WMD threat could spark American nuclear strike

[RootWind]

WMD threat could spark American nuclear strike

From Giles Whittell in Washington

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.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11...1776250,00.html

Pentagon document would alter nuclear weapons plan

Reuters

Saturday, September 10, 2005; 9:55 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Defense Department has written a draft revision of its nuclear operations doctrine that outlines the use of nuclear weapons to pre-empt an enemy's attack with weapons of mass destruction, according to a copy of the document available online on Saturday.

The draft "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," dated March 15, revised the "discussion of nuclear weapons use across the range of military operations."

According to the document, combatant commanders could request approval from the president to use nuclear weapons under a variety of scenarios, such as to pre-empt an enemy's use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, multinational or alliance forces or civilian populations.

Commanders could seek approval to use nuclear weapons in the face of an enemy's imminent biological weapons attack that "only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy," the document said.

The draft also envisioned nuclear weapon use in attacks on enemy installations containing weapons of mass destruction, among other scenarios.

A Defense Department spokesman told Reuters the document had not yet been given to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. It is due to be signed within the next few weeks by the director of the Joint Staff, the spokesman said.

The unclassified document was available on numerous Web sites such as GlobalSecurity.org, a defense policy Web site. A Pentagon site, however, listed the document as unavailable.

Other scenarios envisioned in the draft doctrine include nuclear weapons use to counter potentially overwhelming conventional forces, for rapid and favorable war termination on U.S. terms, to demonstrate U.S. 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.

"Further, the possible use of WMD by nonstate actors either independently or as sponsored by an adversarial state, remain a significant proliferation concern," the draft said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5091001577.html

Still can't think of any feasible situations where nuclear weapons could be used against "terrorists" to deter WMD ... without outright taking out a country.

[Boffa Jones Veteran]

Thread Moved

[Folic]

Bought god damn time.

[odious_m]

How about a fake WMD threat? Now that's scary!

[Fred Derf Veteran]

How about a fake WMD threat? Now that's scary!

586512386[/snapback]

What about WMDs that are assumed to be there but cannot be found "at this time"?

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

Totally absurd. We're going to destroy WoMD with our WoMD?

That anthrax is bad so we're gonna hit it with some good ole radiation, damn what a stupid line of thinking. I can see firebombing it or something but nukes???

This better just be some chest thumping posturing play to try and scare some people, because if this is an honest policy it's absurd.

[Axon]

Totally absurd.? We're going to destroy WoMD with our WoMD?

That anthrax is bad so we're gonna hit it with some good ole radiation, damn what a stupid line of thinking.? I can see firebombing it or something but nukes???

586512628[/snapback]

I thought your Enemies had weapons of mass destruction, while the yours are weapons of love and nurturing...

-Ax

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

I thought your Enemies had weapons of mass destruction, while the yours are weapons of love and nurturing...

-Ax

586512669[/snapback]

Maybe you should tell Bush that, I can see another name change now.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

I thought your Enemies had weapons of mass destruction, while the yours are weapons of love and nurturing...

-Ax

586512669[/snapback]

Sometimes you need to practice "tough love".

[soppychunk]

WMD threat could spark American nuclear strike

From Giles Whittell in Washington

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.

source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11...1776250,00.html

I thought we were moving away from using nukes?

[betasp]

Keep in mind this also refers to specialty nuclear arms like modified bunker-busters and such. No just mass likking devices.

[Lexcyn]

Niiice. That's all I have to say. :no:

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Great. :yes:

Can i have one ticket please, yes one way, away from Earth please?

[Chicane-UK Veteran]

Shocking. Absolutely shocking.

President approval required? Wow.. that fills me with so much confidence.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

this has been in the news for a few months. Cheney has already been talking about a nuclear strike when (not if) Iran attacks the US. Funny how Cheney and the govt have already labeled their next country for invasion and where these "terrorists" are from... and w/ nuclear weapons no less. I guess we just sit back and wait for the next staged american terrorist attack. Unless of course the world wakes up and stops them.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

[Thread Moved from NFN to RWI]

[Threads Merged]

[dreamz Veteran]

Totally absurd.  We're going to destroy WoMD with our WoMD?

That anthrax is bad so we're gonna hit it with some good ole radiation, damn what a stupid line of thinking.  I can see firebombing it or something but nukes???

This better just be some chest thumping posturing play to try and scare some people, because if this is an honest policy it's absurd.

586512628[/snapback]

indeed. thousands of years of human development and we're still stuck with the "kill them before they kill you" mentality. i thought we had progressed.

[Osiris]

Todays climate makes the fragile logic of the Cold War seem like a pretty good alternative.

[Starcom826]

indeed.  thousands of years of human development and we're still stuck with the "kill them before they kill you" mentality.  i thought we had progressed.

586514488[/snapback]

Indeed. We've gone from first kill, to kill them, to kill them because they're trying to kill us, to now just let them kill us because we're better than that.

[odious_m]

......the next staged american terrorist attack.

586514409[/snapback]

You said a mouthful there, brother. Staged is right--it's all so Spielbergian....

[Starcom826]

May I redirect all of you here: http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=ja04tertrais

Well apparently its ok for France to actively employ such a strategy, but when the U.S. Pentagon drafts a similar doctrine which we don't even know will ever become policy sound the alarm! It makes me sick.

In the fall of 2003, the French media reported that a major shift in the country's nuclear policy was under way. On October 27, the headline of the daily Lib?ration screamed, "Chirac's Small Bombshell: France Will Soon Revise its Deterrence Strategy in Order to Be Able to Strike 'Rogue States,' Even Preventively." The newspaper reported that France would announce a new nuclear doctrine that would take into account "rogue states" with weapons of mass destruction, and that new weapons were being considered to deal with such threats.

France has consistently rejected the adoption of a "no first-use" posture. Paris sees nuclear retaliation as consistent with the right to self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. It also asserts that countries that do not respect their own non-proliferation commitments should not expect negative security assurances (granted in 1995 by nuclear weapons states to non-nuclear members of the Non-Proliferation Treaty) to apply to them, thus implicitly subscribing to the norms of "belligerent reprisals" that also underpin U.S. and British nuclear doctrines.

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

Great comeback.

Truth is I don't give two ****'s about the rightouseness of Frances polcies or not, but I do care about our own. What one country deems right or wrong doesn't mean what we do is right or wrong, and personally I think I hold our country to a higher standard than France. But hey if it's good enough for France it must be good enough for us right?

perhaps you should learn the word surrender in French as that seems to be another policy of thiers.

[Starcom826]

Great comeback.

Truth is I don't give two ****'s about the rightouseness of Frances polcies or not, but I do care about our own.  What one country deems right or wrong doesn't mean what we do is right or wrong, and personally I think I hold our country to a higher standard than France.  But hey if it's good enough for France it must be good enough for us right?

perhaps you should learn the word surrender in French as that seems to be another policy of thiers.

586517166[/snapback]

Err sorry I'm having a hard time picking out whether you are being sarcastic or not. I don't think this is a good idea, but rather I'm a little ticked off at how so many people from other countries get ticked off at America for doing stuff that they've been doing for who knows how long. I know very well that whats good enough for France probably isn't good for us at all.

[Vykranth]

May I redirect all of you here:  http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=ja04tertrais

Well apparently its ok for France to actively employ such a strategy, but when the U.S. Pentagon drafts a similar doctrine which we don't even know will ever become policy sound the alarm!  It makes me sick.

586517106[/snapback]

It is a very nice, very well documented article you found. Nice find.

To be honest, I haven't heard anything on that until you brought it up.

Still, You have found our terrible secret: in France, we also have brain-dead falcons.

Luckily, changing the nuclear doctrine might not happen:

First, France's nuclear armement is very very small compared to the US: we may have 4 submarines with nuclear missiles and a few air-to-ground missile on fighter-bombers and most of it is completely out-dated: current plans estimate that it should be modernized around 2015. Source (in French)

Second, France has signed various international treaties for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and convention against attacks on civilian targets.

Third, France is a pacific country. Even a President as brain-challenged as Jacques Chirac would think a long time before using nuclear strikes.

I understand you are ticked off at the reaction of other countries: I would be too and I disagree with such policies but you may think that in the frame of the US war on Irak: a lot of countries were already ticked off by the war on Irak.

if the US wants to use nukes and not just conventional forces, ...

[Antaris Veteran]

What annoys me is the way the England will most likely follow suit, because Blair is busy bending over receiving the presidents length. We english people, by proxy, are screwed :(