NationStates Jolt Archive

An friend of mine - a vietnam vet who lives in Washington State - wrote a letter to his congressman as he has been very concerned about Bush's decision to pursue the development of new classes of tactical nukes.

The response was rather interesting. To quote the most relevant part:

"The administration is also currently developing a new "pre-emptive strike doctrine" that will significantly alter our approach to maintaining our security, and may include the use of nuclear weapons as a first-strike option. While this new military posture is yet to be defined, I will urge the administration to articulate a clear policy that incorporates input from Congress and our allies, rather than taking cavalier, unilateral actions."


Yeah.... people who want to deveop WMD and who might use them sure are the problem that needs fighting in this world George. Just don't forget to add yourself to the list....


the full text of the response was:

"Dear Mr. ------:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) and the Bush administration's recent proposals regarding nuclear weapons. I appreciate hearing from you.

Like you, I advocate for the reduction and nonproliferation of nuclear arms. I also agree that the so-called Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator is not a worthwhile weapon and should not be pursued by our military. The financial, diplomatic, and proliferation costs associated with such a weapon do not outweigh any benefits we might find in its use. You will be pleased to know that, during debate on the 2004 defense authorization bill, I voted for an amendment (H.AMDT.142) that would have removed 21 million dollars in funding from the RNEP and other new nuclear weapon initiatives. Unfortunately, this amendment failed by a vote of 199-226.

I also share your concerns about the Bush administration's decision to research and develop "low-yield" nuclear weapons. As with the RNEP, such weapons would harm our nation's long-standing commitment to nuclear arms reduction, and might encourage other nations to pursue these dangerous arms. As a leader in non-proliferation efforts, we must avoid triggering an expensive new arms race, and must indicate to the world that we are committed to reducing weapons of mass destruction.

Regretfully, these recent actions are not the first time that the Bush administration has worked to undermine years of diplomatic achievements on nuclear weapons. As you may know, last year President Bush withdrew the United States from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty - an action that I opposed. The administration is also currently developing a new "pre-emptive strike doctrine" that will significantly alter our approach to maintaining our security, and may include the use of nuclear weapons as a first-strike option. While this new military posture is yet to be defined, I will urge the administration to articulate a clear policy that incorporates input from Congress and our allies, rather than taking cavalier, unilateral actions.

Please continue to contact me about the issues that concern you, I both need and welcome your thoughts and ideas. I encourage you to contact me via email, telephone, or fax, because security measures are causing House offices to experience delays in receiving postal mail. My email address is: Jay.Inslee@mail.house.gov. Please be sure to include your full name, address, including your zip code, in your message. If you are a resident of the First Congressional District and would like to receive policy updates and newsletters via email, please email me to let me know.

Very Truly Yours,

JAY INSLEE
Member of Congress"


And if you want the most recent document on the administration policy of pre-emption, it can be found here (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2320.htm)

Now, I can't hold up a copy of the letter to show you. My friend has not scanned it into a presentable document.

But if you are an American citizen and the thought of extending the policy of preemption into the realm of using WMD disturbs you - you might want to write a letter to your own congress(wo)man to ask them what is up with these new low-yield toys that GW seems to feel that you need. After all - they won't be used where US servicemen might be.... so the options about what they think they need them for is rather limited now isn't it?

Anyway, ask the questions yourself. You might find the answer you get enlightening.

-Z-

A question ...

Have you ever purchased insurance?

A question ...

Have you ever purchased insurance?

Against what? Unless you are considering a return to MAD. and in that case do you think your enemy will be more concerned with little battle-field nukes? OR the inventory of strategic warheads that can annihilate a country?

I mean, really. Under what possible circumstances is a new, low yield battlefield nuke "insurance" against anything anyone else in the world has?

Fact is, the US already has thousands of perfectly serviceable nukes. thus the threat of strike already exists. And in the case of pre-emptive attack the US can project overwhelming conventional force sufficient to knock any other country in the world flat on it's ass.

So, I really don't see where there is any additional insurance value to increase the inventory. Eventually, you have enough coverage. More than enough in this case.

And a first strike policy only lends itself to other countries feeling the need for "insurance"

-Z-

Battlefield nukes only make sense if you are planning to fight non-nuclear equivalent-technology enemies in a full-scale theatre war. Which is a bit worrying, because America looking to pick that sort of fight is the last thing the world needs right now.

Bush is a crazy man.

There's really 2 different issues here.

The RNEP is really just a super "Bunker Buster" bomb, that will drill deep into the earth before exploding. The hope is that it penetrates the bunker,
but even if it doesn't, the explosion will probably cause the bunker to cave in on top of the occupants, thus eliminating bad guys while they are making their evil plans!

The use of low yield tactical nukes on the battlefield has been a strategy for years. That was discussed when I was in the military during the cold war. If a division of tanks is rolling across the border, and the only way to stop them is by dropping a low yield nuke or two on them, that's may be the best thing to do. While it wipes out the tank division, and does put some radiation in the air, overall, less civilians will die, and less collateral damage will be done, than if we just allow the division to roll over whatever is in the way. Due to the current superiority of US air power, this is never likely to happen, but it's nice to have that insurance, just in case.

On a more positive note, it's entirely possible that the US military doesn't need or want these devices. But there has to be some justification for pumping billions of American taxpayers' $$$ into the pockets of the military-industrial-entertainment complex; just handing over the cash would be too blatant, even for America.

Of course, if they get these new toys, there's always the temptation to use them. But I suspect most of this is just good old pork, as usual. Still not a good idea to let the US military get it, though. And if I was a US taxpayer I'd be pretty pissed off about it. And SDI. And the Stealth Bomber. And (fill in pork project here)...

What happen if a dirty bomb or any other nuclear device planted by Al Qaida goes off in the US, the UK or any other civilised country. There will be a demand of politicians for a nuclear response on suspect countries...

There's really 2 different issues here.

The RNEP is really just a super "Bunker Buster" bomb, that will drill deep into the earth before exploding. The hope is that it penetrates the bunker,
but even if it doesn't, the explosion will probably cause the bunker to cave in on top of the occupants, thus eliminating bad guys while they are making their evil plans!

The use of low yield tactical nukes on the battlefield has been a strategy for years. That was discussed when I was in the military during the cold war. If a division of tanks is rolling across the border, and the only way to stop them is by dropping a low yield nuke or two on them, that's may be the best thing to do. While it wipes out the tank division, and does put some radiation in the air, overall, less civilians will die, and less collateral damage will be done, than if we just allow the division to roll over whatever is in the way. Due to the current superiority of US air power, this is never likely to happen, but it's nice to have that insurance, just in case.

Shoot..deployment of tactical nukes by artillery was actually standard NATO doctrine for years...at one point..the Soviets held up to 50 Armored divisions in Eastern Europe...the philosophy was that if it ever came to a USSR/Warsaw Pact invasion of Europe they would have to come thru the Fulda Gap in Germany which has always been a corridor for invasion, but that they would have struck with such force that they would completely overwhelm NATO in Germany and the enemy would midway into France before we could mount a counterattack..an artillery-based nuke would just bout obliterate anything within a 2 kilometer range..thus blunting a Soviet thrust.

What happen if a dirty bomb or any other nuclear device planted by Al Qaida goes off in the US, the UK or any other civilised country. There will be a demand of politicians for a nuclear response on suspect countries...
Way to commit genocide . . . :roll:

What happen if a dirty bomb or any other nuclear device planted by Al Qaida goes off in the US, the UK or any other civilised country. There will be a demand of politicians for a nuclear response on suspect countries...

Ummm.... I don't think there would be a public outcry for nuclear retaliation against a country just because Al-Qaeda sets off a dirty bomb.
Even I would argue against that. However, if a country, like N Korea, successfully hit the US with a nuke, they could expect a few in return.
Since they know that, they'll never launch a nuke against the US.

True it would plunge the world in WW3.
How you do deter a threat to your nation/way of life without nukes?

There's really 2 different issues here.

The RNEP is really just a super "Bunker Buster" bomb, that will drill deep into the earth before exploding. The hope is that it penetrates the bunker,
but even if it doesn't, the explosion will probably cause the bunker to cave in on top of the occupants, thus eliminating bad guys while they are making their evil plans!

The use of low yield tactical nukes on the battlefield has been a strategy for years. That was discussed when I was in the military during the cold war. If a division of tanks is rolling across the border, and the only way to stop them is by dropping a low yield nuke or two on them, that's may be the best thing to do. While it wipes out the tank division, and does put some radiation in the air, overall, less civilians will die, and less collateral damage will be done, than if we just allow the division to roll over whatever is in the way. Due to the current superiority of US air power, this is never likely to happen, but it's nice to have that insurance, just in case.

Shoot..deployment of tactical nukes by artillery was actually standard NATO doctrine for years...at one point..the Soviets held up to 50 Armored divisions in Eastern Europe...the philosophy was that if it ever came to a USSR/Warsaw Pact invasion of Europe they would have to come thru the Fulda Gap in Germany which has always been a corridor for invasion, but that they would have struck with such force that they would completely overwhelm NATO in Germany and the enemy would midway into France before we could mount a counterattack..an artillery-based nuke would just bout obliterate anything within a 2 kilometer range..thus blunting a Soviet thrust.

Exactly what I was referring to! Thanks for the assist. I imagine that was a deterrent to the good ol' USSR.

The way I see it, a couple of hundred strategic nukes should be enough for everybody. That guarantees that if someone starts something, you'll get to finish it. All this warfighting stuff sounds suspicious to me. Just the sort of thing you'd use against some small crappy place which can't hit back.

they'll never launch a nuke against the US.
Theyll never destroy the WTC...they will never strike the Pentagon...or the White house...NEVER :roll:

And if I was a US taxpayer I'd be pretty pissed off about it...

What upsets me most as a taxpayer is the amount of social program $$ that have no hope of being managed effectively by the federal government.
There's definitely more justification for my tax $$ going to national defense efforts than how those dollars are being misdirected today, but that's another thread :D

There's really 2 different issues here.

The RNEP is really just a super "Bunker Buster" bomb, that will drill deep into the earth before exploding. The hope is that it penetrates the bunker,
but even if it doesn't, the explosion will probably cause the bunker to cave in on top of the occupants, thus eliminating bad guys while they are making their evil plans!

The use of low yield tactical nukes on the battlefield has been a strategy for years. That was discussed when I was in the military during the cold war. If a division of tanks is rolling across the border, and the only way to stop them is by dropping a low yield nuke or two on them, that's may be the best thing to do. While it wipes out the tank division, and does put some radiation in the air, overall, less civilians will die, and less collateral damage will be done, than if we just allow the division to roll over whatever is in the way. Due to the current superiority of US air power, this is never likely to happen, but it's nice to have that insurance, just in case.

It also scatters radioactive dust around for a kilometre or so.
Need I mention how cancer rates in Iraq rose 400% thanks to the use of depleted uranium in the Gulf War?
Now turn those DU shells into small nuclear weapons.
Get the picture yet?

they'll never launch a nuke against the US.
Theyll never destroy the WTC...they will never strike the Pentagon...or the White house...NEVER :roll:

We're talking about a totally different playing field in this discussion though!

The mentality of a nation and its leadership versus the actions and intentions of terrorists.

Senators and Representative both written...again. I'm sure they're postively disgusted with hearing from me by this point, but for the money they make they can damn well at least read my letters.

I have to say, though, both of these are, as RG and Salishe pointed out, old news. The pre-emptive strike doctrine has been in play since shortly after this administration came to power. There was a memo released to Congress describing the exact situations in which this administration would seek to use interncontinental nuclear weapons, both on a pre-emptive basis and on a retaliatory basis and I wrote a flurry of letters then as well. The "Bunker Buster" has been in development for many years and, as RG said, is very likely not going to be necessary given US air superiority as well as a flood of other more creative and deadly toys the US has at their disposal.

Thanks for keeping us posted though, Zep.

they'll never launch a nuke against the US.
Theyll never destroy the WTC...they will never strike the Pentagon...or the White house...NEVER :roll:

We're talking about a totally different playing field in this discussion though!

The mentality of a nation and its leadership versus the actions and intentions of terrorists.

I wouldn't say it is a bad idea to have a first strike policy, much better than assured mutual destruction.

It also scatters radioactive dust around for a kilometre or so.
Need I mention how cancer rates in Iraq rose 400% thanks to the use of depleted uranium in the Gulf War?
Now turn those DU shells into small nuclear weapons.
Get the picture yet?

Respectfully, this approach offers a level of deterrence that idly sitting by would not. The main consideration is prevention based upon strategic advantage.
Also, you refer to an increase in the cancer rates by 400% in Iraq ...
How many people does this percentage actually represent? By not having the capability to counter with these weapons, the number of casualities and collatoral damage would certainly be higher.

What upsets me most as a taxpayer is the amount of social program $$ that have no hope of being managed effectively by the federal government.
There's definitely more justification for my tax $$ going to national defense efforts than how those dollars are being misdirected today, but that's another thread :D

Hmm. Let's see. Trillions of $$$ being spent on specious junk that doesn't work, or is designed to fight the Cold War, or is just plain unneccessary (a Stealth Bomber? When you have cruise missiles? WTF?). I would have no objection to national defence (although it's looking more and more like "national attack"), but... my head doesn't zip up the back. I know pork, graft, gravy and corruption when I smell it. Eisenhower was right.

...deterrence .
No one can stand against the US army...a couple of countries can pull a tie...if Nukes are involved...

But all that military migth is useles against Al-Quaeda.
Even if we could kill all existing Al-quaeda...others new-borns will become Al-quaeda...

...deterrence .
No one can stand against the US army...a couple of countries can pull a tie...if Nukes are involved...

But all that military migth is useles against Al-Quaeda.
Even if we could kill all existing Al-quaeda...others new-borns will become Al-quaeda...

The flaw with that is.... We can make bullets and bombs faster than they can make new Al Qaeda members. :lol:

A different approach is required for terrorists than is required for entire countries. Just because we happen to be fighting terrorists and insurgents right now, doesn't mean we shouldn't plan/prepare for an unexpected war with a country that is closer to our level militarilly.

What upsets me most as a taxpayer is the amount of social program $$ that have no hope of being managed effectively by the federal government.
There's definitely more justification for my tax $$ going to national defense efforts than how those dollars are being misdirected today, but that's another thread :D

Hmm. Let's see. Trillions of $$$ being spent on specious junk that doesn't work, or is designed to fight the Cold War, or is just plain unneccessary (a Stealth Bomber? When you have cruise missiles? WTF?). I would have no objection to national defence (although it's looking more and more like "national attack"), but... my head doesn't zip up the back. I know pork, graft, gravy and corruption when I smell it. Eisenhower was right.

Agreed, there's far too much pork. But there is pork in EVERY govt program, not just defense.

The cruise missle and the Stealth bomber have different missions. Even though they both give the same result (ie: dead bad guys), which one is used depends on the situation. The stealth is reusable, the Tomahawk is not.

Agreed, there's far too much pork. But there is pork in EVERY govt program, not just defense.

...but there's far, far, far more of it in "defence" than anything else, is all.

The cruise missle and the Stealth bomber have different missions. Even though they both give the same result (ie: dead bad guys), which one is used depends on the situation. The stealth is reusable, the Tomahawk is not.

Yes, they are different, and the results -- dead (hopefully) bad guys, although occasionally dead Chinese embassies, dead allies, dead civilians etc etc -- are the same, but I can't think of a single situation where a Stealth bomber is superior to a cruise missile. Given the number of cruise missiles you can get for the cost of one stealth bomber (plus pilots; they're expensive too), the whole project was ludicrous even before they found that they can be seen by old Soviet radar in the rain.

My point was, if you're looking for giagantic, unjustifiable and frankly criminal waste in the US budget, check out the beam in the Defense Department's eye before bothering about the mote in Social Security's.

What happen if a dirty bomb or any other nuclear device planted by Al Qaida goes off in the US, the UK or any other civilised country. There will be a demand of politicians for a nuclear response on suspect countries...
Way to commit genocide . . . :roll:

Wow, it's just like the storyline to the second series of 24.

My point was, if you're looking for giagantic, unjustifiable and frankly criminal waste in the US budget, check out the beam in the Defense Department's eye before bothering about the mote in Social Security's.

Probably an issue for another thread, but since you did carry the ball further ...

Agreed there's opportunity for increasing efficiency by which federal funds are utilized and the $$ spend needs to be scrutinized for waste and ineffectiveness.

I just want to reiterate that the overriding purpose for funding federal government established by our nation's founders was to protect and defend the country. Social program administration, to the extent it exists today, does not belong at the federal level.

My point was, if you're looking for giagantic, unjustifiable and frankly criminal waste in the US budget, check out the beam in the Defense Department's eye before bothering about the mote in Social Security's.

Probably an issue for another thread, but since you did carry the ball further ...

Agreed there's opportunity for increasing efficiency by which federal funds are utilized and the $$ spend needs to be scrutinized for waste and ineffectiveness.

I just want to reiterate that the overriding purpose for funding federal government established by our nation's founders was to protect and defend the country. Social program administration, to the extent it exists today, does not belong at the federal level.

Exactly Redneck...there is not one single solitary Constitutional guarantee for the Federal Government to issue out welfare check, WIC, subsidized housing..etc..if there is one..I sure as heck missed it..but the Constitution does say loads bout "Provide for the common defense".

An friend of mine - a vietnam vet who lives in Washington State - wrote a letter to his congressman as he has been very concerned about Bush's decision to pursue the development of new classes of tactical nukes.

The response was rather interesting. To quote the most relevant part:

"The administration is also currently developing a new "pre-emptive strike doctrine" that will significantly alter our approach to maintaining our security, and may include the use of nuclear weapons as a first-strike option. While this new military posture is yet to be defined, I will urge the administration to articulate a clear policy that incorporates input from Congress and our allies, rather than taking cavalier, unilateral actions."


Yeah.... people who want to deveop WMD and who might use them sure are the problem that needs fighting in this world George. Just don't forget to add yourself to the list....


the full text of the response was:

"Dear Mr. ------:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) and the Bush administration's recent proposals regarding nuclear weapons. I appreciate hearing from you.

Like you, I advocate for the reduction and nonproliferation of nuclear arms. I also agree that the so-called Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator is not a worthwhile weapon and should not be pursued by our military. The financial, diplomatic, and proliferation costs associated with such a weapon do not outweigh any benefits we might find in its use. You will be pleased to know that, during debate on the 2004 defense authorization bill, I voted for an amendment (H.AMDT.142) that would have removed 21 million dollars in funding from the RNEP and other new nuclear weapon initiatives. Unfortunately, this amendment failed by a vote of 199-226.

I also share your concerns about the Bush administration's decision to research and develop "low-yield" nuclear weapons. As with the RNEP, such weapons would harm our nation's long-standing commitment to nuclear arms reduction, and might encourage other nations to pursue these dangerous arms. As a leader in non-proliferation efforts, we must avoid triggering an expensive new arms race, and must indicate to the world that we are committed to reducing weapons of mass destruction.

Regretfully, these recent actions are not the first time that the Bush administration has worked to undermine years of diplomatic achievements on nuclear weapons. As you may know, last year President Bush withdrew the United States from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty - an action that I opposed. The administration is also currently developing a new "pre-emptive strike doctrine" that will significantly alter our approach to maintaining our security, and may include the use of nuclear weapons as a first-strike option. While this new military posture is yet to be defined, I will urge the administration to articulate a clear policy that incorporates input from Congress and our allies, rather than taking cavalier, unilateral actions.

Please continue to contact me about the issues that concern you, I both need and welcome your thoughts and ideas. I encourage you to contact me via email, telephone, or fax, because security measures are causing House offices to experience delays in receiving postal mail. My email address is: Jay.Inslee@mail.house.gov. Please be sure to include your full name, address, including your zip code, in your message. If you are a resident of the First Congressional District and would like to receive policy updates and newsletters via email, please email me to let me know.

Very Truly Yours,

JAY INSLEE
Member of Congress"


And if you want the most recent document on the administration policy of pre-emption, it can be found here (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2320.htm)

Now, I can't hold up a copy of the letter to show you. My friend has not scanned it into a presentable document.

But if you are an American citizen and the thought of extending the policy of preemption into the realm of using WMD disturbs you - you might want to write a letter to your own congress(wo)man to ask them what is up with these new low-yield toys that GW seems to feel that you need. After all - they won't be used where US servicemen might be.... so the options about what they think they need them for is rather limited now isn't it?

Anyway, ask the questions yourself. You might find the answer you get enlightening.

-Z-


that nuke you're raising a stink about is an anti-bunker weapon

There's really 2 different issues here.

The RNEP is really just a super "Bunker Buster" bomb, that will drill deep into the earth before exploding. The hope is that it penetrates the bunker,
but even if it doesn't, the explosion will probably cause the bunker to cave in on top of the occupants, thus eliminating bad guys while they are making their evil plans!

The use of low yield tactical nukes on the battlefield has been a strategy for years. That was discussed when I was in the military during the cold war. If a division of tanks is rolling across the border, and the only way to stop them is by dropping a low yield nuke or two on them, that's may be the best thing to do. While it wipes out the tank division, and does put some radiation in the air, overall, less civilians will die, and less collateral damage will be done, than if we just allow the division to roll over whatever is in the way. Due to the current superiority of US air power, this is never likely to happen, but it's nice to have that insurance, just in case.

Shoot..deployment of tactical nukes by artillery was actually standard NATO doctrine for years...at one point..the Soviets held up to 50 Armored divisions in Eastern Europe...the philosophy was that if it ever came to a USSR/Warsaw Pact invasion of Europe they would have to come thru the Fulda Gap in Germany which has always been a corridor for invasion, but that they would have struck with such force that they would completely overwhelm NATO in Germany and the enemy would midway into France before we could mount a counterattack..an artillery-based nuke would just bout obliterate anything within a 2 kilometer range..thus blunting a Soviet thrust.

Alright, I'm gonna roll up my sleeves on this one. Firstly you guys have some misconceptions about tactical and strategic concerns that are in serious need of remedy. I have discussed at length the fallacy of tactical nukes here:
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=145207&start=20

You do realize the difference between STRATEGIC and TACTICAL concerns right? You mentioned military service, I do not persume to instruct you on this; but in case others wish to know, there is a clear difference.

Tactical concerns are those that apply to situational responses, "if enemy does A we'll do B to counter it". Tactics run from hand-to-hand combat all the way to Division based combat between units. Tactical concerns are generally what a military concernces itself with much more than a civilain leadership; the military has the experience required to know what TACTICS are needed in a military situation for best result.

Strategy concerns itself with larger issues than what is useful in a tactical situation; the best tactics sometimes run counter to the strategic concerns in combat; it might make strategic sense to send a portion of you unit to fient against the enemy flank, but tactically that unit is gonna be fighting for its life against hopeless odds. It might make strategic sense to occupy Iraq considering the larger mission of the Administration, but tactically it overextends the US military.

See? Strategy is big-picture stuff. It requires a greater sense of the world views on your actions and the possible repercussions of tactical responses.

NATO was a strategic alliance, concerned with the STRATEGY of keeping the USSR from invading through Europe. This was achived by creating a situation where our TACTICS would have forced the USSR to either stop their invasion or make a horrible strategic move (ending the world via nuke exchange). Thus the "tactic" of using nukes was part of our grand strategy of detterance, not of actually blowing up thousands of tanks with a couple of nukes. Those few generals who actually wanted to use such weapons were quickly and quietly replaced (remember MacArthur anyone?) or buried within the ranks.

This is a hugely important distinction from our current situation.

The military has NOT pushed for the creation of tactical nukes. Those that have are part of a CIVILIAN administration will little or no military experience. These people are dictiating TACTICAL weapons to a military that truly has most impressive tactical thinkers since Alexander and Cao Cao working for it. If our strategic concerns warranted a nuke build up, that would be understandable, as the military's strategy is framed by the civilian leadership.

The situtation we are facing now is similar to another many of you are familiar with. In Vietnam tactical concerns were blindsided by strategic concerns to begin with, but what damaged our war effort the most was the fact that a CIVILIAN administration was deciding our military tactics as well. This proved to be a resounding failure, the "wiz kids" of the Kennedy administration may have been smart, but their tactical sense was vastly under-developed because they were civilians.

Leave the tactics to the tacticians. Let our Strategy be decided by our civilians and then our military will find the best way to carry that out. Why dictate to the military the best tactics? That kind of armchair generalship will lead to tragedy!