Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/11/2005 5:21:07 AM EDT
I thnk this is a wise move...get them 1st before any harm can be done to us:

HH

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
washingtonpost.com

Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan
Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 11, 2005; A01



The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use hem to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.

At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States would "respond with overwhelming force" to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces or allies, and said "all options" would be available to the president.

The draft, dated March 15, would provide authoritative guidance for commanders to request presidential approval for using nuclear weapons, and represents the Pentagon's first attempt to revise procedures to reflect the Bush preemption doctrine. A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration, contains no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from weapons of mass destruction.

Titled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" and written under the direction of Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the draft document is unclassified and available on a Pentagon Web site. It 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. Meanwhile, the draft is going through final coordination with the military services, the combatant commanders, Pentagon legal authorities and Rumsfeld's office, Cutler said in a written statement.

A "summary of changes" included in the draft identifies differences from the 1995 doctrine, and says the new document "revises the discussion of nuclear weapons use across the range of military operations."

The first example for potential nuclear weapon use listed in the draft is against an enemy that is using "or intending to use WMD" against U.S. or allied, multinational military forces or civilian populations.

Another scenario for a possible nuclear preemptive strike is in case of an "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy."

That and other provisions in the document appear to refer to nuclear initiatives proposed by the administration that Congress has thus far declined to fully support.

Last year, for example, Congress refused to fund research toward development of nuclear weapons that could destroy biological or chemical weapons materials without dispersing them into the atmosphere.

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

But Congress last year halted funding of a study to determine the viability of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator warhead (RNEP) -- commonly called the bunker buster -- that the Pentagon has said is needed to attack hardened, deeply buried weapons sites.

The Joint Staff draft doctrine explains that despite the end of the Cold War, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction "raises the danger of nuclear weapons use." It says that there are "about thirty nations with WMD programs" along with "nonstate actors [terrorists] either independently or as sponsored by an adversarial state."

To meet that situation, the document says that "responsible security planning requires preparation for threats that are possible, though perhaps unlikely today."

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 U.S. policy in the past has "repeatedly rejected calls for adoption of 'no first use' policy of nuclear weapons since this policy could undermine deterrence."

Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee who has been a leading opponent of the bunker-buster program, said yesterday the draft was "apparently a follow-through on their nuclear posture review and they seem to bypass the idea that Congress had doubts about the program." She added that members "certainly don't want the administration to move forward with a [nuclear] preemption policy" without hearings, closed door if necessary.

A spokesman for Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said yesterday the panel has not yet received a copy of the draft.

Hans M. Kristensen, a consultant to the Natural Resources Defense Council, who discovered the document on the Pentagon Web site, said yesterday that it "emphasizes the need for a robust nuclear arsenal ready to strike on short notice including new missions."

Kristensen, who has specialized for more than a decade in nuclear weapons research, said a final version of the doctrine was due in August but has not yet appeared.

"This doctrine does not deliver on the Bush administration pledge of a reduced role for nuclear weapons," Kristensen said. "It provides justification for contentious concepts not proven and implies the need for RNEP."

One reason for the delay may be concern about raising publicly the possibility of preemptive use of nuclear weapons, or concern that it might interfere with attempts to persuade Congress to finance the bunker buster and other specialized nuclear weapons.

In April, Rumsfeld appeared before the Senate Armed Services panel and asked for the bunker buster study to be funded. He said the money was for research and not to begin production on any particular warhead. "The only thing we have is very large, very dirty, big nuclear weapons," Rumsfeld said. "It seems to me studying it [the RNEP] makes all the sense in the world."
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 5:27:47 AM EDT
It's a good idea, I just doubt any president has the balls to do it.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 5:35:06 AM EDT
Very wise move. Remember that stalemate war between Iraq and Iran? Remember how long it took us to topple Iraq?

Iran fears us which is why they want some tricks up their sleeves. I say strip them of their tricks.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 5:37:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HoustonHusker:
The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use hem to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.



It'll never happen because of Iraq. It probably shouldn't happen until our intelligence community gets their shit ironed out.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 9:52:31 AM EDT
We should start using small JDAM nukes, AND NOT SAY A DAMN THING. That's going to drive the enemy and the Leftists nuts. Just have the spokesmen say, "no comment and insufficent information at this time", to all inquiries.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 10:00:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus:
We should start using small JDAM nukes, AND NOT SAY A DAMN THING. That's going to drive the enemy and the Leftists nuts. Just have the spokesmen say, "no comment and insufficent information at this time", to all inquiries.



Since we are the only ones that have that level of technology... that wouldn't exactly work.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 10:02:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By glockguy40:

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus:
We should start using small JDAM nukes, AND NOT SAY A DAMN THING. That's going to drive the enemy and the Leftists nuts. Just have the spokesmen say, "no comment and insufficent information at this time", to all inquiries.



Since we are the only ones that have that level of technology... that wouldn't exactly work.




he's not talking about hiding it ... he's saying do it and let them bitch

Link Posted: 9/11/2005 1:17:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus:
We should start using small JDAM nukes, AND NOT SAY A DAMN THING. That's going to drive the enemy and the Leftists nuts. Just have the spokesmen say, "no comment and insufficent information at this time", to all inquiries.



use one on iran's and north korea's weapon plants. then they can claim it was a conventional bomb and that it must have caused the shady illegal weapons production equipment to malfunction and go off
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 5:19:05 AM EDT
I missed this back when it was first discussed. I just watched a movie called On The Beach and it kind of reminds me of what the outcome of first strike would be... nothing good could come out of tossing nukes around like conventional weapons.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 5:24:01 AM EDT
I think a deterent is only a deterent when there is potential for it's use. I don't know if I want to see a nuclear attack in my lifetime. But if we keep our hands tied in front of us, for all the world to see - we are just asking to get punched in the face.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 5:46:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:
I missed this back when it was first discussed. I just watched a movie called On The Beach and it kind of reminds me of what the outcome of first strike would be... nothing good could come out of tossing nukes around like conventional weapons.



On the Beach was scientifically flawed. IIRC, the US and
USSR never had a stockpile of colbalt bombs that would
kill everyone on the planet. Certainly now, with the USSR
degraded severly and the Chinese SRFs in their infancy,
the world could survive a full scale exchange.

We are safer now than in the 70s and 80s, to be sure.

I worry about this policy in that, the US probably is the
only nation on earth with a credible counter-force ability.
The health and stability of Russian SRFs makes me
wonder if they would even bother to create a counter-force
targeting plan. When you have a potentially high number
of rocket failures (due to lack of crews, maintenance, etc),
you might as well target cities first - use them or lose
them.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 6:21:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:
On the Beach was scientifically flawed. IIRC, the US and USSR never had a stockpile of colbalt bombs that would kill everyone on the planet. Certainly now, with the USSR degraded severly and the Chinese SRFs in their infancy, the world could survive a full scale exchange.



I was referring more to the idea behind the movie of the world just going nuke-wild and depleting their payloads on one another until there's nothing left.

Ppoint being, our having used the atom bomb to end the war with Japan is probably one of the biggest reasons so many other countries have made so much effort to obtain nuclear capabilities. Up to this point they have pretty much been a symbol of power and a deterrent of invasion, but eventually one of these nut-job countries is going to test the tolerance of the rest of the world and start lobbing nukes at their neighboring enemies to see what the world' reaction will be. From there who knows what the result would be.

I'm fairly certain we'll see a country in the east exchange nukes with another in our lifetime.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 7:09:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:
he's not talking about hiding it ... he's saying do it and let them bitch

Yep! I can just see the White House spokesman, "maybe it was an accident".
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 7:18:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:
I'm fairly certain we'll see a country in the east exchange nukes with another in our lifetime.



India and Pakistan, we are looking at you.
Top Top