Bush Approves Nuclear Response

-->Considering the current wackiness in the United States policy abroad between the impoverished, angry, and covertly powerful regime in Iraq and an impoverished, angry, and obviously equipped regime in Korea, I was wondering what your thoughts were on the following article. As you read keep in mind the current international climate against the US war effort. Consider the amount of United States assets mobilizing into Kuwait, Turkey , and the Persian Gulf. Consider the fact that Korea has not only pulled out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but has also now renounced the original ceasefire accord that ended the Korean War, and that the border area of international cooperation along the DMZ between the Koreas based in Panmunjom is also a US-led UN operation--the most heavily armed border on earth. Oh, and don't forget to take into account that N. Korea just days ago said they would triumph in a nuclear conflist with the United States. Read on...

<< Bush approves nuclear response
By Nicholas Kralev
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
A classified document signed by President Bush specifically allows for the use of nuclear weapons in response to biological or chemical attacks, apparently changing a decades-old U.S. policy of deliberate ambiguity, it was learned by The Washington Times. "The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force — including potentially nuclear weapons — to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies," the document, National Security Presidential Directive 17, set out on Sept. 14 last year.
A similar statement is included in the public version of the directive, which was released Dec. 11 as the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction and closely parallels the classified document. However, instead of the phrase "including potentially nuclear weapons," the public text says, "including through resort to all of our options." >>

The rest of the article is here:
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030131-27320419.htm