Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan - Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions

Synikul · **Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan -** 09-12-05

Quote:

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 them 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

It sounds good to me.

Any other opinions?

Qoji · 09-17-05

They'd be better off dropping them on themselves.

CRAZ · **Cock walkin' -** 09-18-05

I still think that the only reason anyone has nukes is because everyone else has nukes. There's no real strategic use for them other then to prevent someone else from doing it. That said, this seems like a shitty idea.

If we use nuclear weapons, then other countries will feel like they can as well. Between Hu Jintao flexing his muscles as of late and that lunatic Kim Jong Il, this is most deffinately an inoppertune moment to be discussing how and why we should use nuclear weapons on other nations.

This seems like a sort of paniced approach to the fact that we've overextended our military strength in all different directions. Lacking the personell and time required to accomplish our goals in an organized and professional manner, certain people sound like they just want to chuck nukes at the problem to make it go away. I think that this would just cause us larger problems in the long run.

Synikul · 09-18-05

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRAZ

I still think that the only reason anyone has nukes is because everyone else has nukes. There's no real strategic use for them other then to prevent someone else from doing it. That said, this seems like a shitty idea.

If we use nuclear weapons, then other countries will feel like they can as well. Between Hu Jintao flexing his muscles as of late and that lunatic Kim Jong Il, this is most deffinately an inoppertune moment to be discussing how and why we should use nuclear weapons on other nations.

This seems like a sort of paniced approach to the fact that we've overextended our military strength in all different directions. Lacking the personell and time required to accomplish our goals in an organized and professional manner, certain people sound like they just want to chuck nukes at the problem to make it go away. I think that this would just cause us larger problems in the long run.

A big part of deterrance is the threat. This is a good thing to have out there, even if you don't actually do it. If your potential enemy thinks you're serious about this, then he has to take that into account with his own plans.

CRAZ · 09-19-05

True enough. I suppose it can't really be considered a "bluff", either, since the basis of it is not only the threat and ability to use these things, but the will to do it if deemed necisary. I suppose that's what I find most threatening about this, that if this thing passes, it will show that we do have the will to use such weapons. Unfortunately, I think countries like Korea and China will think that we're bluffing, what with our past commitments to abstain from any type of nuclear involvement whatsoever.

I'm not saying it's neccisarily a bad idea if you're in a conflict with.. I don't know, "sane" enemies. But look at the people we're against today. Osama and Hussein both outlandishly assumed that they could resist and even perhaps overcome the American military, and that's with the small amount of people they have.

Tozzy · 09-20-05

its an evil circle though. the more you have, the more you flaunt, the more everyone else knows, and then has to go and produce more to show he's serious and can defend from you incase you go mental. then you have to go and get more so you know you're ok, and of course loads of different countries are in this together, having to do the same thing.

it just gets to extremes. i think we should all just take apart our nuclear weapons and use the offending parts in reactors to create electricity then be done with it.

i'd like to say this though - countries out there are being forced by the "bigger more powerful countries" to disarm and get rid of their nuclear arms programs. if the "bigger more powerful countries" didn't have nukes, then these smaller guys wouldnt really need to go for them because they don't need those things to defend themselves. sure some cunts would, if they wanted to attack other places.

i'm not saying get rid of the army, it serves its purpose. but over the top weaponry, yeah get rid of it.

Synikul · 09-20-05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tozzy

it just gets to extremes. i think we should all just take apart our nuclear weapons and use the offending parts in reactors to create electricity then be done with it.

First, that will never happen.

Second, if it ever actually did happen, there would be a world war of conventional forces within 10 years that would dwarf WW2. Nuclear weapons are the only thing that has prevented another world war.

Qoji · 09-21-05

I thought you weren't a man of faith, Synikul.

Synikul · 09-21-05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qoji

I thought you weren't a man of faith, Synikul.

I must be having a stupid moment. Please explain why you say that.

Qoji · 09-21-05

"That will never happen" is certainly an expression of faith, that or an expression of prophecy.

Synikul · 09-21-05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qoji

"That will never happen" is certainly an expression of faith, that or an expression of prophecy.

We can't un-invent them. They exist, someone will always have them.

Qoji · 09-21-05

Not if we destroyed them all and didn't build any more.

Synikul · 09-22-05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qoji

Not if we destroyed them all and didn't build any more.

You have no appreciation of human ambition.

Qoji · 09-23-05

Maybe it's you that has too much.

CRAZ · **You can't huge with nuclear arms... -** 09-24-05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qoji

Maybe it's you that has too much.

I hope you're playing the role of devils advocate here, and not REALLY suggesting that we could just make nuclear weapons disappear. This is very similar to the gun control issue, if we disarm everyone who's willing to get rid of nukes (We'll call them the "sane" crowd) then the only people who will have nukes are those who aren't willing to get rid of them (The "insane" crowd). I know, it's repatative and dumb to say it like that, "The only people willing to get rid of nukes, are those who are willing to get rid of nukes.", it cannot be said any more simply. So why do some people have such a hard time grasping this concept?

I'm not talking directly to Qoji anymore, since I do beleive he's just playing devil's advocate, but this issue really does bug me. I agree, the world would be a better place without nuclear weapons, but short of a One World Order where they designate storm troopers to go around disarming the remaining rebels, I don't see it happening. There will always be amibtiouse people who desire their own rise to power over anything else in the world, who would use ANY means of un-prepardeness against the people they intend to attack.

I do however think that a more realistic and likely to happen scenario is the neutralizing of nuclear missles. I was reading an article on it a while back in a military intelligence magazine, about the possability of us being able to disarm nuclear missles from space. It was a lot like the "Star Wars" program, but described as, 'Instead of putting up an umbrella over North America and Europe, putting a lid over the indevidual threats'.

But not all nuclear explosives are missles. If terrorists have such an abundance of suicide bombers, the potential for hand delivered nukes is actually very devestating. Supposedly, just through the internet, we have an information resource that can inform us of how to create a nuclear weapon, and many people maintain that it can even be done through household chemicals.

The way I see it, you get even a small nuke, a MACK truck, and a highway that runs close enough to a government building, and there's potential for disaster.

US Intelligence has actually released information recently that Al Queda may have smuggled two nukes inside US borders already. And that's just the information that they've made public. I'm glad I live in the middle of nowhere.

And... I don't feel like using spell check.

Qoji · 09-24-05

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRAZ

I hope you're playing the role of devils advocate here, and not REALLY suggesting that we could just make nuclear weapons disappear.

Nope, I honestly believe we could make them disappear.

prometheus · 09-24-05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synikul

It sounds good to me.

Any other opinions?

It sounds to me that when Britain, France, Russia, America, Israel, India and Pakistan follow suit and develope pre-emptive nuclear strike doctrines, the end of the end of the world is going to be a hell of a lot nigher...

prometheus · 09-24-05

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRAZ

But not all nuclear explosives are missles. If terrorists have such an abundance of suicide bombers, the potential for hand delivered nukes is actually very devestating. Supposedly, just through the internet, we have an information resource that can inform us of how to create a nuclear weapon, and many people maintain that it can even be done through household chemicals.

I'm sure in America, you can buy enriched Uranium and Plutonium in any corner drug store, but luckily for us over here, it's a little hard to come by...

Quote:

US Intelligence has actually released information recently that Al Queda may have smuggled two nukes inside US borders already. And that's just the information that they've made public. I'm glad I live in the middle of nowhere.

If they had, they would have detonated them...

Synikul · 09-24-05