EMSChiefNJ said:
Yes, they are kings of hysteria. I believe they are referring to this:
The administration is considering three options for responding militarily to Russian missile treaty violations: defenses to stop a treaty-violating missile, the "counterforce" option to attack a missile preemptively and the "countervailing strike capabilities" option that implies the potential use of nuclear forces.
One of Carter's nuclear policy aides, Robert Scher, testified in April that "counterforce" means "we could go about and actually attack that missile where it is in Russia." Another Pentagon official, Brian McKeon, testified in December that this option involved potential deployment in Europe of ground-launched cruise missiles.
Scher said another option would involve "not simply attacking" the Russian missile but seeing "what things we can hold at risk within Russia itself." Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons expert at the Federation of American Scientists, said this could mean further improving the ability of U.S. nuclear or conventional forces to destroy Russian military targets in addition to missiles deemed to violate the INF treaty.
Don't you love 'defenses to stop a treaty violating missle'? Like that means all other missiles are cleared for attack..
What makes this particularly reckless, is notice its no longer about Ukraine. The Pentagon has now tied any military response to 'treaty violations', a much broader topic. This now can be applied to justify anything anywhere in the world. Not just if Ukraine goes sideways.
The article has 3 options, as you can read. The 'countervailing' strike plan implies placing nukes in Europe. That's what all the hubbub is about, although Carter does say in other articles that's at the far end of the spectrum.
The other 2 trouble me. Because they consider them an 'in the middle' response. Going after missiles inside Russia from Europe? Holding parts of Russia at risk? Are they insane?
We know there have always been contingencies for such things, (just so everyone doesn't think i dont know it's obvious weve been targeting Russia with nukes since 1945), but this sounds like nuclear blackmail. Very serious change in tone and policy (tying it to 'treaty violations'). We all can go 'tit for tat' on that forever.. Plain idiocy...
But I wouldnt worry about Obama, he won't do it even if he approves it. But the next President, or the hawks (if something, in their distorted minds, changes for the worse-anywhere), well they may whip up a frenzy to pressure the issue more quickly.
Very reckless and dangerous, especially considering it will ruffle the hawks in Russia pretty badly.
There are various iterations of this story, but when you see these three options, that's the meat. All else is oped or plain fear porn.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_RUSSIA_NUCLEAR_TREATY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
