from SLATE: >Saturday's LA [TIMES] reported that the Pentagon is drawing up plans to possibly use nukes against Iraq. Administration officials have hinted in the past that the U.S. might go nuclear if Saddam uses chemical or biological weapons. But the LAT adds that the military is also considering using nukes preemptively and without provocation to take out deep bunkers. As the paper reminds up high, these are just contingency plans and will probably end up in some archive, dusty and unused. Still, the administration's previous rhetoric about flexible nuke use has taken a step towards reality, and that's news--though not to the other papers: So far as [the columnist] can tell, the [other major US newspapers] all skipped it. Two possible explanations: One is that the papers might not have thought it was newsworthy since ... previous administrations have also warned that they might use nukes in retaliation for chem or bio attacks. (Not a solid argument; see this paragraph's third sentence.) The second, perhaps more likely, explanation: The story was in the Saturday LAT.<
Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
- [PEN-L:34166] How Affirmative Action Helped George W., ravi Mon 27 Jan 2003, 18:17 GMT
- [PEN-L:34164] [Fwd: a little ditty], ravi Mon 27 Jan 2003, 17:45 GMT
- [PEN-L:34163] RE: Re: Re: RE: $4 billion, Devine, James Mon 27 Jan 2003, 17:40 GMT
- [PEN-L:34165] Re: RE: Re: Re: RE: $4 billion, Michael Perelman Mon 27 Jan 2003, 17:48 GMT
- [PEN-L:34161] Bush admin. threatens unprovoked nuking of Iraq, Devine, James Mon 27 Jan 2003, 17:27 GMT
- [PEN-L:34160] Davos debates imperialism, Devine, James Mon 27 Jan 2003, 17:20 GMT
- [PEN-L:34157] RE: $4 billion, Devine, James Mon 27 Jan 2003, 16:01 GMT
- [PEN-L:34158] Re: RE: $4 billion, Doug Henwood Mon 27 Jan 2003, 16:45 GMT
- [PEN-L:34162] Re: Re: RE: $4 billion, Peter Dorman Mon 27 Jan 2003, 17:37 GMT