U.S. Policy calls for Nuclear Retaliation

by Bill Levinson

It is well known that militant “Islamic” terrorists have no regard whatsoever for human life, and their use of chemical weapons against Iraqi civilians simply underscores this fact. Before they think of using a similar weapon against Americans, they should remember that American policy is that nuclear = chemical = biological. The United States makes no distinction between the use of any kind of weapon of mass destruction (i.e. nuclear, chemical, or biological) against its Armed Forces or homeland, and reserves the right to retaliate in kind. Since the United States does not possess biological or chemical munitions, the nature of the retaliation should be obvious. We would not only support but demand the use of tactical nuclear weapons were Michael Moore’s “Minutemen” to use WMDs on our men and women in uniform, as long as it could be accomplished without harm to innocent bystanders.

Let us say up front that the United States has openly contemplated the use of nuclear weapons in response to a chemical or biological attack:

http://www.fpif.org/faq/0111bioterror.html The policy now in place allows for nuclear weapons to be used in response to a chemical or biological weapons attack; against facilities for chemical and biological weapons (CBW) production or storage; or against an enemy thought to be preparing a CBW attack. This is part of a policy called counterproliferation, a military response to the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). There is strong pressure from the Department of Energy weapons labs, from some officials in the administration, and a small number of military personnel for the development of new, smaller nuclear weapons that could be used for such counterproliferation missions. If the U.S. suffers a large number of casualties in a biological attack, the probability of nuclear retaliation would be high.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/
airchronicles/apj/apj03/spr03/conley.html
Sen. Jesse Helms: Suppose somebody used chemical weapons or poison gas on people in the United States. . . . Would they damn well regret it?
Secretary of Defense William Perry: Yes.
Helms: I want to know what the response will be if one of these rogue nations uses poison gas or chemical weaponry against either us or our allies. . . . What is the response of this country going to be?
Perry: Our response would be devastating.
Helms: Devastating- to them?
Perry: To them, yes. . . . And I believe they would know that it would be devastating to them.
Helms: Let the message go out.

- Testimony of Secretary of Defense William Perry
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
28 March 1996

The New York Times reports,

BAGHDAD, Feb. 21 — A truck bomb that combined explosives with chlorine gas blew up in southern Baghdad on Wednesday, and officials said it might represent a new and deadly tactic by insurgents against Iraqi civilians.

It was at least the third truck bomb in a month to employ chlorine, a greenish gas also used in World War I, which burns the skin and can be fatal after only a few concentrated breaths. The bomb killed at least two people and wounded 32 others, many of them sent to hospitals coughing and wheezing, police and medical officials said.

This is, of course, a blatant violation of the Hague Convention, which bans the use of poison gas as a weapon. It is no surprise, of course, that barbaric savages that saw people’s heads off while shooting bound women (Margaret Hassan) in their heads have no regard for the rules of war, but this is partially our own government’s fault. Instead of bleating over the “rights” of the war criminals who are interned at Guantanimo, our Armed Forces should be holding weekly court-martials to try insurgents who are captured while disguised as civilians. Upon conviction, they should then be put up against the nearest wall and shot. This was standard practice by all parties to the World Wars, noting that a spy has no protection whatsoever under the Hague and Geneva Conventions.

The same goes for insurgents who have murdered civilians. There is an excellent scene from the BBC Sharpe series in which Richard Sharpe and his riflemen capture two French cavalrymen in the act of raping and murdering Spanish civilians. Their brigadier general rode up to Sharpe under a flag of truce and demanded the return of his men. Sharpe replied by telling his men to form a firing squad, and then having the two prisoners shot right in front of their commander. The Duke of Wellington, in fact, ordered his provosts (military police) to hang British soldiers whom they caught robbing or otherwise abusing civilians (as did Henry V during his campaign in France), so it is hard to see why the French expected more lenient treatment for far worse crimes.

The basic problem is that terrorists are, per the Left’s insistence, treated as human beings with rights, or even as prisoners of war who are obliged to give only their names, ranks, and serial numbers. The latter (treatment of terrorists as POWs) is an insult to every honorable man and woman in uniform on this planet. During the Sepoy Mutiny, the British tied terrorists across the muzzles of cannons to be blown in half. General Pershing had militant Islamic terrorists executed with bullets greased in pig fat. Germans who disguised themselves in American uniforms were shot upon capture during the Second World War, as were Nazi “werewolves” who tried to terrorize Allied forces after the German surrender. Our failure to apply exactly the same standards, which are generally accepted under the international laws of war, is directly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis along with thousands of our own men and women in uniform. Our failure to enforce the policy “chemical = biological = nuclear” could kill tens of thousands more–possibly in the United States if the terrorists manage to get hold of a chemical truck.

---

---

Related: War Against Islamo-fascism, Iraq, Terrorist Groups

---