Uhm, Sorry, But Didn't The Cold War End A Few Years Back? (1131 hits)
Category: Science & EnvironmentalRating: 1.44 on 21 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by LadyPlural (View user info) at 2005-09-11 16:21:50 EDT
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053_pf.html
And yes, for those of you who are too damn lazy to click on the link, here's the text of the article.
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."
-------------------------------------------------
*sigh*
Because we've all seen how absolutely perfect our nation's intelligence on WMDs and justifications for preemptive strikes has been.
In the immortal words of, I don't know, somebody, WHAT THE EVERLOVING FUCK? Preemptive use of nuclear weapons? I am absolutely dead serious when I say that I would far prefer to be killed by some madman's anthrax stockpile than to have my government drop nukes on a country. Period. If they use nuclear weapons against us first, well, I'm maybe willing to consider the possibility, but otherwise- no way in fucking hell.
I have more to say, but I want to actually think about it and how to articulate it in a logical manner before I write anymore. But I'm pissed off enough to post this bit now.
If anyone can explain why this is a good and (I hate to say it, but...) moral strategy for the US, please try and enlighten me.
Have a random picture.
User Reviews
Submitted by MavisMing (user info) at 2005-12-04 06:29:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
We'l all go together when we go.
Submitted by Snark (user info) at 2005-12-03 13:59:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
QUIVERING HOLE!!!!
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
(I lurrrrve you too)
Submitted by TheSunGod (user info) at 2005-09-14 16:51:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by LadyPlural (user info) at 2005-09-14 14:53:46 (#)
Ranking: 2
You're absolutely retarded, but in a manly and kickass sort of a way.
........................
HMM. i prefer "kickass and manly in a retarded sort of a way" if you don't mind...
uhm... is your hair really orange like that chick outta 5th element? (re: uberdirectory pic) cause that'd be tits.
Submitted by missflibble (user info) at 2005-09-14 16:06:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
on a totally unrelated note: http://www.ubersite.com/m/75164
just for you.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2005-09-12 16:51:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I know what you mean...
...in national/civil defense as in everything else, you always need to find the right tool for the right job... who you're prepared to give access to the toolbox is an entirely different and often scarier question.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2005-09-12 15:54:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I am absolutely dead serious when I say that I would far prefer to be killed by some madman's anthrax stockpile than to have my government drop nukes on a country.
-----
what about the other 17000 people who just got dusted along with you? Do they get a say as well?
STRIKE FIRST, STRIKE HARD, STRIKE OFTEN
Submitted by jeveuxgagner (user info) at 2005-09-12 01:51:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
this truly is a kicker of all ass
Submitted by Whiplash (user info) at 2005-09-12 01:38:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
TEH KOLD VOR NEBBER ENDED, KOMRAD. FOOK YORSELPH.
Submitted by LadyPlural (user info) at 2005-09-12 01:19:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Coyote, you've got several very good points. Ok, fuck, that entire response was so full of good points it could be used as building materials (and I'm not talking as 2x4's, either). At the same time, it just seems as though the fact that the They (Rummy, et. al) are comfortable enough with having such a proposal, not having it classified, and publishing it... I mean, even though they seemed to be trying to slip it in under the radar makes me wonder what else They've been doing that *has* been classified and is probably massively worse than that.
I thought about the whole issue during martial arts class today, and between getting my ass kicked and being called a weasel for sometimes managing to not get my ass kicked, it occurred to me that the 'we'd only use tactical nukes that are really small', etc, is kind of like that old joke where you ask someone if they'd fuck some person for a dollar, and then if they'd fuck some person for a million dollars, and then you call them a whore when they say yes to the second question and say that if they'd take money for sex they're a whore, and the rest is just haggling, and then you laugh until the person you were talking to punches you in the ovaries. I mean, no matter how small or insignificant the nuclear weaponry is, it's still nuclear weaponry. And it is kind of a slippery slope between "Well, we can use this tiny one on this one guy once" and "Well, the entire country obviously hates us- let's just bomb the whole damn place back into the Stone Age. That will teach them."
I'd like to think that any sort of terrorist (or leader of a country, whatever) who was insane enough to want to detonate any sort of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon, knowing that if they did, there would be immediate retaliation from the US and its allies, would not be stopped from stockpiling any of the above weaponry by the possibility of a preemptive strike.
Jesus fuck that was a long and incomprehensible sentence. I swear to god that I'll come back to this tomorrow, but I don't think I'm making any sense at the moment, so goodnight, people. Have sweet and non-irradiated dreams.
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2005-09-11 19:46:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Bush and his zealots just want to bring on the end of the world on their terms. I'm not surprised by any of this...
Submitted by Sten (user info) at 2005-09-11 19:24:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Anyone remember the Stephen King book, "The Dead Zone"?
Take a guy like GW, a "reformed" alcoholic and drug user, add religion, power, and stir...presto, you've got trouble. The problem is, the corridors of power are full of people out of Dr. Strangelove and the Dead Zone. Does anyone feel safer knowing that the US could be considering a pre-emptive strike...right now?
Submitted by The_Grammar_Nazi (user info) at 2005-09-11 18:31:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2005-09-11 17:04:55 (#)
Ranking: 1
I wouldn't -2 this. I think your anger and confusion in the matter are well justified. It's fucking stupid to consider the use of a weapon that undoubtedly will kill thousands of innocent people as a 'preemptive attack'. What's scary is that Rumsfeld will agree with the proposal...and even scarier than that: Bush is still in office for another couple of years and will have the ability to push a button.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It looks like this report was mainly to justify nuclear Bunker-busters: TACTICAL weapons, STRATEGIC (i.e. low-yield, not meant ot level cities). They probably also want to use "baby-nuke" powered devices (plasma-yield warheads and other shit that I'm probably rembering from a Dale Brown novel).
You DO also realize that we have plenty of non-nuclear weapons that are JUST as nasty? Fuel-Air Explosives, White Phosphorus grenades and artillery shells, Daisy Cutters and MOABs?
And Bush has ALWAYS been able to push that button. This report really changes nothing at all.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-09-11 18:29:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You have no idea how often I hear shit like this happening in the States and say to myself "Thank god I live on this goddamn desert island that noone's gonna bother with."
Submitted by resignator (user info) at 2005-09-11 17:59:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I actually miss the cold war compared to this shit we are in now.
Submitted by Slovin (user info) at 2005-09-11 17:44:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
For all the talk about WMD's, we have yet to see a single one.
Not one.
Not even TRACES of one.
In the technical world this is called "vaporware." Companies involved in it usually go out of business pretty quick.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2005-09-11 17:33:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I can't help but respond to this, even though I should be working, just because I love talking about nuclear strategy. Even though I think this particular even doesn't amount to much-- I mean, it's just the kind of thing you have to say if you're trying to make the people who think you're capable of making them safe, feel safe.
1) Let's just be clear that the paper doesn't change any policy, it merely tries to systematize the military's implementation of a policy that's been in place for a long time now. Any effort to improve communication and provide guidelines for action in *any* emergency can only be considered a good thing, even if it's only just to keep people like Al Haig from taking over in a power vacuum.
2) This kind of thinking has been in place since the development of the Hydrogen bomb. With reference to your cold war comment, it's true that the initial concept of massive relation was developed as a way to cope with the overwhelming superiority of Soviet land forces in eastern europe, the weapons in question can have a clear tactical use even today. However, as we've all seen, a nuclear option on its own is worthless. It needs to be backed up with efficient and intelligent application of conventional forces on a variety of timescales and commitment levels.
3) Distinguish between failures of intelligence and distortions of intelligence for political purposes. I'm pretty sure our intelligence on WMD was spot on. That intelligence happened to be spun and twisted in order to help the administration achieved what had been an openly avowed goal of the neocon movement since right after the first Gulf War. This warping was permitted (or encouraged) by the media and the public in the aftermath of a unique and tragic even in American history.
I think you can see for a variety of reasons how similar circumstances would be far less likely to happen in the case of nuking places.
4) When they say nuclear deterrent, you're probably thinking ICBM type H-bombs with yields of several megatons being used to flatten cities. In reality a modern nuclear weapon can be tiny. I realize this is the same creepy argument used to justify "precision" aerial strikes, but even so there's a big difference between something like a nuclear artillery shell and the things that make the giant mushroom clouds we see in Gary Larson cartoons.
5) That said, here's a good and moral application of a first use nuclear option by the US: suppose a massive and hostile central asian country is harboring a person who directs a large guerilla army that has committed atrocities throughout the world and shows every intention and capability of doing so again. Should we a) invade that country, costing the lives of many innocent citizens of that country and incidentally many US/allied soldiers? or b) should we neutron bomb the isolated area where this leader has his hideout, wait for the fallout to settle, and go in to pick up the pieces 6 months later? That's the kind of nuclear first strike option I'd consider, and the kind that I'd *hope* the Pentagon would consider too.
The nice thing about radiological weapons is that the radiation effects can far outstrip the blast effects in a lot of cases. You don't have to hit the enemy's missile bunker precisely enough to prevent the launch of even a single anthrax-laden missile, if the radiation from your strike sterlizes all his precious fermentation tanks.
If I knew, I mean KNEW that there were WMDs being ready for use against the US, nukes would be my first choice to deal with the threat. Because the whole Iraq thing was based on nothing-- the point wasn't to eliminate WMDs, it was to topple a regime-- we didn't see nukes used. The same kind of outrage you express here would sweep the country if nukes were used for any kind of a less than gold standard reason.
6) Lastly, you should consider that US conventional forces are stretched pretty thin right now, our allies are kind of pissed at us, and to rule out *any* option would be quite dangerous. If you dislike this reality, vote the folks who are in large part responsible out of office. Maybe a different group of leaders will have better luck producing a less dangerous world climate.
Crap. I have to get back to work.
Submitted by Feijuada (user info) at 2005-09-11 17:21:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Hey, you won't know if it was a school ot an anthrax factory after it's nuked, so who cares?
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2005-09-11 17:04:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I wouldn't -2 this. I think your anger and confusion in the matter are well justified. It's fucking stupid to consider the use of a weapon that undoubtedly will kill thousands of innocent people as a 'preemptive attack'. What's scary is that Rumsfeld will agree with the proposal...and even scarier than that: Bush is still in office for another couple of years and will have the ability to push a button.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-09-11 16:41:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I'll build one, crazy mommy.....
Submitted by MANICMOTHER (user info) at 2005-09-11 16:26:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Time to start building bomb shelters again. Anybody got one they want to share?
Submitted by LadyPlural (user info) at 2005-09-11 16:23:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
-2 away, folk.
Yes it is folk. It's a singular plural, like 'sheep' or 'fish'. So fuck all y'all.