Reply
Sun 11 Sep, 2005 07:52 am
A nuclear draft doctrine written by the Pentagon calls for maintaining an aggressive nuclear posture with weapons on high alert to strike adversaries armed with weapons of mass destruction (WMD), pre-emptively if necessary.
Quote:Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan
Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 11, 2005; Page 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.
Full report
"Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" (pdf-file)
From "Arms Control Today" by Hans M. Kristensen:
The Role of U.S. Nuclear Weapons: New Doctrine Falls Short of Bush Pledge
Here is an interesting quote...
"At the same time, Bell added, "it would be a mistake to think that nuclear weapons no longer matter, or that they no longer matter to this administration." Such weapons are still needed to deter "aggression and coercion" by threatening a response that "would be certain and overwhelming and devastating." He noted that the directive still allows the United States to launch its weapons after receiving warning of attack -- but before incoming warheads detonate -- and also to be the first to employ nuclear arms in a conflict."
Notice the last part...
BE THE FIRST TO EMPLOY NUCLEAR ARMS.
Does anybody have any thoughts on that part?
mysteryman wrote:Here is an interesting quote...
"At the same time, Bell added, "it would be a mistake to think that nuclear weapons no longer matter, or that they no longer matter to this administration." Such weapons are still needed to deter "aggression and coercion" by threatening a response that "would be certain and overwhelming and devastating." He noted that the directive still allows the United States to launch its weapons after receiving warning of attack -- but before incoming warheads detonate -- and also to be the first to employ nuclear arms in a conflict."
Notice the last part...
BE THE FIRST TO EMPLOY NUCLEAR ARMS.
Does anybody have any thoughts on that part?
Does anyone remember what Tom Tancredo said about a month ago? I liked his idea about the potential for destruction of enemies if someone detonated a nuke on US soil.
Walter,
Is it ok for the US to be the first to use nuclear weapons?
Is that a good position for the President,or anyone,to take?
Re: Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations
Walter Hinteler wrote:A nuclear draft doctrine written by the Pentagon calls for maintaining an aggressive nuclear posture with weapons on high alert to strike adversaries armed with weapons of mass destruction (WMD), pre-emptively if necessary.
Quote:Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan
Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 11, 2005; Page 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.
Full report
"Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" (pdf-file)
From "Arms Control Today" by Hans M. Kristensen:
The Role of U.S. Nuclear Weapons: New Doctrine Falls Short of Bush Pledge
Walter, what's your point...? What's wrong with a strong defensive (even proactive) posture for the US? Would you prefer the US wait for the bad guys to strike first?
Re: Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations
slkshock7 wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:A nuclear draft doctrine written by the Pentagon calls for maintaining an aggressive nuclear posture with weapons on high alert to strike adversaries armed with weapons of mass destruction (WMD), pre-emptively if necessary.
Quote:Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan
Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 11, 2005; Page 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.
Full report
"Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" (pdf-file)
From "Arms Control Today" by Hans M. Kristensen:
The Role of U.S. Nuclear Weapons: New Doctrine Falls Short of Bush Pledge
Walter, what's your point...? What's wrong with a strong defensive (even proactive) posture for the US? Would you prefer the US wait for the bad guys to strike first?
Does he really have to answer that? Most of those on the left here will answer that as yes. They would rather be hit first and react then anger the rest of the world.
My point really is that this is a doctrine, worse than during the times of the cold war.
Its to late.
The President has ALREADY SAID we have the right to use nukes first.
If others don't want to catch a nuke in the eye then they should be careful on how they act. I woudn't want to see them used but if we have to then we have to. Puts others on notice to behave.
I can see where Russia and other nation-states are concerned about this policy allowing preemptive use of nuclear weapons.
However, people seem to forget that we no longer live in the cold war era, where nation states are adversaries with other nation states. In that context, a "No First Use" (NFU) policy served some purpose. After all, if a nation-state attacked a NFU nation, the NFU nation could then retaliate in force. The locations of the high-value targets e.g. capitols, populous cities, etc., were well known and could be easily targeted. Thus the threat of retaliation served as a strong deterrent to any first use of any kind.
Unfortunately our primary enemy is no longer nation-states. Instead we face small, well-resourced, loosely-knit and extremely mobile small organizations e.g. Al Queda. Since it is extremely difficult to effectively and punitively retaliate against such organizations, a first-use policy is clearly warranted.
It certainly does not make sense to watch Al Queda acquire WMD and simply trust they won't ever use them. They've already claimed they will use WMD should they get them. And when they do, against whom or what shall we retaliate? Some tents in the desert? A cave in the mountains of Afghanistan? The only high-value target is the WMD itself. After it is expended, any retaliation will simply kill a few terrorists and leave a big hole in the ground. Another cell will then acquire the next nuke and drop another on the US....and because we are restricted to some NFU policy, all we can do is bomb another few tents or caves.
No, in my opinion, a First Use policy of taking out the cell prior to their use of WMD, with nukes if necessary, is the only reasonable policy in this day and age.
So in the first use policy, where will you bomb? Like you said, a few more tents & then what?
Walter Hinteler wrote:My point really is that this is a doctrine, worse than during the times of the cold war.
Since you are in the right, why is it that you present your opinion with no analysis at all to support it? Hardly a characteristic of people who have correct, well thought out positions.
So can I safely assume that those on the left oppose the first strike policy and those on the right are in favor of it?
catch22 wrote:So in the first use policy, where will you bomb? Like you said, a few more tents & then what?
If terrorists use a nuke on US soil then I say we bomb their holy sites. Of course we let them know this will happen first so that they have a warning of what will happen if they want to play that game.
Brandon9000 wrote:Since you are in the right, why is it that you present your opinion with no analysis at all to support it?
I took some years political sciences at univerity, but that hardly qualifies me as an analysist.
Sorry to disappoint you.
Brandon9000 wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:My point really is that this is a doctrine, worse than during the times of the cold war.
Since you are in the right, why is it that you present your opinion with no analysis at all to support it? Hardly a characteristic of people who have correct, well thought out positions.
You are doing the same here.
You present your opinion on the characteristics of "people who have correct, well thought out positions" with not a shred of analysis to support your opinion on said characteristics.
Note: I find nothing wrong with it (stating an opinion while happening to neglect to write out all your reasons for holding it) save for the hypocrisy of indicting someone else for it at the same time.
Craven de Kere wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:My point really is that this is a doctrine, worse than during the times of the cold war.
Since you are in the right, why is it that you present your opinion with no analysis at all to support it? Hardly a characteristic of people who have correct, well thought out positions.
You are doing the same here.
You present your opinion on the characteristics of "people who have correct, well thought out positions" with not a shred of analysis to support your opinion on said characteristics.
Note: I find nothing wrong with it (stating an opinion while happening to neglect to write out all your reasons for holding it) save for the hypocrisy of indicting someone else for it at the same time.
To say that a particular US policy is bad is the sort of statement that does call for some argument, since there is usually not a concensus that it is so. On the other hand, the idea that people who are right about something can generally come up with reasoning for their case is self-evident.
So you ask me to deliver an analysis why I think,
that
Quote:this is a doctrine, worse than during the times of the cold war
?
Well, I'll certainly be pleased to look up the web and give you a detailed list of relevant sources and additonal offline quotations from relevant primary sources as soon as possible.
I just had a quick look through vol III of Frankel, Benjamin's The Cold War (Resources: Chronology, History, Concepts, Events, Organizations, Bibliography, Archives), and couldn't find anything worse.
Bu I do agree that some might think there had been something worse.
(I should actually know, since I didn't only live during that time but was an active part of "cold war instruments", too.)
Could have come through anytime
Cold lonely, your return
What are you fighting for?
It's not my security
It's just an old war
Not even a cold war
Don't say it in Russian
Don't say it in German
Say it in broken English
Say it in broken English
Lose your father, and your husband
Your mother and your children
What are you dying for?
It's not my reality
It's just an old war
Not even a cold war
Don't say it in Russian
Don't say it in German
Say it in broken English
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace