New Pentagon draft spells out preemptive nuclear strikes

[wit>trope]

What I had been advocating all along is now being actively considered by the Pentagon!

WASHINGTON The U-S is considering rewriting its nuclear doctrine for the age of terrorism.

A Pentagon planning document spells out America's willingness to use nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike if terrorists threaten the U-S or its allies with weapons of mass destruction.

President Bush stated such a policy three years ago, and a draft of it is on the Pentagon's Web site.

The draft says weapons of mass destruction are proliferating, increasing the possibility they might be used by even a non-state group. And it notes that could happen on purpose or through miscalculation.

In such situations, the draft says deterrence might fail and the U-S would have to be prepared to use nuclear weapons if necessary.

The draft notes that any such attack would require "explicit orders from the president."
http://www.10tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3833744

 

[Winner]

I don't understand it. Nuclear weapons aren't exactly suitable weapon for fighting the terrorists. How would that work?

"Mr. President, there is a nuke hidden somewhere in New York City."
"The terrorist may still be in the city, let's nuke it first!"

 

[wit>trope]

I found a much better article that explains more.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/11/AR2005091100166.html

U.S. Envisions Using Nukes on Terrorists

WASHINGTON -- A Pentagon planning document being updated to reflect the doctrine of pre-emption declared by President Bush in 2002 envisions the use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies.

The "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," which was last updated 10 years ago, makes clear that "the decision to employ nuclear weapons at any level requires explicit orders from the president."

But it says that in a changing environment "terrorists or regional states armed with WMD will likely test U.S. security commitments to its allies and friends."

"In response, the U.S. needs a range of capabilities to assure friend and foe alike of its resolve," says the 69-page document dated March 15.

A Pentagon spokesman said Saturday evening that Navy Cmdr. Dawn Cutler, a public affairs officer for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has issued a statement saying the draft is still being circulated among the various services, field commanders, Pentagon lawyers and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's office, .

Its existence was initially reported by The Washington Post in Sunday editions, which said the document was posted on a Pentagon Internet site and pointed out to it by a consultant for the Natural Resorces Defense Council.

The file was not available at that site Saturday evening, but a copy was available at http://www.globalsecurity.org .

"A broader array of capability is needed to dissuade states from undertaking ... courses of action that would threaten U.S. and allied security," the draft says. "U.S. forces must pose a credible deterrent to potential adversaries who have access to modern military technology, including WMD and the means to deliver them."

It says "deterrence of potential adversary WMD use requires the potential adversary leadership to believe the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective."

It says "this will be particularly difficult with nonstate (non-government) actors who employ or attempt to gain use of WMD. Here, deterrence may be directed at states that support their efforts as well as the terrorist organization itself.

"However, the continuing proliferation of WMD along with the means to deliver them increases the probability that someday a state/nonstate actor nation/terrorist may, through miscaluation or by deliberate choice, use those weapons. In such cases, deterrence, even based on the threat of massive destruction, may fail and the United States must be prepared to use nuclear weapons if necessary."

It notes that U.S. policy has always been purposely vague with regard to when the United States would use nuclear weapons and that it has never vowed not to be the first to use them in a conflict.

One scenario for a possible nuclear pre-emptive strike in the draft would be in the case of an "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy."

The Bush administration is continuing to push for development of an earth-penetrating nuclear warhead, but has yet to obtain congressional approval.

However, the Senate voted in July to revive the "bunker-buster" program that Congress last year decided to kill.

Administration officials have maintained that the U.S. needs to try to develop a nuclear warhead that would be capable of destroying deeply buried targets including bunkers tunneled into solid rock.

But opponents said that its benefits are questionable and that such a warhead would cause extensive radiation fallout above ground killing thousands of people. And they say it may make it easier for a future president to decide to use the nuclear option instead of a conventional weapon.

The Senate voted 53-43 to include $4 million for research into the feasibility of a bunker-buster nuclear warhead. Earlier this year, the House refused to provide the money, so a final decision will have to be worked out between the two chambers.

Apparently the draft can be found here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/jp3_12fc2.pdf

 

[frekk]

I don't understand it. Nuclear weapons aren't exactly suitable weapon for fighting the terrorists. How would that work?

Sounds like they are just talking trash to Iran in an indirect manner, lacking the ability to do anything else at the moment. I imagine it will be entirely ignored at the other end.

 

[Winner]

Sounds like they are just talking trash to Iran in an indirect manner, lacking the ability to do anything else at the moment. I imagine it will be entirely ignored at the other end.

You're right, probably, because it doesn't make any sense.

 

[FriendlyFire]

The draft says weapons of mass destruction are proliferating, increasing the possibility they might be used by even a non-state group. And it notes that could happen on purpose or through miscalculation.

roflmao

What a nice choice of words.

I can imagine a nuclear pre-emptive strike because of a miscalculation

 

[Akka]

It seems clear to me that the article is talking about the ability to use nukes either on governments that would provide a WMD-using terrorist organization, either on the bunkers/training grounds of the said organization.

 

[stormbind]

Every action Bush takes, adds credibility to the John Titor stories

Despite JT being widely accepted as fiction, the fact that Bush can actually sink low enough to support the story is astonishing and disgusting!

This is his worst policy yet, with undoubtedly terrible consequences that will prompt other nations such as Russia to instate similar policies - think about it!

No nation would be inconsistent with it's policies, through fear of it's political leaders appearing weak - they would much rather appear stupid.

It is a disgrace to think some Americans are so stupid that they could blindly encourage Russia, Pakistan, &c. (and all other nuclear powers) to adhere to copies of such a policy.

The draft also highlights the administration's utter failure to understand what it is that terrorists seek - they want to destroy the world!

 

[Bozo Erectus]

The draft also highlights the administration's utter failure to understand what it is that terrorists seek - they want to destroy the world!

No they dont They want to destroy the current world order, where the West is supreme, yes, but not 'the world'. The terorists didnt pop out of a comic book. They have a political, economic, cultural, and religious agenda thats diametrically opposed to ours, thats all.

Anyway, the administration has two options: start nuking countries willy-nilly, or make the US energy independent, and disengage from the Middle East. Their limited mental capacity clearly leads them to the nuclear option. Oh well.

 

[CurtSibling]

No they dont They want to destroy the current world order, where the West is supreme, yes, but not 'the world'. The terorists didnt pop out of a comic book. They have a political, economic, cultural, and religious agenda thats diametrically opposed to ours, thats all.

Anyway, the administration has two options: start nuking countries willy-nilly, or make the US energy independent, and disengage from the Middle East. Their limited mental capacity clearly leads them to the nuclear option. Oh well.

Actually, most religious maniacs want to destoy the world, so their own particular
saviour, allah, or invisible man deity can come and remake it in their own image.

The sickness of Human madness has no boundaries.

And the story in question is junk, no-one in the real world is going to break out the nukes pre-emptively.

Anyone who supports WMD strikes without provocation should be shot.

.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Well yeah, Im sure some, even many of the lower level grunts have that apocalyptic vision, (like their Christian counterparts here in the West) but I dont think their leaders do. Like most powerful men, they very much want the world to continue, because theyd like to rule it, or at least a sizable chunk of it.

 

[CurtSibling]

Exactly.

Armageddon is a peasant's dream to end his suffering and lowly station.

 

[stormbind]

No they dont They want to destroy the current world order, where the West is supreme, yes, but not 'the world'. The terorists didnt pop out of a comic book. They have a political, economic, cultural, and religious agenda thats diametrically opposed to ours, thats all.

Then you have also failed to understand.

The terrorists concerned (religious extremists) long for the day when all humans are separated into two camps: those in hell, and those in heaven.

Such people do not fear the end of the world, because after it, they will receive the ultimate reward from God (72 white grapes, if you are Muslim) and infidels will be severely punished.

 

[CurtSibling]

All bunk of course.

These fools have been sold a massive lie.
As have most religious people who follow humans.

.

 

[stormbind]

Actually, most religious maniacs want to destoy the world, so their own particular
saviour, allah, or invisible man deity can come and remake it in their own image.

The sickness of Human madness has no boundaries.

And the story in question is junk, no-one in the real world is going to break out the nukes pre-emptively.

Anyone who supports WMD strikes without provocation should be shot.

.

Indeed, but it gets worse because that train of thought exists among some Christians as well.

How religious does George Bush claim to be?

 

[stormbind]

Exactly.

Armageddon is a peasant's dream to end his suffering and lowly station.

Not just peasants. It extends to all extreme religious who experience loss or sadness: armageddon promises eternal happiness.

 

[Taliesin]

It notes that U.S. policy has always been purposely vague with regard to when the United States would use nuclear weapons and that it has never vowed not to be the first to use them in a conflict.

Isn't this revisionist? Correct me if I'm wrong, was it not explicit American policy during the Cold War never to initiate a nuclear exchange?

More generally: this deserves a very loud "WTH?". "...deterrence may be directed at states that support their efforts...." Isn't that just plain evil? George W. Bush told us repeatedly that Iraq was "supporting the efforts" of al-Qaeda, as a justification for invasion. Was this the case at all? No. But that's what we were told. Does this mean a similar situation will play itself out in another country, but with nuclear weapons involved? One thing's for sure, it would conveniently destroy all evidence contrary to the president's statements...

 

[farting bob]

Disgusting. Use of a nuclear weapon in this age will mean guarenteed world war, and trigger happy nations will just love that. And a nuclear bomb is the most pointless weapon you can use against terorists. I dont think they hold AGM's where they all meet up and chat. They are small groups of people spread throughout the world. killing hundreds of thousands to kill 1 or 2 groups of terrorists, no matter if its bin laden himself, would be the worst thing that mankind has ever done.

 

[eyrei]

Disgusting. The Bush administration and anyone who supports such a ludicrous idea should be ashamed. I have a feeling not even Jesus would forgive such an act of monstrous inhumanity.

Not to mention the high degree of cowardice involved. I wish people would stop believing the dangerous misinformation these very dangerous people feed them under the guise of military preparedness and security. The day the US launches a preemptive nuclear strike is the day I take up arms against the US government. It would be our duty as Americans and citizens of the world.

 

[CurtSibling]

Indeed, but it gets worse because that train of thought exists among some Christians as well.

How religious does George Bush claim to be?

I meant christians too, not just the islamics.

Do you think I pick favourites?


.