NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/000200509111901.htm?headline=Pentagon~drafts~preemptive~nuclear~strike~plan

Washington, Sep 11. (PTI): The Pentagon has drafted a new doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction.

The draft, put together by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, envisions commanders requesting presidential approval for such use.

The document, titled 'Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations' and dated March 15, 2005, which has been put on the Pentagon's Web site, also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

The document needed final approval by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to be made official policy.

It would update and revise rules and procedures governing the use of nuclear weapons to reflect the preemption strategy first announced by White House in December 2002, the Washington Post noted today.

The new draft reflects the Bush preemptive doctrine. A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration, contained no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from WMDs.

The draft says despite the end of Cold War, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction "raises the danger of nuclear weapons use." It says there are "about thirty nations with WMD programmes" along with "non-state actors (terrorists) either independently or as sponsored by an adversarial state."

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

hmmmm and what nation might this be directed against?????????

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/000200509111901.htm?headline=Pentagon~drafts~preemptive~nuclear~strike~plan



hmmmm and what nation might this be directed against?????????
Wonderful. What ever happened to the doctrine of MAD? That go out the window?

Let them guess :eek:

It's official:

Sanity and Peace--> :) :sniper: <-- Pentagon

How can you pre-emptively strike a terrorist group? What do you do, bomb their headquarters in the middle of a city with a nuke?
Wait… do I want to know the answer to that?

We must nuke them, else what will become of our precious bodily fluids?

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/000200509111901.htm?headline=Pentagon~drafts~preemptive~nuclear~strike~plan



hmmmm and what nation might this be directed against?????????

My money's on France.

My money's on France.


It's North Korea.

That policy seems sensible. You chaps do know that this has been a general policy since the beginning of the Cold War?

It's North Korea.

It's Iran. We all know it's Iran.

It's Iran. We all know it's Iran.

N. Korea is a threat NOW, and they have been doing tests and scaring Japan half to hell. America has to protect Japan or let them build a military. This means they pressure is on to get it in place for Korea.

I would do NK before I went after Iran, since Iran at least has a semi-sane leadership and doesnt actually have nukes (as far as we know).
NK is an 'accident' waiting to happen, and a conventional invasion would result in a nuclear launch anyway.

Very intresting, because the wording is changed around from the AP release of this story. The AP version says... "A Pentagon planning document being updated to reflect the doctrine of pre-emption declared by President Bush in 2002 envisions the use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies" ...

"A broader array of capability is needed to dissuade states from undertaking ... courses of action that would threaten U.S. and allied security," the draft says. "U.S. forces must pose a credible deterrent to potential adversaries who have access to modern military technology, including WMD and the means to deliver them.""

Basically it is just MAD all over again...

Apparently this paper as decided to add their own interpretation in what that means to sound more alarmest and to have sheep like you post it as if this is a true statement when indeed it isnt at all, but the paper can easly excuse its lying under simple interpration errors like all papers say they do when they get caught BSing.

N. Korea is a threat NOW, and they have been doing tests and scaring Japan half to hell. America has to protect Japan or let them build a military. This means they pressure is on to get it in place for Korea.

Actually there are already war clouds in the making...

Russia and China are joining military forces a lot lately, Chinas Navy is threatening Japan as we speak, and this puts things into a US-Japan vs. China-Russia type deal....

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/09/11/MNGDGELU7M1.DTL

I would do NK before I went after Iran, since Iran at least has a semi-sane leadership and doesnt actually have nukes (as far as we know).
NK is an 'accident' waiting to happen, and a conventional invasion would result in a nuclear launch anyway.

Ya. We can't do crap to N. Korea cause either the nation revolts and overthrows the government or we wait for him to die and hopefully not try to take anyone with him.

[QUOTE=Gulf RepublicsBasically it is just MAD all over again...[/QUOTE]
Except that the target cant destroy the US and the US isnt aiming at civilian targets. Err... that isnt MAD.

Actually there are already war clouds in the making...

Russia and China are joining military forces a lot lately, Chinas Navy is threatening Japan as we speak, and this puts things into a US-Japan vs. China-Russia type deal....

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/09/11/MNGDGELU7M1.DTL


Russia is currently on our side....China is too, but barely.

Oh, just a bit of the old sabre-rattling to scare up some justification for a bigger piece of the budgetary pie with this one. Of course, there's no telling what this wacky admin'll sign on to anymore...

N. Korea is a threat NOW, and they have been doing tests and scaring Japan half to hell. America has to protect Japan or let them build a military. This means they pressure is on to get it in place for Korea.

North Korea IS a threat now, yes.

But then, North Korea was a threat two years...and we - as in your govt and my govt - invaded Iraq, who were a threat to no one but the Iraqis.

It's Iran.

I would do NK before I went after Iran, since Iran at least has a semi-sane leadership and doesnt actually have nukes (as far as we know).
NK is an 'accident' waiting to happen, and a conventional invasion would result in a nuclear launch anyway.

Iran is developing a nuclear program as we speak. The doctrine of pre-emptive strike means you take out a "threat" before it emerges. You don't take out North Korea because if you get it wrong, they hit you back, and they hit you back HARD. Face it, the USA hasn't gone to war with anyone on any level of parity since 1941.

The point that they wouldn't be a threat if you didn't treat them like one never actually crosses the doctrinaires minds.

Using WMD to preempt the use of WMD. That's exactly the kind of assbackwards Pentagon logic I've come to expect. Not even the pretense of good intentions.

North Korea IS a threat now, yes.

But then, North Korea was a threat two years...and we - as in your govt and my govt - invaded Iraq, who were a threat to no one but the Iraqis.

It's Iran.


OK...but I am saying it might as well be NK to.

OK...but I am saying it might as well be NK to.

Doesn't really matter. Once they start believing they can throw the nukes around anywhere, you and i may as well move to somewhere really out of the way and start stocking up on dried herring.

Like the big fly said to the little fly , while sitting on a turd in toilet bowl...

"If the log rolls over we are all gonna die "

NUKE 'EM ALL !!!!!!!!!!


:fluffle: :gundge: :mad: :sniper: :D

Like the big fly said to the little fly , while sitting on a turd in toilet bowl...

"If the log rolls over we are all gonna die "

NUKE 'EM ALL !!!!!!!!!!


:fluffle: :gundge: :mad: :sniper: :D

Nuke em all?

charming. You got your radiation suit handy for the drifting fall-out?

A three-year-old boy was examining his balls while taking a bath.
"Mom", he asked, "are these my brains?"
"Not yet," she replied.

Bwaaaahahahahahahaahaha were all gonna die !!!!!!!!!

Run for the shelters !!!!!!!!!!!

Very intresting, because the wording is changed around from the AP release of this story. The AP version says... "A Pentagon planning document being updated to reflect the doctrine of pre-emption declared by President Bush in 2002 envisions the use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies" ...

"A broader array of capability is needed to dissuade states from undertaking ... courses of action that would threaten U.S. and allied security," the draft says. "U.S. forces must pose a credible deterrent to potential adversaries who have access to modern military technology, including WMD and the means to deliver them.""

Basically it is just MAD all over again...

Apparently this paper as decided to add their own interpretation in what that means to sound more alarmest and to have sheep like you post it as if this is a true statement when indeed it isnt at all, but the paper can easly excuse its lying under simple interpration errors like all papers say they do when they get caught BSing.

Don't you just love when a newspaper changes things around?

Wonderful. What ever happened to the doctrine of MAD? That go out the window?

My thoughts exactly when I read the article.


That policy seems sensible. You chaps do know that this has been a general policy since the beginning of the Cold War?

No. Policy during the Cold War was the exact reverse: that nukes would never be used, except in retaliation. As from the moment when the USSR developed nuclear weapons, the MAD doctrine was developed, and the idea of actually using nukes was abandoned. Nukes were subsequently built not to be used, but as a deterrent. More were built precisely so they would never have to be used, paradoxical as that sounds.

Apparently this paper as decided to add their own interpretation in what that means to sound more alarmest and to have sheep like you post it as if this is a true statement when indeed it isnt at all, but the paper can easly excuse its lying under simple interpration errors like all papers say they do when they get caught BSing


And I just bought stuff so I could loot a beer distibutor and a few gun shops....screw this ..I aint listning to you guys ant more...no nuke party...whats this world comming to .... :(

Actually there are already war clouds in the making...

Russia and China are joining military forces a lot lately, Chinas Navy is threatening Japan as we speak, and this puts things into a US-Japan vs. China-Russia type deal....

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/09/11/MNGDGELU7M1.DTL


Ya know, I find it very funny that the Chinese offered the use resources in the area jointly with Japan, but the Japanese Government refused.

IMO, the Chinese navy is big, but it's power is negligible.

-70-80's era naval air power
-horrible ASW capability
-poor powerplants
-terrible logistics problems from the fact that they only ever seen to deploy two or three of each type of ship and then move on to a new design
-almost no combat experience

Even their little "Peace Mission 2005" military exercise with the Russians displayed deficiencies in their airborne troop's training, and tactical competence.

Hell, they had an brand new airdropable IFV that had the ability to fire while on the move. What did their troops do? They still stopped, fired, and then moved on.

Their Air Force also has very few true multi-role fighters, almost no experience working with their AWACS, and their pilots have all had virtually no combat experience as well.

China is on the rise, and being Chinese, I am quite proud of that fact, but their forces just really aren't that much to worry about now.


Now the article in my opinon seems to have a bit too much media bias for me.

(EDIT: Now that I read what I wrote, even I think that it seems a little closed minded. China's military still needs work is all I'm saying.)

Ya know, I find it very funny that the Chinese offered the use resources in the area jointly with Japan, but the Japanese Government refused.

IMO, the Chinese navy is big, but it's power is negligible.

-70-80's era naval air power
-horrible ASW capability
-poor powerplants
-terrible logistics problems from the fact that they only ever seen to deploy two or three of each type of ship and then move on to a new design
-almost no combat experience

Even their little "Peace Mission 2005" military exercise with the Russians displayed deficiencies in their airborne troop's training, and tactical competence.

Hell, they had an brand new airdropable IFV that had the ability to fire while on the move. What did their troops do? They still stopped, fired, and then moved on.

Their Air Force also has very few true multi-role fighters, almost no experience working with their AWACS, and their pilots have all had virtually no combat experience as well.

China is on the rise, and being Chinese, I am quite proud of that fact, but their forces just really aren't that much to worry about now.


Now the article in my opinon seems to have a bit too much media bias for me.

(EDIT: Now that I read what I wrote, even I think that it seems a little closed minded. China's military still needs work is all I'm saying.)
Aye, and without its navy the only way for China to hit the US is via nukes, and then they can only hit the West Coast, which means that all those nuke silos in the Great Plains are going to take China out of the game permenantly if they try anything :P
China does have a gigantic army, and with the Russian-style 'recruit three, beat two to death and train one' philosophy, they have some fairly decent soldiers (if not exactly willing). But its all useless without a Navy in a war against the US, and the only people (IMO) who can THINK of challenging the US in a naval war would be Russia, Japan and Britain.

Has anyone checked to make sure our nukes still work? They've been sitting in their silos for quite some time now. It would suck for us if we decided on a first strike and then only a few of them launched.

Has anyone checked to make sure our nukes still work? They've been sitting in their silos for quite some time now. It would suck for us if we decided on a first strike and then only a few of them launched.

For all we know, they've been shipped out and sold on the black market because the local commanders figured "Hey, we're never going to use these right?"

Wouldn't that be the laugh to open a silo, only to find it empty?

I think that, as frightening as thsi may seem at first, it is necessary. Rogue governments, like North Korea, have insane leadership that has already shown very little regard to its own citizens. Non-state actors can easily acquire nukes, and we must send them a firm message that we will ignore diplomatic niceties toward shelter nations, and strike them. Thankfully, this so far applies to only a handful of rogue and failed states.

hmmmm and what nation might this be directed against?????????Against whom are we going to deploy nuclear weapons? Which place has enough people that directly threaten America to justify ruining everyone within a radius of a few thousand miles lives?

Has anyone checked to make sure our nukes still work? They've been sitting in their silos for quite some time now. It would suck for us if we decided on a first strike and then only a few of them launched.
Relax. About a dozen nuclear weapons are created in the US every year. They are done in labs, and not in the factories of yesteryear, so they are safer and more stable, too.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/000200509111901.htm?headline=Pentagon~drafts~preemptive~nuclear~strike~plan

hmmmm and what nation might this be directed against?????????
Probaby yours, whichever one that is. Actually, the US Military has had contingency plans for first-strike capabilities since early in the cold war. This is nothing new. Perhaps the newspaper being quoted is just a tad behind the times. :D

Probaby yours, whichever one that is. Actually, the US Military has had contingency plans for first-strike capabilities since early in the cold war. This is nothing new. Perhaps the newspaper being quoted is just a tad behind the times. :DSorry Eut, this is news. The Pentagon just brought out a new doctrine on first strikes. And this is different because it's no longer just nations that can be targeted...

Sorry Eut, this is news. The Pentagon just brought out a new doctrine on first strikes. And this is different because it's no longer just nations that can be targeted...
Are you referring to the WMD stockpiles becoming preemptive targets?

Has anyone checked to make sure our nukes still work? They've been sitting in their silos for quite some time now. It would suck for us if we decided on a first strike and then only a few of them launched.
Well, the two around my town are still there, otherwise theres lots of fuel going into those silos and not coming out, I think they would fill up rather quickly, and the toxic fumes might be kinda noticable ;)
Well, theres actually three, but one is disabled and used as a museum now. Its actually rather cool to go into the silo and see the 60's era computers that can do the duties of a modern graphic calculator in the size of a small house.
I beleive theyre Minutman III silos, they used to be Peacekeepers (I think) but those were removed under SALT II. S'damn shame to. Peacekeepers are awsome missiles, but I suppose thats why we had to remove them. Too bad :P

It's Iran. We all know it's Iran.
Nah, if Iran gets that far we can let the Israelis take care of their stockpiles.

I can't believe we didn't have one before. What the Hell were we waiting for?

Remember, having a plan does not mean you're going to do it, it just means you're ready. Why the Hell didn't we have a plan earlier?

Against whom are we going to deploy nuclear weapons? Which place has enough people that directly threaten America to justify ruining everyone within a radius of a few thousand miles lives?
Someone obviously doesn't know the capabilites of current warheads. There is very little fallout from US nukes nowadays, you mainly just get a gamma burst and some short-lived rads. Very little long term stuff.

Very intresting, because the wording is changed around from the AP release of this story. The AP version says... "A Pentagon planning document being updated to reflect the doctrine of pre-emption declared by President Bush in 2002 envisions the use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies" ...

"A broader array of capability is needed to dissuade states from undertaking ... courses of action that would threaten U.S. and allied security," the draft says. "U.S. forces must pose a credible deterrent to potential adversaries who have access to modern military technology, including WMD and the means to deliver them.""

Basically it is just MAD all over again...

Apparently this paper as decided to add their own interpretation in what that means to sound more alarmest and to have sheep like you post it as if this is a true statement when indeed it isnt at all, but the paper can easly excuse its lying under simple interpration errors like all papers say they do when they get caught BSing.

LOL, you are really catching at straws here my friend.

The MAD doctrine called for use of nuclear capabilities only in response to the use of similar by the enemy.

What the article purports to however, as you yourself quote, makes nuclear means available as part of a pre-emptive strategy, where before only conventional weaponry was available.

Can you yourself spot the major difference?

If you really want to get into semantics, then I will agree that the original article seems like an extrapolation to the AP article you quote (btw. please give us a link next time, it's so much easier than for all of us to hunt for your sources ourselves. Seeing that you could copy/paste it you must have had the url handy, but I digress.) But I put it to you that of that you have no proof. How can you tell me that the Press Trust of India hasn't had the same documents that the AP had to base their report on? You cannot, so please spare me.

Btw. the story is in the Danish media as well, with the same conclusion, that with this doctrine, USA have given themselves the permition to strike first with nuclear arms.

Oh, but that cannot truly be so? My AP source stated in foggy and nebulous terms that is just to deter terrorists... with a pre-emptive doctrine... updated to include the use of nukes...

I have no illusion that this will make you open you eyes and perhaps consider different points of view and fact instead of instantly seeing a slight against your nation.

Good grief.

Huh, if this thing had been signed 5 years ago, Iraq would have been a smoking crater and the Bush admin would have gone "Oops. Looks like we messed up. Well, they're free right? *mushroom cloud* Uuuuh, maybe not"

US now joins Pakistan and China in having a first use doctrine. Great company.

I know India has nuke NFU (no first use). I am not sure about UK, French and Russian nuclear doctrines. I think they also have NFU. Please correct me if I am wrong.

No. Policy during the Cold War was the exact reverse: that nukes would never be used, except in retaliation. As from the moment when the USSR developed nuclear weapons, the MAD doctrine was developed, and the idea of actually using nukes was abandoned. Nukes were subsequently built not to be used, but as a deterrent. More were built precisely so they would never have to be used, paradoxical as that sounds.
Errrm, no. The policy was not to use nuclear weapons for so long as the other side will not use them. If NATO were absolutely sure that the Russians were going to launch (multiple spy tip offs, stallite footage, whatever) then they planned to fire at the siloes to prevent the enemy from firing. Both Russian and American missiles were specifically designed to be able to do this.

Errrm, no. The policy was not to use nuclear weapons for so long as the other side will not use them. If NATO were absolutely sure that the Russians were going to launch (multiple spy tip offs, stallite footage, whatever) then they planned to fire at the siloes to prevent the enemy from firing. Both Russian and American missiles were specifically designed to be able to do this.

Except I doubt any terror organization in the highly unlikely event that they DO get a nuclear weapon, will be firing it via ICBM. At the best, it would be a radiological bomb hand or land vehicle carried. Shipped via sea if ocean crossings are neccessary. Either way, it would probably mean nuking a city to prevent the use of a nuke.

Which kind of defeats the purpose since nobody is going to believe a pre-emptive strike of that sort with nuclear weapons was to prevent the use of nuclear weapons.

The Russians sure as hell aren't going to buy it.

NAS

The doctrine is not aimed at the UK,France,Russia and India.

It is generally aimed at China, Pakistan, N.Korea and Iran (when it goes nuclear). Take a look at the scenarios in which nukes will be used.

• An adversary using or intending to use WMD against the US, multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations."

• An "imminent" attack from biological weapons.

• To attack enemy installations including WMD, including bunkers suspected of storing chemical or biological weapons or the command and control infrastructure of the enemy's WMD attack potential.

• Against a "potentially overwhelming adversary conventional force."

• For a quick termination of the war on US terms.

• In order to ensure success for US and multinational operations.

• To demonstrate US intent and capability against an enemy's WMD.

*To respond to adversary-supplied WMD use by surrogates against US and multinational forces or civilian populations

Points 1,2 is MAD. 3 is to just throw in unpredictability. 4 is common sense. 5 already happened - Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 6 is an expansion of 5. 7 is the show of strength thingy.

The last point is the important one. It effectively tells that "If a non-state actor or a proxy state attacks me, I will hit you regardless of how much you deny culpability. Your proliferated WMDs are still your responsibility and I will treat it as if you had hit me."

This takes out the game of plausible deniability.

IMHO, this is all just petty political wording. No one, not even Bush, would be stupid enough to lead an attack with Nuclear Weapons.

My money's on France.(Besides Russia)France is the last nation on Earth Bush wants to mess with...

Attack France ...and France will make you pay.

Using WMD to preempt the use of WMD. That's exactly the kind of assbackwards Pentagon logic I've come to expect. Not even the pretense of good intentions.

That is the kinda assbackwards responce i expect to hear from somebody that doesnt look at all the facts and replies before they even read or find out the TRUTH..not just what an article says in the paper.

(Besides Russia)France is the last nation on Earth Bush wants to mess with...

Attack France ...and France will make you pay.

France is cool...acting like they are a non-terrorist state while they build up the armies of all the 3rd world to cause trouble against the western nations of the world while they just do there little whistle like nothing is going on...and they have done a good job doing dipolmaticly what hitler failed to do...take over Europe under a guise of the EU.

France is cool...acting like they are a non-terrorist state while they build up the armies of all the 3rd world to cause trouble against the western nations of the world while they just do there little whistle like nothing is going on...and they have done a good job doing dipolmaticly what hitler failed to do...take over Europe under a guise of the EU.

Pity the bit where they hate the EU eh? Kinda knocks your little delusion down. And since the US is enthusiastically selling F-16's to anyone who can afford it I don't think you can be excused on the arms sales front...

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/000200509111901.htm?headline=Pentagon~drafts~preemptive~nuclear~strike~plan



hmmmm and what nation might this be directed against?????????
Seems to be little more than just your average everyday counterforce nuclear strike. Although redesigned from a Superpower Cold War environment to a more modern Superpower-Small State with Big Bomb environment. I don't find it shocking, I'm not sure I agree with it, but it certainly isn't shocking.

(Besides Russia)France is the last nation on Earth Bush wants to mess with...

Attack France ...and France will make you pay.
And their still our ally anyways, an occasionally dissenting ally, but an ally all the same.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/000200509111901.htm?headline=Pentagon~drafts~preemptive~nuclear~strike~plan



hmmmm and what nation might this be directed against?????????
Thank you for posting this. I came across this a few days ago and would have attempted the thread m'self, but i don't get enough time to do what i want online as it is.

*bows*

The last point is the important one. It effectively tells that "If a non-state actor or a proxy state attacks me, I will hit you regardless of how much you deny culpability. Your proliferated WMDs are still your responsibility and I will treat it as if you had hit me."

This takes out the game of plausible deniability.

But it also means that the requirement of evidence gets on very shaky grounds then. Remember that WMDs in Iraq and the 45 minute launch capability they were spouting? Call it what you want, be it deliberate lies or bad intelligence, it still goes to show that you can and probably will get the wrong guy. And with nukes, you can't say "oops, my mistake, let's call it liberation instead." Who would buy a story of liberation based on nuclear strikes? The only example, being Japan, wasn't even called liberation. That one was war and occupation, plain and simple.

This is also an important fact.


• For a quick termination of the war on US terms.


So if any war proves to be unfavorable, use the nuclear option? If holding Baghdad became untenable due to insurgency, glass it?

This thing looks more like a blank cheque for nuclear weapons if you ask me.

But it also means that the requirement of evidence gets on very shaky grounds then. Remember that WMDs in Iraq and the 45 minute launch capability they were spouting? Call it what you want, be it deliberate lies or bad intelligence, it still goes to show that you can and probably will get the wrong guy. And with nukes, you can't say "oops, my mistake, let's call it liberation instead." Who would buy a story of liberation based on nuclear strikes? The only example, being Japan, wasn't even called liberation. That one was war and occupation, plain and simple.

This is also an important fact.

So if any war proves to be unfavorable, use the nuclear option? If holding Baghdad became untenable due to insurgency, glass it?

This thing looks more like a blank cheque for nuclear weapons if you ask me.

NAS

Iraq was invaded precisely because they did not have any WMDs and were doable.

Do not, even in jest, think that the administration believed their lies. They did not. They invented stuff to manufacture consent.

The administration lied. Get over it. Look beyond it. Atleast in this thread. :)

I am worried as to what necessitated this doctrine. Why now? Is there a loose WMD somewhere?

NAS

Iraq was invaded precisely because they did not have any WMDs and were doable.

Do not, even in jest, think that the administration believed their lies. They did not. They invented stuff to manufacture consent.

They don't have to believe it. The public has to. After that, they can glass the place and if someone says where's the WMDs, the administration can say, "hey, we nuked it. Of course it isn't there anymore"

The nuclear option just makes things easier for them if they don't want to deal with pesky things like insurgents or a civilian population.


I am worried as to what necessitated this doctrine. Why now? Is there a loose WMD somewhere?

More likely someone thought that if they are spending all that money on nuclear weapons, they might as well use it.

The Pentagon and most militaries have plans for any possible eventualities. They run the full range from a full-scale world-wide nuclear war to over-throwing some tinpot dictator in one of the smaller countries in the world.
That they have a nuclear plan for attacking terroritsts really doesn't surprise me that much. Will they do it? Probably not.

The Pentagon and most militaries have plans for any possible eventualities. They run the full range from a full-scale world-wide nuclear war to over-throwing some tinpot dictator in one of the smaller countries in the world.
That they have a nuclear plan for attacking terroritsts really doesn't surprise me that much. Will they do it? Probably not.

Exactly. It keeps your war planners on point. Don't want 'em getting rusty. In fact, prior to WWII, the US had war plans for almost every major power. They never expected any of those to be used really, but just in case...

Nuclear doctrines are different than contingency plans.

Nuclear doctrines define postures and are intended as a message.

For ex, China has a stated policy of using nukes if other powers attack their land and armed forces even conventionally. The problem is they consider Taiwan as theirs and it is their way of saying that they will use nukes if US intervenes and bombs Chinese armed forces occupying Taiwan.

Of course, they can't be overtly saying "we're gonna nuke you". That is what doctrines are intended for. To send the message across without appearing bellicose.

It's Iran. We all know it's Iran.
It may be Iran in the future, but it's aimed at N. Korea now.

Using WMD to preempt the use of WMD. That's exactly the kind of assbackwards Pentagon logic I've come to expect. Not even the pretense of good intentions.
It's not ass backward in reality. You've left out two very important words. Us and Them. Use WMD against THEM to preempt the use of WMD against US. See, makes alot more sense now.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/000200509111901.htm?headline=Pentagon~drafts~preemptive~nuclear~strike~plan



hmmmm and what nation might this be directed against?????????

Your article is false,and here is why.

It says in your article...
" A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration, contained no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from WMDs."


Thats NOT true.
Here is a link to the Clinton plan...

http://www.angelfire.com/or/truthfinder/nuke.html

And here is a DIRECT QUOTE from the Clinton Directive...
"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 part that allows the Us to use nukes first,even if nobody else does.

Exactly. It keeps your war planners on point. Don't want 'em getting rusty. In fact, prior to WWII, the US had war plans for almost every major power. They never expected any of those to be used really, but just in case...
Indeed.

Hell, we have plans to invade Canada. Britain. Quite nearly any nation I believe.

And I would certainly imagine that other countries have plans on invasions of their neighbors. Or major military powers invading other nations. Canada, Britain, France, Russia, China, North Korea.

I feel safer knowing that at least we can count on the military having the plans ahead of time given everything else the government has failed us on.

Your article is false,and here is why.

It says in your article...
" A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration, contained no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from WMDs."


Thats NOT true.
Here is a link to the Clinton plan...

http://www.angelfire.com/or/truthfinder/nuke.html

And here is a DIRECT QUOTE from the Clinton Directive...
"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 part that allows the Us to use nukes first,even if nobody else does.

Not quite. We have two scenarios here.

1. Using nukes on an adversory nation *after* we have launch warnings but *before* the actual nuke detonation.

2. Using nukes on an adversory nation because we *think* they *may* use it on us or using nukes on an adversory nation after a hit by a non-state actor (terrorist) because we *think* the non-state actor got the nuke from the adversory and the adversory has compliance in the nuking.

The two scenarios are different. 1 is still a "No first Use" - because the adversory as already used it first (it just did not detonate).

2 is a marked departure from NFU posture. This is what the current doctrine advocates.

Atleast that's what I think. :)

2. Using nukes on an adversory nation because we *think* they *may* use it on us or using nukes on an adversory nation after a hit by a non-state actor (terrorist) because we *think* the non-state actor got the nuke from the adversory and the adversory has compliance in the nuking.


And we all know what the people in admin think and reality are not always the same are they? ;)