Unexpected contingencies are sudden and unpredicted security challenges," like the Cuban Missile Crisis. "Contemporary illustrations might include a sudden regime change by which an existing nuclear arsenal comes into the hands of a new, hostile leadership group, or an opponents surprise unveiling of WMD capabilities." Ibid.

'North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya are among the countries that could be involved in immediate, potential, or unexpected contingencies. All have longstanding hostility toward the United States and its security partners; North Korea and Iraq in particular have been chronic military concerns. All sponsor or harbor terrorists, and all have active WMD and missile programs." Ibid

"Due to the combination of China's still developing strategic objectives and its ongoing modernization of its nuclear and non nuclear forces, China is a country that could be involved in an immediate or potential contingency." (p. 16-17)

"Russia maintains the most formidable nuclear forces, aside from the United States, and substantial, if less impressive, conventional capabilities. There now are, however, no ideological sources of conflict with Moscow, as there were during the Cold War. The United States seeks a more cooperative relationship with Russia and a move away from the balance-of-terror policy framework, which by definition is an expression of mutual distrust and hostility. As a. result, a [nuclear strike] contingency involving Russia, while plausible, is not expected." (p. 17)

(U) "Adjusting U.S. immediate nuclear force requirements in recognition of the changed relationship with Russia is a critical step away from the Cold War policy of mutual vulnerability and toward more cooperative relations.” (p. 17)

(S) "Russia’s nuclear forces and programs, nevertheless, remain a concern. Russia faces many strategic problems around its periphery and its future course cannot be charted with certainty. U.S. planning must take this into account. In the event that U.S. relations with Russia significantly worsen in the future, the U.S. may need to revise its nuclear force levels and posture." (p. 17)

Nuclear Posture Review Excerpts (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/npr.htm)

Resources on the Nuclear Posture Review (http://www.wslfweb.org/nukes/npr.htm)

Special Briefing on the Nuclear Posture Review (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2002/t01092002_t0109npr.html)

The Nuclear Posture Review: Reading Between the Lines (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0117-10.htm)

Just another example of how the Busheviks are ignorant bulls in our china shop.

(When the Use of Nuclear Weapons was Contemplated by the US)

<li>1946 March Deployment of Soviet army in Iran.
November Shooting down of a US plane by Yugoslavia.
<li>1948 April~June Sealing off of West Berlin by Soviet Union.
<li>1950 June Break-out of Korean War.
<li>1953 August Deterioration of Korean War.
<li>1954 April~May Offer to supply A-bomb to French Army on Vietnam front.
August China declares intent to liberate Taiwan.
<li>1956 October Second Middle East War (Suez Crisis).
<li>1958 July Coup d'etat by Iraq's military and the Taiwan Strait
crisis.
<li>1959 May Berlin issue.
<li>1961 June Same as above.
<li>1962 October Cuban missile crisis.
<li>1968 January Seizure of USS Pueblo by North Korea.
February Vietnam War (Battle of Quesan).
<li>1969 November Intensification of Vietnam War.
<li>1970 September Invasion of Jordan by Syria.
<li>1973 October Desire to halt Fourth Middle East War.
<li>1980 January Desire to halt Iran crisis.
<li>1991 January Anticipation of chemical weapons use by Iraq in Persian Gulf War

http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/peacesite/English/Stage2/2-3E.html

The importance of demonstrating
(http://www.j-n-v.org/Other_aw_documents/demonstrating.htm)

How can anybody justify the use of nucear weapons against a non-nuclear threat? Israel would be likely to use nukes against coventional forces if it were attacked. The US would be likely to use "tactical nukes" against conventional forces to say money and American soldiers lives in many situations. So to counter: The "good guys" are the most likely of any to commit the greivous and inexcusable act of nuclear weapon deployment. The past is testimony to this in the US's usage of TWO nuclear weapons against civillian targets in japan, when even using one against a millitary target would have been much more than enough. Nuclear proponents are a threat to our entire species and should not earn anyones respect for thier treason against our species.

We intuitively think that any country that wants to develop nuclear weaponry under an authoritarian form of government should be banned. I wonder who the hell we think
that we are demanding or expecting such a proposition.

Nonproliferation agreements have been made on the basis of free willing and any country
can disassociate itself with it at any given time. Thus political and diplomatic excellence it’s the key element to maintain a healthy relations among nations.

The cold war showed us clearly that possession of weapons of mass destruction is the best repellent against political instigations. Particularly in absents of intelligent diplomacy.

It is particularly interesting how the world population have eventually learned to contempt themselves with the fact that our politicians don’t necessary have to be intelligent individuals as long as they are popular. We elect political candidates based on their popularity and not on their intellectual capacity or curricular experiences to do the job. Managing and dealing with world forum without reaching for gun, requires intelligence and wisdom. It should be fair to expect that from our government. Ridiculing the international will as represented in UN, while violating many international laws it will only guaranty the legitimacy existence and propagation of terrorism.

I see the US as a corrupted world police violating its own laws to pursue its personal interests. The gangs will just have to learn to pick their places, times and method to strike back.

...And we, the ones that chose our leadership by popularity values must seat, wait and pay for the broken dishes. As simple as that!
:m: :m: