Posted on 09/12/2005 3:51:50 PM PDT by LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget
A PRESIDENT of the United States would be able to launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes against enemies planning to use weapons of mass destruction under a revised “nuclear operations” doctrine to be signed in the next few weeks. In a significant shift after half a century of nuclear deterrence based on the threat of massive retaliation, the revised doctrine would allow pre-emptive strikes against states or terror groups, and to destroy chemical and biological weapons stockpiles.
Presidential approval would still be required for any nuclear strike, but the updated document, the existence of which was confirmed by the Pentagon at the weekend, emphasises the need for the US to adapt to a world of worsening proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in which deterrence might fail. In that event, it states, “the United States must be prepared to use nuclear weapons if necessary”.
The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, last revised ten years ago, extends President Bush’s doctrine of pre-emptive war to cover a US nuclear arsenal that is expected to shrink to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads by 2012.
It was drafted by the Pentagon in March and posted on the internet, but did not attract widespread attention until a report on it in The Washington Post yesterday. It has since been removed from the Department of Defence website.
It came to light as Iran insisted, in defiance of the European Union, that it would continue processing uranium at its Isfahan reactor. The US has called on the UN Security Council to impose sanctions on Tehran for failing to shelve its nuclear programme.
Referring repeatedly to “non-state actors” — parlance for terrorists — the doctrine is designed to arm the White House and US forces with a new range of threats and sanctions to counter the situation of threatened nuclear attack by al-Qaeda or one of its affiliates.
The document’s key phrase appears in a list of pre-emptive nuclear strike scenarios, the first of which is against an enemy using “or intending to use WMD”.
Elsewhere it states that “deterrence of potential adversary WMD use requires the potential adversary leadership to believe that the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective”.
The 1995 version of the doctrine contained no mention of pre-emption or WMD as legitimate nuclear targets.
I'd add other known enemy territory as well. No mercy for Ann Arbor, Madison, Austin, Berkeley, Ithaca, Cambridge...
"Suppose a dirty bomb goes off in an American city...who do we nuke?"
For a dirty bomb? Probably no one, unless it is somehow super lethal and destructive (unlikely).
A real nuke, however...that is the administration's daily nightmare. It drives many key decisions. The 9/11 scare put the fear into everyone at the top.
They see a nuke 9/11 as a matter of time, unless the world can be changed. We are on our way to do just that.
YEAH!!!
Let it glow...
This is now The Offical US nuclear weapons deployment strategy considering how widely this got distributed in the last two days and the lack of response out of Washington.
Keep your heads up, you WMD holding-dealing terrorists and terrorist-supporting nations.
Or should that be keep your heads down (in a deep, deep bunker or something like that.)
I heard the speach from my pastor yesterday about how I am suppose to forgive for 9/11.
All I can remember is a quote, it is "God's job to foregive, it is mine to arrange the meeting."
Clip in, bring it on. Let God sort out the right ones.
Well, obviously, that is the thinking man's problem. If it were bad enough, and you were President, you'd have to do SOMETHING, or the populace would have your head.
Probably, it would be all of the usual suspects. No one would be thinking sanely or humanely. I have to admit, though, that while that might be a boon to the world, you'd probably get the wrong guys--it could be the Chinese or the Russians instead of the Islamics. Plausible deniablity is very powerful.
It does make one think, though. How come no one worries about the American dirty bomb?
Re 28: Well put, unfortunately.
This doctrine means we have failed.
We have ALWAYS had the option of preemptive nuclear strike, but that we now consider it in the doctrinal sense means failure.
We will then ask "why spend money on weapons systems" "Why have aircraft carriers?" "Why have x Divisions in the Army" "Planes are expensive, why have them"
It is a very short walk from Nuclear pre-emption to total disarmament (other than nuclear).
I understand why the Russians did it. I don't like that we are doing it.......
The next Democratic president will likely decimate the US armed forces and rely totally on nuclear pre-emption doctrine - then spend the "peace dividend" on social programs.
We should be figuring out how to destabilize and cause civil war in rogue states (like China, Iran)........not writing a nuclear doctrine that we won't use until it's too late.
This is bad news for America, I'm afraid.
No, that was just a "wake-up call," remember? The actual provocation that will justify massive retaliation is yet to come.
If terrorist nukes hit an American city (cities)it will be time to issue ultimatums to terrorist-harboring states to give up their terrorists (something like Afghanistan but with much more dire consequences if ignored).The ignored unltimatums (they will be ignored for we have not shed our paper tiger image)would have to be be followed by massive bombing (perhaps conventional but massive and strategic) of key cities and infrastructure. What about the "innocent people: killed in such cities (what about ours)? Well, their governments will have been warned. Think Hiroshima and Nagasaki.The alternative: take our nuclear hits like a man without massive retaliation. What else?
"Worked during the Cold War. I suspect that it will work now too."
Soviets weren't insane. They acted like it from time-to-time but they weren't.
Muslim states ARE insane. They will call our bluff, and we ARE bluffing we WON'T nuke, say, Saudi Arabia, or Iran.
"So, threaten those governments with retaliation of the worst kind and problem solved"
It is precisely because it is the retaliation of the worst kind that we WON'T use it. No polititian will risk that they would not survive the media onslaught that mutilated but alive people as far as the eye can see will bring.
Assassination, terrorist activity in terrorist countries, and destruction of any and all modern infrastructure will prevent them from functioning - disguised as "insurgent activity" or civil war is what we should be doing.
I maintain that this nuclear doctrine is bad for america.....we've always had the option, but relying on it is a bad move.
No, follow through if ultimatums are ignored, as they would be, or problem not solved.
If issued, threats must not be a bluff.
"If issued, threats must not be a bluff."
When you have no military options other than nukes, then they will be political decisions, not military ones.
"If issued, threats must not be a bluff"
Actually, if it is truly doctrine, then evidence of WMD would result in immediate and overwhelming attacks without warning.
No politician is going to put this doctrine on automatic pilot.
We have options other than nukes. We have not demonstrated our full military might in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's only leftists who claim we have carpet bombed those countries (not directed at RFEngineer).
As the character of the POTUS said in "Independence Day" - NUKE 'EM!
Reminds me of an old saying ...
Nuke 'em till they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.