What the fuck?!? "Pentagon Studies Pre-Emptive Nuclear Strikes"

[Mo]

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 - The Pentagon is preparing new guidelines governing the use of nuclear weapons that foresee possible pre-emptive strikes against terrorist groups or nations planning to use unconventional weapons against the United States.

The draft document, the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, updates procedures for using nuclear weapons that were last changed in 1995. The plan is undergoing final review by the Pentagon's joint staff and by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and it could be finished in the next several weeks, according to a Pentagon official. The document was first reported by The Washington Post.

Much of the document restates longstanding procedures for launching a nuclear strike, including declarations that such a decision requires explicit presidential approval.

A Pentagon official confirmed that a copy of the document posted on the national security Web site GlobalSecurity.org was authentic.

The Bush administration said in 2002 that a pre-emption strategy was necessary to deal with emerging threats from terrorist groups seeking unconventional weapons and from the proliferation of nuclear capability to numerous countries.

Although the unclassified document reasserts the longstanding American position that it will not make definitive statements about when nuclear weapons will be used, it describes several scenarios for using them, including circumstances under which pre-emptive use might be necessary.

The scenarios for a possible attack described in the draft ******* one in which an enemy is using "or intending to use" unconventional weapons against the United States, its allies or civilian populations. Another scenario for a possible pre-emptive strike is in the event of an "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy."

The draft document also envisions the use of atomic weapons for "attacks on adversary installations," including "deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons."

A copy of the draft document dated March 15 was posted on a Pentagon Web site for several months but was removed over the summer, according to the Pentagon official, who said he could not explain why it was taken down.

The draft says that to deter a potential adversary from using unconventional weapons, the United States must make it "believe the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective." The draft also says American policymakers have "repeatedly rejected calls for adoption of 'no first use' policy of nuclear weapons since this policy could undermine deterrence."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/politics/11nukes.html

[Mo]

hooray.

[dreamsofdali]

*slaps forehead* Doesn't this just justify North Koreas building of nuclear weapons?

[sleeper]

there are a number of contentious things in that, like how the "no first use" policy supposedly undermines deterrence or a scenario where a nuclear weapon would be appropriate against a "terrorist group", but overall this isnt that crazy -- as long as it is what i think it is: just the drawing up of contingency plans for every possible situation, which in doing so would inevitably ******* nuclear weapons, and not a serious new policy of using nuclear weapons willy-nilly to respond to threats that could otherwise be dealt with through conventional means. in any case, im just worried, and a lot of people share this concern, that sooner or later some nation is going to use a nuclear weapon again in a military context for whatever reason, and thus break the taboo on nuclear weapons and then a new age, where the military as opposed to political use of nuclear weapons has more of a mainstream acceptance, will dawn. i think its really good that the use of nuclear weapons is so completely and thoroughly unmentionable and off limits in popular debate, as it should be, and im concerned about anything jeopardizing that seal. i just really dont trust people, it way too easy for things to go to speed and snowball

[transluscent]

jesus fucking christ.

[Black Somalian]

about time we nuked some towel heads.

[Nimrod's Son]

This isn't anything new. It's - as sleeper said - a contingency plan and hypothetical scenerio guideline. It's not something that Bush just invented, it's an update to a procedure.

Of course to people like the antipop, this is the devil

[tear stained glass]

why not build a doomsday device instead?

[transluscent]

my essence is unpure!!! HELP!!

[Mo]

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
This isn't anything new. It's - as sleeper said - a contingency plan and hypothetical scenerio guideline. It's not something that Bush just invented, it's an update to a procedure.

Of course to people like the antipop, this is the devil

of course to people like me this is new. ass.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally posted by the antipop



of course to people like me this is new. ass.

It's new because you weren't educated on the issue, and then jumped the gun and made "wtf" posts about it.

[mercurial]

Welcome to the Project for the New American Century

I posted a link to this a couple of years ago ... those who find this sort of thing surprising and are genuinely interested in learning more about how the current US government views security issues on a global scale would be well served by reading some of the papers on this site.

Do some ********** research about the authors/members of this think tank and ask yourself how this organisation would influence the decisions of key members of the current US government.

Also if you'd like to delve a little deeper into the mindset of key people in the government and the philosophical motivations behind their politics ... do some research on this guy

[Mo]

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son

It's new because you weren't educated on the issue, and then jumped the gun and made "wtf" posts about it.

it was kinda breaking news on quite a few news sites in europe.

[sleeper]

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son

It's new because you weren't educated on the issue, and then jumped the gun and made "wtf" posts about it.

i still wouldnt blame him. even as contingency plans theyre extreme and they do reflect changing attitudes, not just changing circumstances. the change of attitude is what a lot of people are responding to and is what makes this thing newsworthy in the first place

and besides i really dislike it how you make a show of things and pick on people who make erroneous political posts or threads out of naivete but in good faith. its really egotistical and ugly

[sleeper]

Originally posted by the antipop



it was kinda breaking news on quite a few news sites in europe.

shit. you shouldnt have said that, hes going to have a field day with that post

[sleeper]

Originally posted by mercurial
Welcome to the Project for the New American Century

I posted a link to this a couple of years ago ... those who find this sort of thing surprising and are genuinely interested in learning more about how the current US government views security issues on a global scale would be well served by reading some of the papers on this site.

Do some ********** research about the authors/members of this think tank and ask yourself how this organisation would influence the decisions of key members of the current US government.

Also if you'd like to delve a little deeper into the mindset of key people in the government and the philosophical motivations behind their politics ... do some research on this guy

have you seen the documentary "the power of nightmares"? if you havent and are at all interested in this stuff i really think you should check it out. that documentary, which is a 3 part thing that was broadcast on the bbc a few times and has since gotten alot of acclaim, is a pretty fascinating historical recap, specifically focusing on two similar, but ultimately conflicting, strains of postwar political thought, and it brings to light a lot of interesting ideas and facts. i can yousendit for you, if youre interested

[mercurial]

Originally posted by sleeper


have you seen the documentary "the power of nightmares"? if you havent and are at all interested in this stuff i really think you should check it out. that documentary, which is a 3 part thing that was broadcast on the bbc a few times and has since gotten alot of acclaim, is a pretty fascinating historical recap, specifically focusing on two similar, but ultimately conflicting, strains of postwar political thought, and it brings to light a lot of interesting ideas and facts. i can yousendit for you, if youre interested

sounds interesting indeed ... have a friend working in licensing at the beeb so will see if she can send me a copy - if not I may just take you up on that offer

[sleeper]

Originally posted by mercurial


sounds interesting indeed ... have a friend working in licensing at the beeb so will see if she can send me a copy - if not I may just take you up on that offer

you have a friend that works at the bbc? lucky him, i love the bbc. he should steal me some merch, like a mug or something

heres their page on it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm

it was screened at cannes too, apparently, if that entices you at all

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally posted by the antipop



it was kinda breaking news on quite a few news sites in europe.

It explains why most Europeans are uneducated about America. Your media are mostly anti-american schills.

I think DeviousJ is the only European on here that actually does his homework on US politics. mercurial is ok but he's not in Europe I don't believe.

[sleeper]

told you

[mercurial]

Originally posted by sleeper


you have a friend that works at the bbc? lucky him, i love the bbc. he should steal me some merch, like a mug or something

I suspect it's a lot less glamorous than it sounds - she's a lawyer and spends most of her days pouring over contracts, licencing agreements and seeking clearances for bits and pieces. It's probably thoroughly tedious and boring I'd say ...

Will ask about the possibility of a bit of merch - maybe an internal memo pad or something eh?

Cheers for the link.

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by mercurial
Welcome to the Project for the New American Century

I highly recommend this read. I read it back when mercurial first posted it, and was very happy that I had printed it out and read the entire deal. It give a very interesting perspective on US relations with the rest of the globe.

[sleeper]

heres a great article from the christian science monitor on this topic. they bring up a lot of really illuminating perspectives and primary source stuff, i recommend it be read

Pentagon draft plan calls for preemptive use of nukes

Critics say plan is designed for possible attack against Iran.

By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

The Pentagon has drafted a revised plan to allow for US military commanders in the field to ask presidential approval to use nuclear weapons in order "to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction." The Washington Post reported on Sunday that the plan would also allow for the use of nuclear weapons to destroy "known" enemy stockpiles of "nuclear, biological or chemical weapons."


To deter the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, the Pentagon paper says preparations must be made to use nuclear weapons and show determination to use them "if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use."

The draft says that to deter a potential adversary from using such weapons, that adversary's leadership must "believe the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective." The draft also notes that US policy in the past has "repeatedly rejected calls for adoption of 'no first use' policy of nuclear weapons since this policy could undermine deterrence."

GlobalSecurity.org, a leading global intelligence firm, also has a copy of the document on its website. The draft plan's executive summary outlines four key goals:


The US defense strategy aims to achieve four key goals that guide the development of US forces capabilities, their development and use: assuring allies and friends of the US steadfastness of purpose and its capability to fulfill its security commitment; dissuading adversaries from undertaking programs or operations that could threaten US interests or those of our allies and friends; deterring aggression and coercion by deploying forward the capacity to swiftly defeat attacks and imposing severe penalties for aggression on an adversary’s military capability and supporting infrastructure; and, decisively defeating an adversary if deterrence fails.


The India Monitor notes that the plan changes the 1995 guidelines on the use of nuclear weapons which "made no mention of using nukes pre-emptively or specifically against threats from WMDs."

Reuters reported Saturday that the document also covers the use of nuclear weapons is several other scenarios.


Other scenarios envisioned in the draft doctrine ******* nuclear weapons use to counter potentially overwhelming conventional forces, for rapid and favorable war termination on US terms, to demonstrate US intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter enemy use of weapons of mass destruction, and to respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction supplied by an enemy to a "surrogate." The document said "numerous nonstate organizations (terrorist, criminal)" and about 30 countries have programs for weapons of mass destruction.


Writing in Arms Control Today, Hans M. Kristensen of the Natural Resources Defense Council says that the new "aggressive posture" on nuclear weapons may actually undermine what the US aims to achieve.


This nuclear dogma is by no means new to deterrence theory, but the new nuclear doctrine fails to explain, even illustrate, why deterrence necessarily requires such an aggressive nuclear posture and cannot be achieved at lower levels without maintaining nuclear forces on high alert. A deterrence posture can also be excessive, with capabilities far beyond what is reasonably needed. Threatening nuclear capabilities may in theory deter potential enemies but may just as well provoke other countries and undercut other vital aspects of US foreign policy. The end result may be decreased security for all.


In an article in the Asia Times, independent journalist Jim Lobe interviews Ivan Oelrich, of the Federation for American Scientists, who says one of the things that concerns him about the plan is the way that it conflates several different levels of threats into one form of WMD threat.


"What we are seeing now is an effort to lay the foundations for the legitimacy of using nuclear weapons if [the administration] suspects another country might use chemical weapons against us," he said. "Iraq is a perfect example of how this doctrine might actually work; it was a country where we were engaged militarily and thought it would deploy chemical weapons against us."


Philip Giraldi, former CIA analyst and member of the Defense Intelligence Agency, wrote in The American Conservative last month that Vice President Dick Cheney's office has requested the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to draw up a plan to respond to another "9/11 type attack on the US."


The plan *******s a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.



According to The Washington Post, the document is "expected to be signed within a few weeks by Air Force Lt. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, director of the Joint Staff, according to Navy Cmdr. Dawn Cutler, a public affairs officer in Myers's office."

[jczeroman]

Good, we should STUDY all the options. Hopefully they will conclude that such a strike is not needed.

[sleeper]

yeah, right, hopefully. i dont share your optimism

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by sleeper
yeah, right, hopefully. i dont share your optimism

You're over-reacting. Why the hell would they use nukes? C'mon...

[sleeper]

im going to save this thread for posterity. we'll see in a few years

im not some paranoid nut who thinks the pentagon has gone completely off the rails with plans to nuke for the fuck of it, im just skeptical that cooler heads will prevail as we head into a very new and very difficult political era. its more about a fundamental lack of faith in man, than in america per se