So when will * start suggesting the use of nukes?

[Deja Q]

I'm surprised he hasn't so far.

But with more countries he wants to fight, he's going to run out of willing troops.

The world already hates him and * will do what * wants anyway, who cares what we think.

So why's he holding back?

[7th_Sephiroth]

1. thats the october suprise

"Unka Karl, we gots all these nukes, lets justt use them"

[TexasProgresive]

2. self delete-wrong thread

[patricia92243]

3. I thought he already had. Wants to build "suitcase" size nukes.

[Eric J in MN]

4. Bush changed our "nuclear posture" years ago to allow first-strikes (nt)

nt

[snippy]

5. He really wants to use a nuke. So do Cheney and Rumsfeld.

They want small nuclear bunker busters ASAP and keep pushing for their development. Never mind that scientists and military people keep telling them that there still would be fallout from using such weapons. PNAC believes that the world can be cowed into submission to the US only if the US uses its military power, including nukes.

[kayell]

6. I don't think he will until after the election/selection/theft/non-occuran

If he wins, he will probably go ahead with anything his microscopic heart and mind desire. I don't put anything past him.

If he loses, he may use them against a "serious and imminent danger" that he has just discovered somewhere small and relatively defenseless. Or against the country he finds guilty of an October surprise terror attack. The situation will be so dire that it will require immediate martial law and a postponement of the inauguration.

The risks of using nukes before November are too unkown for Rove to let him go ahead. Who knows how the swing voters would react? But after, in either case, he has nothing to lose.

I think the October surprise is more likely to be a terror attack. Bin Laden is a possibility also, but I think they haven't done sufficient leg work to build us up to a Bin Laden capture/thawing.