A Pentagon planning document being updated to reflect the doctrine of pre-emption declared by President Bush in 2002 envisions the use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies.
This is particularly disturbing:
One scenario for a possible nuclear pre-emptive strike in the draft would be in the case of an "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy."
Let's hope, if it ever comes to this, that they have definitive proof that that a biological attack is imminent. Given past history, I don't hold my breath.
As a Catholic, Christian and Spiritual woman, I'm becoming less "political" in the traditional sense. More and more, I see that the 2 major political parties in the U.S. follow the philosophy of "the party, right or wrong." Frankly, I'm sick of hearing it.
I do beleive that voting and involvement is important. I just don't think that it helps to make every serious issue into a partisan shouting match. These days, letting ego get in the way of truth may be deadly.
1 comment:
As far as I understand, for years, the United States took a non-first strike stance. I think that is much more ethical. I really am uncomfortable with the idea of pre-emptive strike. Politics gets in the way of truth too much for this policy to work ethically, IMO.
Post a Comment