke does not worry me as much as the after effect :(

The death and devastation caused by the use of a single terrorist nuke is nothing compared to the events that could be set in motion by such an attack.<hr></blockquote>


I totally agree with you here, it would be a VERY different world. In fact, I'm not as worried of Bin Ladden using nukes than of Bush's reaction! Just my opinion!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ryanamur:



I totally agree with you here, it would be a VERY different world. In fact, I'm not as worried of Bin Ladden using nukes than of Bush's reaction! Just my opinion!<hr></blockquote>

Bush's initial response won't include nuclear weapons for the same reasons they haven't been used in combat since 1945. A response to Bin Laden's nuclear use just might change that!

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


Bush's initial response won't include nuclear weapons for the same reasons they haven't been used in combat since 1945. A response to Bin Laden's nuclear use just might change that!

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]<hr></blockquote>

I'm not worried about Bush using nukes to strike at Afghanistan. He's surrounded by intelligent men that sort of compensate for is lack of it. No, it's his response to a nuclear weapon being detonated on American soil that worries me. In fact, I'm more scared of Bush than I'm of Bin Ladden!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ryanamur:
I'm more scared of Bush than I'm of Bin Ladden!<hr></blockquote>

Sorry you feel that way. :(

If someone detonates a nuke on American soil, Bush won't be the only American to make people nervous.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]</p>

Contray to what you might have heard, a nuclear device is relatively easy to assemble and could fit into the boot of an average car. It is not inconceivable to rent an office on the 100th floor of an office block and detonate it there to get the maximum damage effect.

The only difficult part is obtaining weapons grade plutonium. But since Russia has been:
a) having problems with maintaining and monitoring its 'ancient' nuclear stockpile and
b) some weapons grade plutonium has gone missing in the past from Russian stockpiles and
c)the Russian mafia there are serious players with their hands in everything and have been suspected of having dealt with small amounts of the stuff in the past,
it's only a matter of time before an 'undesirable' gets hold of some...


sleep tight!

Even before the 11th Sept incident people has been saying that Al Qaeda has a few Tactical nuclear weapon. I think that if Osama did have nuclear weapons it would have already been smuggled into United States in anticipation for the Wtc bombing.

When things starts getting desperate for him....BOOOOOM!!!. "I have another Nuclear Bomb if the Infidels Don't retreat I will detonate it!":-@
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++

That is truly a doomsday scenario where all Hell breaks loose :(

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


Sorry you feel that way. :(

If someone detonates a nuke on American soil, Bush won't be the only American to make people nervous.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]<hr></blockquote>

No but Bush is really to only American that can take the actions in his own hand and authorize the launch of nuclear device... I really doubt that his advisers would be able to contain him like they did after the 9-11 strike!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Skunk:
Contray to what you might have heard, a nuclear device is relatively easy to assemble and could fit into the boot of an average car. It is not inconceivable to rent an office on the 100th floor of an office block and detonate it there to get the maximum damage effect.

The only difficult part is obtaining weapons grade plutonium. But since Russia has been:
a) having problems with maintaining and monitoring its 'ancient' nuclear stockpile and
b) some weapons grade plutonium has gone missing in the past from Russian stockpiles and
c)the Russian mafia there are serious players with their hands in everything and have been suspected of having dealt with small amounts of the stuff in the past,
it's only a matter of time before an 'undesirable' gets hold of some...


sleep tight!<hr></blockquote>

Thanks Skunk,

I've been trying to point out for quite a while now that nuclear device can be delivered by other means than missiles. I'm glad you pointed this out in more eloquant terms than I did. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Let's not forget about Pakistan, India, China and a few other third world countries who also have the capability of generating the appropriate kind of plutonium.

It is, IMO, quite feasible for Al-Queda to have nuclear weapons (most likely already positionned within the US/Canada/Europe ready to be detonated at a specific time (let's say the Olympics) or if he is captured or killed!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ryanamur:


No but Bush is really to only American that can take the actions in his own hand and authorize the launch of nuclear device... I really doubt that his advisers would be able to contain him like they did after the 9-11 strike!<hr></blockquote>

The presidency just doesn't work like that. Bush doesn't have a free hand to do whatever he pleases. The US government is a series of checks and balances between the three branchs of government. He is not a dictator and has not acted like one in this situation. The President of the United States has to operate within parameters and in conjuction with Congress.

He doesn't have his hand hovering over the "button" thinking, "go ahead, make my day." "Dirty Georgie" he is not... :D

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


The presidency just doesn't work like that. Bush doesn't have a free hand to do whatever he pleases. The US government is a series of checks and balances between the three branchs of government. He is not a dictator and has not acted like one in this situation. The President of the United States has to operate within parameters and in conjuction with Congress.

He doesn't have his hand hovering over the "button" thinking, "go ahead, make my day." "Dirty Georgie" he is not... :D

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]<hr></blockquote>

OK, but who, under the current US law as the sole power to authorize the launch (or use) or nuclear weapons? Only one person can do it: the President of the United States. It's within his power and he doesn't have to go to Congress or the Senate for that. (plus he already has their approval: the bill to fight terrorism authorized him to use "every means available").

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not affraid of Bush sending the world 20 minutes from now to nuke Afghanistan. What worries me is his retaliation to a nuclear strike on US soil (or another allied country).

(For some reason, everytime I talk about Bush and nukes, the image of that Texan pilot ridding his load in Dr Strangelove comes to my mind... maybe that's why the guy scares the crap out of me!!! :D [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] )

I should also point out, as a Brit, that there is absolutely nothing stopping Blair firing nukes off at anyone he likes. It is one of the most overlooked and scary aspects of Prime Ministerial power - the authorisation for nucleur missiles to be fired comes straight from Blair with no consitutional checks holding him back. And there is nothing in place to reprimand him if he does with the exception of Parliament which he shows complete contempt for. As Skunk says: Sleep Tight guys!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ryanamur:


OK, but who, under the current US law as the sole power to authorize the launch (or use) or nuclear weapons? Only one person can do it: the President of the United States. It's within his power and he doesn't have to go to Congress or the Senate for that. (plus he already has their approval: the bill to fight terrorism authorized him to use "every means available").

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not affraid of Bush sending the world 20 minutes from now to nuke Afghanistan. What worries me is his retaliation to a nuclear strike on US soil (or another allied country).

(For some reason, everytime I talk about Bush and nukes, the image of that Texan pilot ridding his load in Dr Strangelove comes to my mind... maybe that's why the guy scares the crap out of me!!! :D [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] )<hr></blockquote>

AH-HAH! Now we get to the root of it. It's all Hollywood's fault..lol. :D

Bush w/couldn't fire a nuke without consulting Congress just as he does with everything else, but maybe, in theory... I find it hard to believe their aren't some pretty serious guidelines. I'll have to do some research. He'll consult Congress though if for no other reason than he won't want to take all the blame and there certainly won't be any glory [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]</p>

I find it hard to believe that Bush has to seek the permission of congress in all situationsif he can fire a nuclear weapon...

What happens if china launches an all out attack at 4.00 am? With just 20 minutes flight time, do you really think that he would have to summon congress to a meeting in order to retaliate? Maybe the rules say that he should seek the approval of congress - but I think he has the means to act unilaterally if he feels he needs to...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Skunk:
I find it hard to believe that Bush has to seek the permission of congress in all situationsif he can fire a nuclear weapon...

What happens if china launches an all out attack at 4.00 am? With just 20 minutes flight time, do you really think that he would have to summon congress to a meeting in order to retaliate? Maybe the rules say that he should seek the approval of congress - but I think he has the means to act unilaterally if he feels he needs to...<hr></blockquote>


Not the whole of congress, but the leadership. They are in constant contact in situations like this. He would consult them just as he would his advisors. It's not like someone could tell him "it's coming", and then he runs for the button. He wouldn't fire without confirmation and while they seek confirmation, consultations will be held, it's just the way it works. In that situation he probably could do it if they didn't agree, but they would be notified. With an inbound nuclear ICBM who's going to disagree? ;)

The situation with Osama Bin Laden is different because it's not something that will be seen on the radar, but instead, discovered and stopped before hand (hopefully) or pointed out by a mushroom cloud. In the case of the latter, he would have to consult, and I don't think he could/would do it without approval. The world would certainly be against it, if for no other reason than the precident it would set, so he'd have to be damn sure his country was behind him.

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]</p>

I don't know how good a news source this is, but here's something I didn't want to hear about terrorist nukes.

http://frontierpost.com.pk/main.asp?...te1=11/10/2001

Thoughts on the legitimacy of this article?

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


AH-HAH! Now we get to the root of it. It's all Hollywood's fault..lol. :D

Bush w/couldn't fire a nuke without consulting Congress just as he does with everything else, but maybe, in theory... I find it hard to believe their aren't some pretty serious guidelines. I'll have to do some research. He'll consult Congress though if for no other reason than he won't want to take all the blame and there certainly won't be any glory [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]<hr></blockquote>

Yes, it's all Hollywood's fault (well, not totally, I don't base my information solely on Crimson Tide) [img]smile.gif[/img] :D

The fact remains that under the Constitution the President as the responsability to defend the country with any means available to him. In the case of an attack at 4:00, he would not consult with Congress or the Senate, he's just say "yes, retaliate" to the watch officier in Cheyenne Mountain and from there, the whole sequence of action would go.

As we speak, Bush can use Nuclear weapons to fight terrorism without discussing it with either Congress or the Senate. He's already go the approval of both bodies to fight "terrorism with ALL means available to him". So, if he desired to do so, he could authorize a nuclear strike on that 30sq miles of mountain and nobody in the US chambers could say anything about it because they already approved it!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ryanamur:

As we speak, Bush can use Nuclear weapons to fight terrorism without discussing it with either Congress or the Senate. He's already go the approval of both bodies to fight "terrorism with ALL means available to him". So, if he desired to do so, he could authorize a nuclear strike on that 30sq miles of mountain and nobody in the US chambers could say anything about it because they already approved it!<hr></blockquote>


But something would be said about it, he knows it and they know it. What they said and what they meant are clear. "Do what you have to do and we're watching." The use of nuclear weapons has not been approved since 1945, and even then, before weapons of mass destruction worries, the usage was discussed with the leadership because of the weapon's previously unheard of power.

None of us know the exact requirements for the launch of nuclear weapons, but based on the lack of use, it's pretty obvious it's not as easy as one man deciding. Admittedly, the safeguards were mainly due to fear of accidentally incurring a retaliatory strike from the Soviets. I doubt those safeguards have been removed with the fall of the Soviet Union. He would consult because it's the constitutional thing to do.

BTW, will someone check and resize their post so this page will all fit on the same screen without scrolling left to right?

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:

BTW, will someone check and resize their post so this page will all fit on the same screen without scrolling left to right?

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]<hr></blockquote>

I don't have any problems with left-right scrolling on my screen. What resolution are you on? I'm 1024x768 but I think the board runs on 800x600.