fascinating and ty for posting.

Does it make you feel better or worse about Clinton?

oh and btw....

Keine mehr Politik....blah!!!

Why does it matter how I feel? Clintons no longer President, how I feel about his outdated plans are pointless. I do wonder what kind of "tougher stance" people are concerned about. How much tougher can you get on North Korea than by dropping nukes on them from a fleet of F15-E's??

Why does it matter how I feel?

I was just asking out of curiosity.... because you brought up the subject of wondering what he would have done after 9/11.... and obviously you found the subject interesting enough to blog about....

Why does it matter how I feel? Clintons no longer President, how I feel about his outdated plans are pointless. I do wonder what kind of "tougher stance" people are concerned about. How much tougher can you get on North Korea than by dropping nukes on them from a fleet of F15-E's??

Well... dropping nukes on NK while the better part of 37,000 US service members were within easy strike range from NK's long range artillery is one thing... You don't have to be too much of an analyst to see what the tougher stance might include after you read this - Joint Security Area Quietly Handed Over To ROK Forces.

Here's how I feel: No rational civilization should ever, ever deploy its atomic arsenal against another group of humans. EVER.

But to be honest, there have been times when Ive talked about needing to "glass those people over", whoever "those people" might be. I seem to remember saying that quite alot after 09/11. Of course everyone knows sand is turned into glass when exposed to very high temperatures, like those of thermonuclear weapons.

So, I don't think Clinton should have been planning that, although I know I've felt like doing it myself from time to time.

presumably there are also plans 1 thru 5026?  or do they just pick that kinda number outta a hat?  i strongly doubt the clinton administration was alone in having such a contingency.  even if that were the case, the fact of the matter it isnt predicated on a preemptive attack.   admittingly it was unilateral i guess because ummm nk didnt have any of them nuculur devices...or so theyd have you believe. 

Here's how I feel: No rational civilization should ever, ever deploy its atomic arsenal against another group of humans. EVER.

And I will accept that answer. Thank you.

So, I don't think Clinton should have been planning that, although I know I've felt like doing it myself from time to time.

presumably there are also plans 1 thru 5026? or do they just pick that kinda number outta a hat? i strongly doubt the clinton administration was alone in having such a contingency. even if that were the case, the fact of the matter it isnt predicated on a preemptive attack. admittingly it was unilateral i guess because ummm nk didnt have any of them nuculur devices...or so theyd have you beli

I think that all presidents have probably had similar oplans. They are contingency plans to take action under specific conditions. Not 'What should we do today' plans. It would not surprise me if there were similar declassed documents for every president back to WWII. In fact, the use of the atomic bombs during WWII were probably folowing a plan very similar to this one.

I know during there were plans to use Nukes in a hypothetical NATO-Warsaw Pact ground war to give American forces time to arrive in Europe, though the weirdest logic in those scenarios was the bigger one side was winning, the more likely they would use Nukes first... because they knew it was only a matter of time before the losing side would throw them up first.

This reminds me of the Sum of All Fears, the book not the lame thing that was the movie. In it, the president, a very unstable characteer that many thought was modeled after Clinton, wanted to nuke Iran after Terrorists nuked the Superbowl.

Jack Ryan stopped that from happening. But in reality, it does look like something Clinton would come up with. After all, he was bombing Serbia from 15k feet, and 'accidently' hit the Chinese embassy.

As far as 'never' using them, that is not really an option, altho the threat of using them is greatly diminished with the downfall of the soviet union. Still there are the chinese to contend with. While I fully support them as a 'last resort', I would not advocate never using them. That would just play into the hands of rogue nations like NK.