Re: [OT]Nukes... tunnels.... boom....

I fail to see what the flap is over the "release" of this document. I've

read several news articles on the topic, and all of them mention that 
this isn't the first such document to be prepared. Most of them at least

hint that if we *didn't* have such a document we'd be massiviely 
incompetent. There really ought to be at least a single-page plan 
covering every nation on Earth, no matter what their current alignment 
is - and too bad to whomever doesn't like it. For example, I sincerely 
hope we have a contingency plan covering what to do if the Saudis order 
our troops out, and another covering a coup putting our forces in S.A. 
in imminent danger. It's just sensible to plan ahead for everything 
possible [1]- it gives the junior planning officers something to do.

[1] The Pearl Harbor Lesson

Jeremy Sadler wrote:

>>"The Bush administration, in a secret policy review completed
>>early this year,
>>has ordered the Pentagon to draft contingency plans for the use
>>of nuclear weapons
>>against at least seven countries, naming not only Russia and the
>>"axis of evil"--Iraq,
>>Iran, and North Korea--but also China, Libya and Syria."
>>These are Contingency Plans. Like the ones the US has in the
>>1930s against war
>>with Japan, war with Britain, war with Canada, war with
>>Australia. Just do a
>>search on "Warplan Scarlet", "Warplan Crimson", "Warplan Red" etc.
>>
>
>I am very sure, given the size of the nuclear arsenals of the USA and
the
>Soviet Union in the past, that such plans have been in existence for a
long,
>long time and this "review" is possibly more of an "update".
>
>