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.
ping
Can you say KaabaaOOm.
Heh..I hear that and it certainly has an element of "feel good" to it but in all candor, in terms of a response to the WOT, I can't think of a scenario where we would use nukes.
Now, if we can pin it down to a particular state or country, yes, all options are open, including nukes.
Would anyone miss Syria if it went away? Show of hands?
I have been thinking about this a lot lately, especially on the anniversy of 9/11 and the awful aftermath of a city without a back-up plan for an inevitable event. Yes, I am talking about New Orleans.
Iran of all countries commented on how easily our country fell into chaos with one major physical event and how they could replicate such chaos if we ever took offensive action to stop their nuke program.
Al Queda attacks our financial institutions to bring down our entire economy. First 9/11 then they failed on a massive plot to blow up Citicorp and other major financial institutions. Since 2001, we have been told by all of the experts that a nuclear 9/11 is an inevitable event, not a 'what if'. That will surely be the end of the economy and America as we knew it.
These things being said, nuke deterrance means nothing to the terrorists. The ones at the top are so hidden who would we nuke? The ones we can see at the bottom want to die for Islam anyways. I think the best we can do is prepare a massive civilian defense system. If they nuke our city it costs us dearly but we can survive as a country to fight on another day.
That is the big problem, of course, right there.
Oh the Libs will drop dead over this one. The'll say we wind up nuking a country then finding out later there were no WMDs.
I like it myself..Keeps the Islamist on their toes...
MECCA=Glass
For the same reason they don't worry about American Musket fire. We have much bigger, nastier and more lethal stuff on the shelf. A dirty bomb is just radioactive material packed around a regular bomb.
A dirty bomb wouldn't likely kill that many people in the initial attack and most of those would be from the explosion it's self.
Over time there would be a rise in cancer rates but as either an offensive or defensive weapon a dirty bomb just isn't lethal enough to to interest us.
Do unto them before they get a chance to do unto us.
I meant as an anonymous, reverse terror weapon. I agree its not good for formal war.
Just nuke 'em all so we don't miss anything in the event of an attack.
Now if W makes that threat, it might make the islamists think twice.
I suspect that most of these nations believe that we would use nukes even though we might not. Thanks to the Afghan and Iraq wars, these countries are a bit more "afraid" of us now. This is a good thing. Hugs will not protect us -- force or the threat of force will.
And the Democrats help promote this idea when they go abroad and protest and complain about the U.S. -- "useful idiots."
But, I bet that all of that will change if one or many of our cities are nuked.
There would be a lot of very angry Americans. And civility be damned. It would be survival.
Terrorist might be nuts. But the people who train them and/or allow them in their countries are not.
...Chapel Hill
"But, I bet that all of that will change if one or many of our cities are nuked."
Well, then the policy would have failed.....that's the point. It's going to take a nuke strike to elicit a nuke strike.
We need other military and covert options. disrupt countries that threaten us utterly.......cause civil unrest, even civil war....assassinate their leaders. THAT's how you do it, not by saying we'll nuke you if you don't do what we say.
Um, Iran? Buh-bye.
No WMD were found in New Orleans.
We should bring the troops home now!
/sarcasm
Bring it on to your own town buddy.
I mean really. Bring it on? WTH????
Austin? come on, man....
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.