Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

1253 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FKANWP (-1)

The Lyrics Guy (539223) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138358)

First KILL ALL NON-WHITES post!

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Re:FKANWP (-1)

L0rdkariya (562469) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138381)

Thanks you for this information.

FUCK YES, MY FRIENDS! (-1)

L.Torvalds (548450) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138409)

My only caveat: Leave a few brown people behind to clean the toilets. Don't make white people do it!)

!st post? (0)

littlerubberfeet (453565) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138359)

I have always been strictly anti-nuclea wepons. I like my life

The NY Times also has... (3, Informative)

bief (532369) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138360)

...this article [nytimes.com] with a bit more detail.

The BBC is on it, not surprisingly (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3138418)

And they aren't thrilled...try looking an non-American press too. the article [bbc.co.uk]

CNN has Pentagon article removing the scare factor (2, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138361)

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/10/nuclear.weapons/i ndex.html

Re:CNN has Pentagon article removing the scare fac (2, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138514)

"scare factor". Interesting.

several years after WWII and the use of The Bomb people began to lack in their attitudes towards the threat of nuclear war. Along came Castro and Kruschev and bam again the "scare" returned. It was quickly quelled by anti-nuclear weapons treaties, end of the Cuban Missile Crisis, etc.

Now we are in the "next millenium" and what the fuck are we doing. Promoting the threat of the use to return and we're not scared of that?

Just b/c it isn't US policy right now does NOT mean it doesn't increase the risk. Empty at this time or not, that statement moves us more towards fucking midnight than we want.

Trust me.

TRY THIS URL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3138540)

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/10/nuclear.weapons/i ndex.html

Ugh (4, Insightful)

kypper (446750) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138363)

The secret report, which was provided to Congress on Jan. 8, says the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria.

I've got a lovely bunch of nuclears...
there they are all standing in a row...
big ones, small ones, ones the size of your head
Give em a twist, a flick of the wrist, that's what that monkey said.

I have to ask... what has North Korea and Russia been doing lately to deserve this?

Moderators on crack cocaine again... (0, Offtopic)

Bake (2609) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138398)

I really don't see how this can qualify as a flamebait.

Re:Ugh (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3138402)

What an idiot. You're obviously somebody who has his head in the sand and hopes nothing goes wrong.

Re:Ugh (2, Insightful)

Knunov (158076) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138451)

"I have to ask... what has North Korea and Russia been doing lately to deserve this?"

I have to ask, what makes you think you know everything that goes on in Russia, Korea or anywhere else behind closed doors?

Maybe people aren't as nice as you think.

Knunov

Re:Ugh (2)

nomadic (141991) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138476)

Oh please.

How would "surprising military developments" that did NOT involve nuclear attacks WARRANT nuclear attacks?

Re:Ugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3138515)

Well, the US seemed to think the Soviets deciding to roll over the Western Europe with their superior conventional forces would warrant a nuclear attack. Things have changed since then, I'll admit.

Re:Ugh (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3138486)

have to ask, what makes you think you know everything that goes on in Russia, Korea or anywhere else behind closed doors? Maybe people aren't as nice as you think.

Right, as we all know, all nations other than the US and the UK are populated by fundamentally evil people with fundamentally diabolical master plans. They're not worrying about their incomes or their children like we are because they receive large block grants directly from Satan in order to allow them to concentrate on the destruction of white Christians.

Re:Ugh (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3138472)

Russia is still not America's best friend. They have very different ideologies supported by a huge arsenal of poorly secured nukes.

North Korea is a brutal regime which still has eyes on South Korea and is developing weapons of mass destruction.

Weird ... (1)

NWT (540003) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138365)

The US on their way to world domination?

Re:Weird ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3138419)

No, Microsoft has taken the role by lobbying for a nuclear defense strategy. Please think of the shareholders.

thanks usa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3138370)

we love you

*BSD is dying (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3138374)

Netcraft officially confirms *BSD is dying

Yet another crippling bombshell hit th beleaguered *BSD community when recently IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for lss than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Du to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

*BSD is dying

Re:*BSD is dying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3138403)

Interesting post, but are you shure you got the rigth thread?

Yesterday's News (5, Informative)

BoyPlankton (93817) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138376)

Pentagon Explanation [cnn.com]

It's just a congressionally mandated review.

MDK (1)

Kizzle (555439) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138382)

I'm still waiting for the development of the "the worlds smallest nuclear bomb" from mdk.

Re:MDK (1)

CoolVibe (11466) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138422)

Or like the ones used in this movie (Starship Troopers) [imdb.com] by Paul verhoeven?

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3138383)

...kaboom!

See also (3, Informative)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138384)

The story at the BBC [bbc.co.uk] .

Hmm.. (5, Funny)

epsalon (518482) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138386)

Don't they know that nukes generate 8 squares of pollution, and make the entire world hate you?

Guess I've been playing too much CIV ][...

Japan (2, Troll)

Knunov (158076) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138432)

You mean like Japan, who after having 2 Made in the U.S.A. nukes dropped on their heads, are one of our best business partners as well as political allies?

There is something to be said for an adequate use of force.

Knunov

Re:Japan (-1)

returnofthe_spork (552824) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138526)

There is something to be said about killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, as well.

Re:Japan (1, Troll)

Anonymous DWord (466154) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138527)

Except they'll never forgive you for that. Nor should anyone else. Dropping a nuke after your enemy surrenders is disgusting.

There is something to be said for an adequate use of force.

Yeah? I'd love to hear it.

Re:Hmm.. (1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3138516)

We have an immature goofball running the country, with ultra-right-wing-religious loonies like Ashcroft whispering in his ear. God help us. I wonder if we will make it through the next three years.

I wonder if Sengan got Michael's usid/pw? (1)

mellonhead (137423) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138387)

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=98/12/16/193020 6&mode=flat

Uh oh... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3138388)

I guess I'll have to go blow the dust off the bomb shelter blueprints...again...

most surprising thing about this... (4, Insightful)

Maditude (473526) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138389)

... is NOT that it existed, but rather that it was published. Anyone have any insights why it wasn't kept secret?

Re:most surprising thing about this... (1)

Simba (15214) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138420)

Simple. It's an intentional leak. Its purpose is to get inside the minds of certain people so that when we invade Iraq, the reprisal for use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon use against US troops is known.

In a nutshell, we nuke and pave their asses.

The whole point of these little information splurges is to reduce the risk to American soldiers and citizens.

Re:most surprising thing about this... (1)

guile*fr (515485) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138513)

>The whole point of these little information splurges is to reduce the risk to American soldiers and citizens.

do u really believe that shit after 9/11?
sure nukes may dether rogue countries, but religious fanatics take pride in dying.

Re:most surprising thing about this... (5, Insightful)

NumberSyx (130129) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138535)

Simple. It's an intentional leak.

This is absolutly correct. Iraq is our next target in the "War on Terrorism" and GW wants to make it clear to Hussien that use of Chemical/Biological weapons against US Troops will be meant with a nuclear strike, or at the very least the possiblity of a nuclear strike. It seems to me, we are turning back the clock, returning to the Cold War era. Suggested reading to see where this MIGHT be going, read "Russian Spring" by Norman Spinrad.

It shouldn't be a secret. (1)

glrotate (300695) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138517)

It's called deterence. All they are really saing is that during the cold war our nukes were pointed at Russia and China. Now they are pointed at Russia China Iran Iraq Lybia Syria N. Korea and France. For deterence to be effective, your enemy has to know you have the weapons pointed at them. If the French don't know our missles are pointed at them, then how can they know to be afraid?

Didn't you ever see Dr. Strangelove? (3, Interesting)

isaac (2852) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138522)

The Russians built a "doomsday device" as a deterrent to nuclear aggression - but they kept it secret. Dr. Strangelove points out (as it becomes apparent that the world is, well, f*cked) that "the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost if you keep it a secret!"

Same principle here. The message is being sent through an orchestrated leak.

-Isaac

Re:most surprising thing about this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3138523)

People like to talk...

Unfortunately, this crap happen alot. I do DoD work and have heard more than one story of a classified briefing ending up on the evening news.

Leaking to the media is as bad as selling secrets to foreigh governments. At least in my biased opinion.

some more links (1)

2MuchC0ffeeMan (201987) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138391)

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/09/bush.nuclear.reut /index.html
and
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/10 /nuclear.weapons/i ndex.html

my view = this is now bush's new 'missle defense' system, threaten to blow up the world before any missles can hit the USA. sigh.

Re:some more links (1, Insightful)

yog (19073) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138447)

It seems like positive news to me. The 3/10 article you reference mentions a shift from massive retaliation to "smart" retaliation. Specifically:
Pentagon officials briefing reporters on the review in January indicated a lessening reliance on the massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons as a deterrent to attack. They said that findings called for increasing reliance on precision-guided weapons to deter attacks.
It seems to me that a new generation is in charge at the Pentagon, a post-WWII, Vietnam-scarred generation with a more realistic view of U.S. power. I'm glad to see them reappraising these 50-year-old strategies.

This not directed to you specifically (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3138529)

Those are not links, they are plaintext URLs. A link is something I can click and it opens the page. URL I have to select (click, move mouse), copy (right click, move mouse on "copy", click), paste (move mouse to address bar, right click, move mouse on "paste", click) and confirm (hit enter). Slashdot even makes this extra troublesome by inserting spaces in long strings.

Writing the HTML for a link does not a take a lot of time or work, and you only have to do it once. Making each user go through the select - copy - paste - remove space - confirm sequence is just plain impolite.

In a somewhat related story... (2, Offtopic)

VValdo (10446) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138394)

The LA Times [latimes.com] also ran a story today about the erosion of civil liberties following the Sept 11 attacks.

W

DIRTY HIPPIES AHOY!!! (-1)

L.Torvalds (548450) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138431)

Your civil liberties were/are infringed how? AH YES, AS I HAVE LONG SUSPECTED!!!! You are talking out of your ass.

We need to plan ahead (3, Insightful)

KartMan (565213) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138396)

Obviously the US has a lot of nuclear weapons sitting around, ready to be fired at any time. I, for one, am glad they are making these plans. If all of a sudden we're attacked I'd rather a large group of people spend time now planning what would be done than a few people make a quick irrational decision which could lead to global problems.

uh huh, (1)

Bake (2609) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138421)

And you don't think that the US cocking the trigger on their nukes will make other nuclear capable nations do the same thing as well?

Geez, haven't you seen WarGames?

Re:uh huh, (2)

flacco (324089) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138454)

And you don't think that the US cocking the trigger on their nukes will make other nuclear capable nations do the same thing as well?

And you honestly don't think they have already?

Re:We need to plan ahead (3, Insightful)

CodeRed (5676) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138426)

WHAT???

Hmm what can be done: Nuke them, nuke us.

Lets see.... outcome.... We dead, they dead.

Yes, thats just great, and those who survive get to live in a radiated world.

Time for you to watch a movie called "War Games" again :-P

Re:We need to plan ahead (1)

pknoll (215959) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138456)

Sounds more to me like a policy governing their use, which is a little more comforting than a "plan to use them" (my paraphrase).

As long as such a policy is public, the populace knows what may be coming. If it's debatable in the public view, the voter can show their approval of it.

Mind you, I don't see either of these things happening, but at least there's some disclosure occuring.

Re:We need to plan ahead (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3138500)

Well, but there are also a few bad points about their plans. First of all, the alliances may break over this (China, Russia), and if you like it or not, the USA isn't alone on the whole planet, and the USA cannot do everything alone, they need alliances.

Second, other states have now a new argument for developing their own nuclear weapons. Before, having nuclear weapons was not very smart, as then the USA could use their own nuclear weapons against this nation. Now, the USA says it could use nuclear weapons against all other nations, no mattter if they have nuclear weapons or not. So developing own nucelar weapons can now somwhat be a defensiv tactic ("So they will see we can defend ourselves")

Third, which nation is going to attack the USA with nuclear weapons??? Sorry, only terrorist groups could do that, even Saddam is smart enough to not do that. And nuclear weapons will only help the terrorist in their try to present themselves as VICTIMS. They are not, of course, but if suddenly the USA uses nuclear weapons against, let's say the Iran, maybe some million people will then think phrases like "the USA are devil and they kill innocent people" aren't that wrong, and the terrorist have won new supporters.

- WSK

Re:We need to plan ahead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3138508)

Yes - the United States needs plans - but they should *not* be made public - and should absolutly not be naming countries. I'm thinking here specifically Russia - who although they're security on their nuclear weapons could be improved, isn't the Cold War adversary that they used to be.

If I was Putin right now - I'd be thinking "ok - so Bush wants me to reduce my missiles, but he's telling his government that he has no problem nuking us when he needs to... sounds like I need more bombs... or a missile shield."

Hence arms races start...

What's with the Bush Imperialist Strategy... (1, Insightful)

3nd3r (560984) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138400)

For them to write an explicit report stating names of countries where this could be used? Hello - America wake the fuck up - NUKES ARE BAD

No they aren't (-1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138532)

Drop two on a country and watch how quick they surrender *cough*japan*cough*. Its the fact of mutual destruction that keeps anyone from using them. Russia knew they could wipe us out and vice versa, hence no one ever started.

"in the event of surprising military developments" (3, Insightful)

hs81 (62329) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138407)

Read the article. I love this line for a general catch all excuse for when the Pres. wants to vape a country.
On a more serious note such a reason is very dangerous as it could apply to anything.If your going to define a policy on when to use nukes then you should have the obligation to make crystal clear the situations where the nuclear option would be considered.
For any programmer out there could you imagine writing a functional spec using such loose and ambigious language?

Re:"in the event of surprising military developmen (0, Funny)

L.Torvalds (548450) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138449)

"make crystal clear the situations where the nuclear option would be considered"

So where the fuck is the deterrence value, fucky?

If I am Achmed the Arab, and I want to know America's response to a given situation, in your world, I would look it up in 'Fuckys book of America's responses'

In MY world, motha-fucka step lightly, because any attack on us MAY be answered with nuclear force. Nobody will front.

Re:"in the event of surprising military developmen (3, Insightful)

flacco (324089) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138484)

I love this line for a general catch all excuse for when the Pres. wants to vape a country.

On a more serious note such a reason is very dangerous as it could apply to anything.If your going to define a policy on when to use nukes then you should have the obligation to make crystal clear the situations where the nuclear option would be considered.

What's the point of that? If you follow that logic strictly then you simply give the enemy a road-map around the obstacle of nuclear retaliation. That catch-all phrase simply says "if you threaten our vital interests in a way we haven't anticipated, you are taking a huge risk." Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

For any programmer out there could you imagine writing a functional spec using such loose and ambigious language?

Or, even more shocking, can you imagine someone comparing national nuclear policy-making to writing the functional spec for a computer program?

Good thing (3, Insightful)

goldbishop (314303) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138408)

Personaly I think it's a good thing. In fact it concerns me that the military wasn't ready to do that earlier. Personaly I think it's all a big PR move that means absolutely nothing. During operation Dessert Storm Bush made it quite clear to Saddam that if he used any WMD weapons against him we'd reciprocate with the kind of weapons that would wipe Iraq off the face of the Earth. I don't think it was a bluff and certainly such things require planning.

It takes 2,200 warheads to cover what planners call "a full target list" (nice fluffy way of saying that we need 2200 little containers to end humanity). I'm hoping that we got those targets slected!

Re:Good thing (2)

JimPooley (150814) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138430)

During operation Dessert Storm...

Dessert Storm?

Dessert storm. (1)

gTsiros (205624) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138453)

Of course. Haven't you seen any food wars?

Re:Good thing (2)

qslack (239825) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138487)

Yeah, when we fed Iraq a giant pastry. But it wasn't just any normal pastry, we pumped it with butter, poison, and antidote...oh, wait...DOH.

Re:Good thing (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3138481)

"Dessert Storm"? What did they do - fling strawberry pies at each other? :D

Otherwise, during Desert Storm, IIRC it was actually the British who made it most clear that Baghdad could kiss its a$$ goodbye, should they consider to launch anything more lethal at Israel. They had Tridents on standby in the eastern miditerranean. Ol' Margaret is not the kind of woman to mess with ;)

Re:Good thing (2)

qslack (239825) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138503)

During Operation Dessert Storm

Yeah, when we fed Iraq a giant pastry. But it wasn't just any normal pastry, we pumped it with butter, poison, and antidote...oh, wait...DOH.

Bush-domination (1, Insightful)

johanneswilm (549816) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138413)

This is not a matter of US world domination, it is a question whether Bush and his fellow capitalist will dominate the world. What difference will it make for farmers, programmers, dentists, teachers, etc. in the US if the US-President is a more powerfull man? None! But thats the great illusion. Why did so many German soldiers go to war for Hitler? Did they imagine that they themselfs would be better of after the war, if Germany would be a huge country? The problem is the illusion of NATIONS, and the answer is to wake up and to start understand the world in terms of classes!

Re:Bush-domination (2)

flacco (324089) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138504)

The problem is the illusion of NATIONS, and the answer is to wake up and to start understand the world in terms of classes!

While there is a lot of truth in that statement, war resources are generally controlled by nations, not classes. (I know - begs the question of whether and which classes control nations).

Re:Bush-domination (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3138528)

This is insightful? Who's moderating today, Karl Marx?

Re:Bush-domination (1)

dextr0us (565556) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138537)

Thank you Karl Marx.

No shit (1)

grendel's mom (550034) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138423)

This in NOT news. The US has had nuclear contingency plans since WWII. The only significant story here is that an "official" document was "leaked." My guess is that it was 'leaked' purposely.

Wow (1)

deblau (68023) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138424)

From the article:
The classified text, however, is shot through with a worldview transformed by Sept. 11. The NPR coins the phrase "New Triad,"
and later
It calls for improvements in the ability to "exploit" enemy computer networks, and the integration of cyber-warfare into the overall nuclear war database "to enable more effective targeting, weaponeering, and combat assessment essential to the New Triad."
These guys have been playing way too much GTA3 [rockstargames.com] . And we trust them with Nukes?? What, is the next great post-911 idea to drive around Afghanistan in nuclear Fish vans?

Just a threat tactic perhaps...? (1)

diverman (55324) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138438)

I wonder if getting approval to use nuclear weapons is mostly for the threat factor, as with the cold war... Although, considering the suicidal tactics of the terrorist, this argument could be flawed.

Hmmmm...

-Alex

News for nerds! Stuff that matters! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3138445)

I can't wait to find out what the average semi-literate Linux-obsessed adolescent pimple factory thinks about the geo-political ramifications of this disturbing news. If possible, please include references to the time you and your best bud like totally blew up the world playing Civilization and I mean it was cool and all but it makes you go whoa dude too you know what I mean?

Re:News for nerds! Stuff that matters! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3138483)

Me too!

11:53 (5, Funny)

Deanasc (201050) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138446)

I guess this is why the clock just moved a little closer to midnight. If it were up to me I'd move the clock to 11:59. I have a bad gut feeling about all of this.

On the otherhand I'd kind of like to see a 1 megaton burst from 30 miles away just once. Aside from being the last thing I'd ever see if I didn't wear goggles, it's probably spectacular.

Please don't think I'm a war mongerer. I don't mean we should use it on anyone. It's just that I'm part of a generation which grew up expecting a nuclear war. Imagine my surprise when we never had one. A little grotesque disapointment that I have to actually get a day job instead of wander the desert looking for canned dog food and gasoline.

And I bet you thought that Reganite Nihilism was a thing of the 80's. Well After reading the above I realize it's alive and well living inside my subconcious. Just waiting to rear it's ugly little head. Does this mean I get to do cocaine again?

Just a little scared (1, Insightful)

dextr0us (565556) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138464)

A little freaked that just in case blowing up caves werent enough, now we've got to incinerate them. It seems that the slogan is go big or go home, which i can agree with.

I'm scared of the watchers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3138471)

Nuf' said.

sheriff (2)

halftrack (454203) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138473)

This just inhances my view that Bush is becoming the little too trigger happy sheriff putting up wanted dead and alive posters

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3138479)

Imagine a beowulf cluster of those

Nukes and Star Wars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3138485)

I've always been wondering, why isn't the Empire using nukes in the snow battle in ESB? Why isn't the federation wiping out the gungan army with nukes in TPM?

I guess it's possible nuclear energy doesn't exist in Star Wars since physics seem so different already: laser blasts travel at 200mph, and sound travel in space.

Well, DUH (2)

devphil (51341) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138489)


You didn't think all those sexy nuke explosion simulations [slashdot.org] were just to stress-test some graphics cards, did you? :-)

The bunker-buster B61-11 bomb (2)

RayChuang (10181) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138490)

I think the reason why this report was drawn up is this: the existance of the B61-11 bunker buster bomb.

Essentially, is a B61 gravity-dropped nuclear bomb in the 45-50 kT yield variant that is designed to explode after it penetrates deep into the ground. Such a weapon will easily destroy most bunker complexes, even those built deept into mountainsides. We do know that Saddam Hussein has built a whole bunch of such bunkers, and Osama bin Laden--who was trained as a construction engineer himself--has probably built similar bunkers in the mountains of Afghanistan.

next story please.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3138491)

how can this possibly be "news for nerds" ??

Time to go? (2, Funny)

gnovos (447128) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138492)

So what countries are there out there that accept expatriot Americans fleeing the madness of thier government? Preferably island countries.

Re:Time to go? (1, Funny)

flacco (324089) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138524)

So what countries are there out there that accept expatriot Americans fleeing the madness of thier government? Preferably island countries.

Costa Rica is beautiful, hospitable, and affordable.

Perhaps you've seen their new advertising campaign:

"Costa Rica - You'll come for the absence of a national nuclear policy. But you'll stay for the sun, the beaches, and the people!"

An expansion of an already existing policy . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3138494)

Ha, I knew I'd find a link [rochester.edu] to it somewhere.
to quote:


The United States should maintain the threat of nuclear retaliation with an "irrational and vindictive" streak to intimidate would-be attackers such as Iraq, according to an internal military study made public Sunday.



'Nuff said.

Not very surprising: (2, Informative)

rsidd (6328) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138495)

The US has always refused [umich.edu] to make a "no first use" pledge about nuclear weapons. The Clinton admin was "shocked" by Germany's proposal that NATO make such a pledge.

Soon after Sept 11, senior people in the military were quoted as saying that they wanted the entire Afghanistan/Middle East region to "glow with radiation." [reason.com]

So, no, I'm not surprised that the US wants to use nukes. Particularly against that axis of evil -- if you can't nuke them, who can you nuke? And if you can't nuke anyone, what are those nukes for?

Everybody Just Calm Down !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3138496)

First of all, you are all going to die anyway. Second of all, you will only wind up suffering in a nuclear attack if the blast doesn't kill you outright.

You nerds are too paranoid

War (1)

cameloid (120654) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138499)

"It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war." -- John F. Kennedy

First off.. (2)

SquierStrat (42516) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138501)

Remember almost everyone else has them too. Do you like the idea of people who HATE us and our allies having nukes and us (and our allies) not? I sure don't.

Second, this is not new stuff. Even our tank shells are depleted with uranium. Our newer missiles...all of them are what they called nuclear tipped...for some lovely explosive effects. :-)

Someone will always dominate the world militarily...unless men all around the world suddenly change their DNA patterns spontaneously. If you've got to pick from China, the U.S. and Pakistan, who would you rather it be?

Re:First off.. (1)

cameloid (120654) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138530)

Depleted uranium makes the shells denser, and hence more destructive. They are not "nuclear" weapons, as such.

Re:First off.. (1)

DaCool42 (525559) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138536)

The thing about depleted uranium shells are that they don't make huge explosions that toss radioactivity over the countryside. The keyword here is DEPLETED. As in, not very radioactive. They ARE however, very dense. That is why they are used, for armor piercing.

Pop quiz! 10 global awareness questions. (-1, Troll)

wrinkledshirt (228541) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138502)

1. Which is the only country on the planet that's used a nuclear weapon on civilians?

2. Have more Americans been killed at the hands of Iraqis, or have more Iraqis been killed at the hands of Americans?

3. Who's killed more innocent civilians? Al Quaeda in the United States, or the United States military in Afghanistan?

4. Which powerful nation recently criticized Israel for attacks that led to civilian deaths? For extra marks, has this powerful nation itself conducted military activity that's led to more civilian deaths in the same timespan since Sept 11th than Israel?

5. Who recently said that getting Bin Laden, the architect of the Sept 11th attacks, was no longer a primary military objective in Afghanistan?

6. Within 24 hours close to the end of 2001, one prominent US official said the following two statements: (1) that this wasn't a war against Afghanistan, (2) that the US military wasn't running out targets, but "Afghanistan" was. Name that official.

7. List the number of Americans being held in captivity by enemy forces even though they've had nothing to do with American foreign policy. Now, list the number of people of Arabic descent being held by American forces even though they've had nothing to do with the Sept 11th terrorist attacks.

8. Any feasible pipeline built from the oil fields just off the Caspian Sea is going to need to go through Afghanistan. True or False?

9. Define the word "Terrorism" in absolute terms. Now, in 50 words or less, state whether or not the School of the Americas trains terrorists and why.

10. Afghanistan's Taliban regime was notorious in its poor treatment of women. Now, list all the countries that have a similar record of such treatment, but are still allies of the United States.

Now, before you mod me down to troll or offtopic, first ask yourself if it's because you're afraid of the answers. Then feel free.

Watch All the Eurotrash..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3138505)

....hop on this thread and spew their Anti-American prattle

Economic Recovery (2)

Glowing Fish (155236) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138507)

I think that it is interesting that since 9-11 the economy has kept on starting and halting, not totally going into recession, but not pulling out either. Alan Greenspan says that the nation is out of recession, but it remains to be seen whether we are on the way to recovery.


I don't think that the nation is on the way to recovery, simply because the international situation remains so jittery. Businesses may be able to act normally, but how can they expand with such factors as escalting violence in Israel, clashes between Palestine and India, a war that has an uncertain course and end; and now this talk of plans for nuclear attacks?


Of course we have nuclear weapons for the purpose of attacking certain nations, and these countries shouldn't be surprised to see themselves on the list. But do we have to go around announcing to everyone that we are planning on nuking them? That seems a little extreme to me. Or just plain rude.


The bottom line is, as long as we have this free floating international violence, the economy will probably not be able to recover very much.


On the other hand, this may be Bush's roundabout plan to improve the economy by helping get consumer dollars back into the economy, I can imagine all the people thinking: "Ah well, if there is going to be a nuclear war, I might as well spend my retirement fund on a Mercedes, and enjoy it while I can!"

As a reaction to 9/11? (5, Insightful)

cybermage (112274) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138509)

If, as the article suggests, this is a reaction to the vulnerability felt after the attacks of 9/11, then it is a poorly thought-out one.

Stopping one person who is willing to die in an effort to do damage is a job for intelligence, not nukes.

Nuclear deterrence may not be at all effective against rogue nations and terrorist organizations. Do you think Hussien would actually give a crap if tens of thousands of Iraqis die simply because we bomb a place we think he's hiding. If Iraq sets off some kind of non-nuclear attack against the US, would we seriously nuke Baghdad in response? Would he care?

As for the likes of bin Laden, I would bet that if we promised to nuke him, he'd tell us where he is and setup a live television feed. This war would become US v Islam in the blink of an eye.

While we cannot put the nuclear genie back in the bottle, accepting this fact should not make the use of nuclear weapons desireable. We've had a solution for hardened fortifications for a couple millenia. While nukes might bust an unbustable bunker, so will a good old-fasioned siege.

What the world wants (2)

3seas (184403) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138511)

what the world really wants [osearth.com]

Preventitive healthcare is a common concept. So why isn't preventitive warfare?

secrets, right... (1)

light101 (317178) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138518)

Ok, let me get this straight, the LA.Times [latimes.com] gets a secret reports about a possible nuclear fiasco [latimes.com] and no one smell trouble? I mean, how often does the LA Times gets secret reports? I wouldnt think something like this just leak its way out of congress just like that at this time. According to reuters [reuters.com] the Iran's influential former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said on Sunday the United States was trying to intimidate other nations with reported contingency plans to use nuclear weapons. But then again, Powell Says Secret Nuke Report Was Routine Planning [yahoo.com] accordings again to reuters. Where is the love?

Justified Usage (3, Interesting)

Knunov (158076) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138534)

I suppose this is where I'm supposed to be apologetic for my desire to live and distrust of nations that have shown time and time and time again that they aren't really very nice people.

But, I'm not sorry. In fact, I'm quite happy about this. Let's say we find a small pox lab in Iraq. We know they have it. They know we know. What's to stop them from using it?

A 50-megaton nuke pointed at Baghdad, that's what.

For fuck's sake wake up and smell the truth. The world is not , has never been, nor probably ever will be a nice place. Peace is purchased with superior firepower.

NEVER forget that.

Knunov

B.S. in Comp. Sci from UNC@Chapel Hill [unc.edu] - Oracle DBA, Novell CNE, and UNIX/Linux/BSD administrator/user/enthusiast. I was also a Captain in the U.S.M.C. [usmc.mil] , MOS - Infantry - Force Recon, 1st Battalion [forcerecon.com] .

So, unlike the vocal majority of computer geeks here, this geek actually has a clue about warfare.

Advice (3, Funny)

baywulf (214371) | more than 12 years ago | (#3138539)

From: George W. Bush
Bcc: leader@china.com, leader@russia.com, leader@iraq.com, leader@iran.com, leader@northkorea.com, leader@libya.com, leader@syria.com
Subject:I send you this file in order to have your advice...

Almighty Bomb (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3138542)

The heavens declare the glory of the bomb. And the firmament showeth his handiwork.


His sound is gone out unto all lands. And his light unto the ends of the world


He descended from the outermost part of heaven. And there is nothing hid from the heat thereof. There is neither speech nor language, But His voice is
heard among them.


Praise him. My strength and my redeemer.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>