UK Warns Saddam of Nuclear Retaliation

[Guest guest]

you know, the british REALLY don't have to follow our lead..its cool..do yer

own thing! don't fall in line behind our usurper....

 

 

UK Warns Saddam of Nuclear Retaliation

by George Jones, Political Editor and Anton La Guardia

March 21, 2002

 

BRITAIN would be ready to make a nuclear strike against states such as Iraq

if they used weapons of mass destruction against British forces, Geoff Hoon,

the Defense Secretary, told MPs yesterday.

 

He issued his warning as officials in Washington and London privately

predicted that military action to try to topple Saddam Hussein was likely to

be launched at the end of the year.

 

Mr Hoon was briefing the Commons defense select committee on the threat posed

by four countries Britain had identified as " states of concern " : Iraq, Iran,

Libya and North Korea.

 

He said that Saddam had already used chemical weapons against his own people.

The possibility that rogue states would be prepared to use such weapons

again, possibly sacrificing their own population, could not be ruled out.

 

He said that dictators such as Saddam " can be absolutely confident that in

the right conditions we would be willing to use our nuclear weapons. " What I

cannot be absolutely confident about is whether that would be sufficient to

deter them from using a weapon of mass destruction in the first place. "

 

Mr Hoon's willingness to confirm readiness to use nuclear weapons in such

circumstances was seen at Westminster as a clear sign that the Government is

becoming more alarmed that Saddam is developing chemical, biological and

nuclear weapons.

 

A joint Ministry of Defense and Foreign Office paper to the committee said it

was a " serious cause for concern " that states were developing a ballistic

missile capability at the same time as they were seeking to acquire weapons

of mass destruction.

 

Mr Hoon said that Britain could come within range of missiles fired from the

Middle East within the " next few years " .

 

Although Mr Hoon later denied in the Commons that any decision had been taken

on military action against Iraq, his comments about the nuclear deterrent

will add to Labour MPs' concern that such preparations are being actively

considered.

 

His forthrightness was unexpected, because many Labour MPs are opposed to

retaining nuclear weapons.

 

In the 1980s Labour was unilateralist and Tony Blair was briefly a member of

the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, although as party leader he has backed

the nuclear deterrent.

 

Mr Hoon's comments follow similar noises from America. Two weeks ago a leaked

Pentagon policy document laid out the possibility of a " devastating response "

to the use of biological or chemical weapons against American troops.

 

The Prime Minister intends to use the large deployment of British fighting

forces to Afghanistan as a political lever to push President Bush into

seeking United Nations approval for any military action against Iraq.

 

He supports Mr Bush in his campaign to remove Iraq's weapons of mass

destruction and topple Saddam, but wants to broaden the front. Downing Street

hopes the deployment to Afghanistan of 1,700 British troops, led by 45

Commando the Royal Marines, a unit specializing in Arctic warfare, will

strengthen his position when he meets Mr Bush at his Texas ranch after

Easter.

 

" The speed and size of the deployment to Afghanistan is a check that Blair

will cash in, " a source said. " He will tell Bush that he needs to carry the

international community with him. "

 

The Foreign Office, in particular, is deeply worried about the impact that a

war in Iraq would have on the Middle East. But it appears to have been

overruled by Mr Blair.

 

" The Prime Minister thinks Saddam poses a threat that has to be met with a

strong response, " a source said. " He is feeling gung-ho. " Whitehall officials

said that America first made its request for commandos at the height of

Operation Anaconda this month in a " panicky " response to the unexpectedly

fierce resistance Taliban and al-Qa'eda fighters put up in the mountains

south of Kabul.

 

The United States suffered its biggest casualties of the war on the opening

day of Anaconda, when eight Americans and at least three Afghan allies were

killed.

 

This week America said Anaconda had been successful, but British officials

privately spoke of " a near disaster " and said many guerrillas appeared to

have slipped away despite American claims to have killed hundreds of the

enemy.

 

Dick Cheney, the American vice-president, headed home yesterday after an

11-day tour of the Middle East in which he received little support for an

attack on Iraq. Instead he was urged to do more to end the fighting between

Israel and the Palestinians.

 

As Iraq gloated about Mr Cheney's " bitter disappointment " , the Turkish prime

minister, Bulent Ecevit, said he felt greatly relieved that Washington was

not planning imminent action against Iraq. " This does not mean an operation

has been ruled out, " he said. " But I do not think there could be military

action in the coming few months. "

 

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Nuclear-Danger.html

Nuclear Weapons Talk on the Rise

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

March 22, 2002

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In rhetoric and reality, nations around the world seem to

be creeping toward a new military philosophy that doesn't rule out using

nuclear weapons on the battlefield or to settle regional disputes.

 

There are signs that ``the unthinkable'' is being redefined to accommodate

new anxieties and advancing technology.

 

President Bush and the British government have warned terrorists with weapons

of mass destruction that ``all options'' are open for a military response.

 

Military officials in both India and Pakistan have openly discussed how their

nuclear weapons would prove superior to their neighbors' in a conflict. The

CIA believes North Korea has produced enough plutonium for at least one

nuclear weapon and still has designs to claim South Korea.

 

Those who watch attitudes toward nuclear weapons say the ``temperature'' is

rising.

 

``The world is searching for a new status quo, that will involve new players

and new dangers,'' said Ret. Army Col. Daniel Smith, who is chief of research

at the Washington-based Center for Defense Information.

 

``Our nuclear posture seems to move us closer toward use of nuclear weapons

in a conflict even against a country that has no nuclear weapons of any

kind,'' he said. ``The belief that countries that do develop chemical or

biological weapons would be able to blackmail the United States is prompting

us to look into ways to change the equation.''

 

Part of what is causing the renewed discussion of nuclear weapons is the idea

that they can be scaled down and used in a limited fashion, so as not to

bring about a doomsday scenario.

 

The United States demolished the Japanese city of Hiroshima with an atomic

bomb that had an explosive yield of 13 kilotons -- equivalent to 13,000 tons

of TNT. In its arsenal now are weapons that dwarf those -- some with

explosive yields of many megatons (millions of tons of TNT). The nation wants

to develop weapons about a quarter of the size of those used in World War II.

 

The Defense Department has asked Congress for permission to develop such

bombs for demolishing fortified, underground military facilities.

 

But even if the nuclear weapons are smaller, the United States is setting a

harmful precedent by developing them, some say.

 

Atomic pioneer Hans Bethe and fellow Nobel laureates Dudley Herschbach and

John Polanyi condemned the plan for ending the taboo against using nuclear

weapons ``beyond their Cold War function of deterring a Soviet attack.''

 

The threat of nuclear weapons being used in regional conflicts has also never

been greater. Rivals India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons in 1998.

 

Since then, the situation has worsened.

 

The conflict over Kashmir, a territory that sits along the border between the

countries, brought the neighbors to the brink of war this year.

 

This week CIA Director George Tenet said, ``The chance of war between these

two nuclear-armed states is higher than at any point since 1971.''

 

``If India were to conduct large-scale offensive operations into Pakistani

Kashmir, Pakistan might retaliate with strikes of its own in the belief that

its nuclear deterrent would limit the scope of an Indian counterattack. We

are deeply concerned, however, that a conventional war, once begun, could

escalate into nuclear confrontation.''

 

Even in a regional war, the effect could be horrific.

 

M.V. Ramana, a Princeton University physicist from India, calculated that a

15-kiloton bomb dropped on Bombay would kill between 150,000 and 850,000

people in the short term.

 

There are also trouble spots in East Asia.

 

In late January, a CIA report assessed that ``North Korea has produced enough

plutonium for at least one, and possibly two, nuclear weapons.''

 

President Bush signaled his concern about North Korea two months ago when he

said the country was part of an ``axis of evil'' together with Iraq and Iran.

This week, the administration said North Korean officials need ``to comply

with their international obligations and agreements.''

 

And some experts even worry that the long-standing cold war between China and

Taiwan could reach the point where small-scale nuclear weapons could be used

one day.

 

There is so much talk about the possibility of nuclear weapons use that even

Britain, which usually remains silent in nuclear posturing, felt the need to

talk about its arsenal.

 

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and leaders of other ``states of concern''

should be aware of Britain's willingness to use nuclear weapons if

circumstances demanded, Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon said Wednesday.

 

``There are clearly some states who would be deterred by the fact that the

U.K. possesses nuclear weapons and has the willingness and ability to use

them in appropriate circumstances,'' Hoon said. But some states less friendly

to Britain, ``I would be much less confident about.''

 

Some of those who oppose the development of nuclear weapons say the United

States is worsening the situation.

 

``The approach of this administration has been to throw arms control out the

window and attempt to obtain overwhelmingly superior force against everyone,

through new weapons and missile defense,'' said Randall Forsberg, director

for the Institute for Defense and Disarmament.

 

``That is going to cause small nations to develop weapons, not stop them.''

 

On the Net:

Center for Defense Information: http://www.cdi.org/

Institute for Defense and Disarmament: http://www.idds.org/