NationStates Jolt Archive

Not Just A Last Resort?
A Global Strike Plan, With a Nuclear Option

By William Arkin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...005051400071_pf.html
Sunday, May 15, 2005; B01

Early last summer, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved a top secret "Interim Global Strike Alert Order" directing the military to assume and maintain readiness to attack hostile countries that are developing weapons of mass destruction, specifically Iran and North Korea.

Two months later, Lt. Gen. Bruce Carlson, commander of the 8th Air Force, told a reporter that his fleet of B-2 and B-52 bombers had changed its way of operating so that it could be ready to carry out such missions. "We're now at the point where we are essentially on alert," Carlson said in an interview with the Shreveport (La.) Times. "We have the capacity to plan and execute global strikes." Carlson said his forces were the U.S. Strategic Command's "focal point for global strike" and could execute an attack "in half a day or less."

In the secret world of military planning, global strike has become the term of art to describe a specific preemptive attack. When military officials refer to global strike, they stress its conventional elements. Surprisingly, however, global strike also includes a nuclear option, which runs counter to traditional U.S. notions about the defensive role of nuclear weapons.

The official U.S. position on the use of nuclear weapons has not changed. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has taken steps to de-emphasize the importance of its nuclear arsenal. The Bush administration has said it remains committed to reducing our nuclear stockpile while keeping a credible deterrent against other nuclear powers. Administration and military officials have stressed this continuity in testimony over the past several years before various congressional committees.

But a confluence of events, beginning with the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and the president's forthright commitment to the idea of preemptive action to prevent future attacks, has set in motion a process that has led to a fundamental change in how the U.S. military might respond to certain possible threats. Understanding how we got to this point, and what it might mean for U.S. policy, is particularly important now -- with the renewed focus last week on Iran's nuclear intentions and on speculation that North Korea is ready to conduct its first test of a nuclear weapon.

Global strike has become one of the core missions for the Omaha-based Strategic Command, or Stratcom. Once, Stratcom oversaw only the nation's nuclear forces; now it has responsibility for overseeing a global strike plan with both conventional and nuclear options. President Bush spelled out the definition of "full-spectrum" global strike in a January 2003 classified directive, describing it as "a capability to deliver rapid, extended range, precision kinetic (nuclear and conventional) and non-kinetic (elements of space and information operations) effects in support of theater and national objectives."

This blurring of the nuclear/conventional line, wittingly or unwittingly, could heighten the risk that the nuclear option will be used. Exhibit A may be the Stratcom contingency plan for dealing with "imminent" threats from countries such as North Korea or Iran, formally known as CONPLAN 8022-02.

CONPLAN 8022 is different from other war plans in that it posits a small-scale operation and no "boots on the ground." The typical war plan encompasses an amalgam of forces -- air, ground, sea -- and takes into account the logistics and political dimensions needed to sustain those forces in protracted operations. All these elements generally require significant lead time to be effective. (Existing Pentagon war plans, developed for specific regions or "theaters," are essentially defensive responses to invasions or attacks. The global strike plan is offensive, triggered by the perception of an imminent threat and carried out by presidential order.)

CONPLAN 8022 anticipates two different scenarios. The first is a response to a specific and imminent nuclear threat, say in North Korea. A quick-reaction, highly choreographed strike would combine pinpoint bombing with electronic warfare and cyberattacks to disable a North Korean response, with commandos operating deep in enemy territory, perhaps even to take possession of the nuclear device.

The second scenario involves a more generic attack on an adversary's WMD infrastructure. Assume, for argument's sake, that Iran announces it is mounting a crash program to build a nuclear weapon. A multidimensional bombing (kinetic) and cyberwarfare (non-kinetic) attack might seek to destroy Iran's program, and special forces would be deployed to disable or isolate underground facilities.

By employing all of the tricks in the U.S. arsenal to immobilize an enemy country -- turning off the electricity, jamming and spoofing radars and communications, penetrating computer networks and garbling electronic commands -- global strike magnifies the impact of bombing by eliminating the need to physically destroy targets that have been disabled by other means.

The inclusion, therefore, of a nuclear weapons option in CONPLAN 8022 -- a specially configured earth-penetrating bomb to destroy deeply buried facilities, if any exist -- is particularly disconcerting. The global strike plan holds the nuclear option in reserve if intelligence suggests an "imminent" launch of an enemy nuclear strike on the United States or if there is a need to destroy hard-to-reach targets.

It is difficult to imagine a U.S. president ordering a nuclear attack on Iran or North Korea under any circumstance. Yet as global strike contingency planning has moved forward, so has the nuclear option.

Global strike finds its origins in pre-Bush administration Air Force thinking about a way to harness American precision and stealth to "kick down the door" of defended territory, making it easier for (perhaps even avoiding the need for) follow-on ground operations.

The events of 9/11 shifted the focus of planning. There was no war plan for Afghanistan on the shelf, not even a generic one. In Afghanistan, the synergy of conventional bombing and special operations surprised everyone. But most important, weapons of mass destruction became the American government focus. It is not surprising, then, that barely three months after that earth-shattering event, the Pentagon's quadrennial Nuclear Posture Review assigned the military and Stratcom the task of providing greater flexibility in nuclear attack options against Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria and China.

The Air Force's global strike concept was taken over by Stratcom and made into something new. This was partly in response to the realization that the military had no plans for certain situations. The possibility that some nations would acquire the ability to attack the United States directly with a WMD, for example, had clearly fallen between the command structure's cracks. For example, the Pacific Command in Hawaii had loads of war plans on its shelf to respond to a North Korean attack on South Korea, including some with nuclear options. But if North Korea attacked the United States directly -- or, more to the point, if the U.S. intelligence network detected evidence of preparations for such an attack, Pacific Command didn't have a war plan in place.

In May 2002, Rumsfeld issued an updated Defense Planning Guidance that directed the military to develop an ability to undertake "unwarned strikes . . . [to] swiftly defeat from a position of forward deterrence." The post-9/11 National Security Strategy, published in September 2002, codified preemption, stating that the United States must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies."

"We cannot let our enemies strike first," President Bush declared in the National Security Strategy document.

Stratcom established an interim global strike division to turn the new preemption policy into an operational reality. In December 2002, Adm. James O. Ellis Jr., then Stratcom's head, told an Omaha business group that his command had been charged with developing the capability to strike anywhere in the world within minutes of detecting a target.

Ellis posed the following question to his audience: "If you can find that time-critical, key terrorist target or that weapons-of-mass-destruction stockpile, and you have minutes rather than hours or days to deal with it, how do you reach out and negate that threat to our nation half a world away?"

CONPLAN 8022-02 was completed in November 2003, putting in place for the first time a preemptive and offensive strike capability against Iran and North Korea. In January 2004, Ellis certified Stratcom's readiness for global strike to the defense secretary and the president.

At Ellis's retirement ceremony in July, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told an Omaha audience that "the president charged you to 'be ready to strike at any moment's notice in any dark corner of the world' [and] that's exactly what you've done."

As U.S. military forces have gotten bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, the attractiveness of global strike planning has increased in the minds of many in the military. Stratcom planners, recognizing that U.S. ground forces are already overcommitted, say that global strike must be able to be implemented "without resort to large numbers of general purpose forces."

When one combines the doctrine of preemption with a "homeland security" aesthetic that concludes that only hyper-vigilance and readiness stand in the way of another 9/11, it is pretty clear how global strike ended up where it is. The 9/11 attacks caught the country unaware and the natural reaction of contingency planners is to try to eliminate surprise in the future. The Nuclear Posture Review and Rumsfeld's classified Defense Planning Guidance both demanded more flexible nuclear options.

Global strike thinkers may believe that they have found a way to keep the nuclear genie in the bottle; but they are also having to cater to a belief on the part of those in government's inner circle who have convinced themselves that the gravity of the threats demands that the United States not engage in any protracted debate, that it prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

Though the official Washington mantra has always been "we don't discuss war plans," here is a real life predicament that cries out for debate: In classic terms, military strength and contingency planning can dissuade an attacker from mounting hostile actions by either threatening punishment or demonstrating through preparedness that an attacker's objectives could not possibly be achieved. The existence of a nuclear capability, and a secure retaliatory force, moreover, could help to deter an attack -- that is, if the threat is credible in the mind of the adversary.

But the global strike contingency plan cannot be a credible threat if it is not publicly known. And though CONPLAN 8022 suggests a clean, short-duration strike intended to protect American security, a preemptive surprise attack (let alone one involving a nuclear weapon option) would unleash a multitude of additional and unanticipated consequences. So, on both counts, why aren't we talking about it?

Well... if Bush is going to attack another country might as well do it quick.

Well... if Bush is going to attack another country might as well do it quick.

Nuclear weapons sounds quick to me. And it's in the plan, officially.

You won't have to worry about making more Cindy Sheehans - no US soldiers will die on foreign soil in a war like that.

Nuclear weapons is the way to turn everyone against you. You can't avoid soldier deaths in such a war. Even Gulf War 1 claimed soldiers' lives.

Besides, nuclear weapons are a real last-resort only to be used in a total war situation IMO. For your average run of the mill invasion, they're off limits.

Nuclear weapons is the way to turn everyone against you. You can't avoid soldier deaths in such a war. Even Gulf War 1 claimed soldiers' lives.

Besides, nuclear weapons are a real last-resort only to be used in a total war situation IMO. For your average run of the mill invasion, they're off limits.

More US soldiers were killed or injured in accidents than were killed by hostile action in Gulf War 1. At rates comparable to peacetime exercises.

More US soldiers were killed or injured in accidents than were killed by hostile action in Gulf War 1. At rates comparable to peacetime exercises.
More British soldiers were killed by US fire then Iraqi fire in Gulf War I :p

This too, officially scares the Holy Green Crap outta me.

Not a good option nuking China, because they'll just return the favour manyfold. In fact to take out the US, you need one nuke to hit Yellowstone Park and blow up the supervolcano. That in itself would destroy the US.

More British soldiers were killed by US fire then Iraqi fire in Gulf War I :p

Yes. And more UK aircraft were lost in low level flight, despite the fact that they had no reason to fly that low anymore because of the neutralization of Iraqi SAM networks. So they flew low enough to get shot to pieces by ordinary AAA guns.

After losing seven aircraft, they figured this out.

People die in wars - people die in peacetime exercises. I remember a peacetime "accident" at Schofield Barracks where 36 US soldiers were killed by a mortar shell that landed short. And UK pilots killed in low level flying exercises every year.

Point is, the number of casualties in Gulf War 1 were obscenely disparate - compared to what happened to the Iraqis, the Coalition got off super light.

I believe that the idea behind the next war plans mentioned above is that next time, we're not going to occupy the country. Just destroy the things that bother us (the leader, his infrastructure, his nuclear facilities, his military) and leave. No sticking around and waiting for the insurgency to give us bad press.

Yes. And more UK aircraft were lost in low level flight, despite the fact that they had no reason to fly that low anymore because of the neutralization of Iraqi SAM networks. So they flew low enough to get shot to pieces by ordinary AAA guns.

"Aw no, not the Harriers! We have a war tomorrow.."- Simpsons :D



Point is, the number of casualties in Gulf War 1 were obscenely disparate - compared to what happened to the Iraqis, the Coalition got off super light.
I wholeheartedly agree.

But troops will be needed to hold the ground- i don't think a non manned war/conflict would serve any countries interests.... except maybe if their goal was genocide or something. Taking out the leaders is all well and good.... but theres always that niggling word in the back of one's mind......
.....'blowback'.....

"Aw no, not the Harriers! We have a war tomorrow.."- Simpsons :D

I wholeheartedly agree.

But troops will be needed to hold the ground- i don't think a non manned war/conflict would serve any countries interests.... except maybe if their goal was genocide or something. Taking out the leaders is all well and good.... but theres always that niggling word in the back of one's mind......
.....'blowback'.....

I will make an interesting observation.

While other countries might care what happens to a far away country after the US annihilates its infrastructure and leadership, two weeks later very few Americans will care.

If we had gone in this time and deposed Saddam and instantly left, we would have said, "it was just fine when we left" and few Americans would argue the point later. There would be no anti-war movement - there would have been a victory parade, scant casualties, and a lot of Americans feeling good about themselves. The only victims of any ensuing civil war would be Iraqis, and while they might make news, it would not be the headlining news it is today - because no American or UK troops would be killed or involved.

Yes, there would have been pundits wringing their hands over what to do about the mess (if anything). But no protesters. No low poll ratings.

I think this will be the strategy of the future. Go in, knock the crap out of a target, and leave. Mission accomplished.

I will make an interesting observation.

While other countries might care what happens to a far away country after the US annihilates its infrastructure and leadership, two weeks later very few Americans will care.

If we had gone in this time and deposed Saddam and instantly left, we would have said, "it was just fine when we left" and few Americans would argue the point later. There would be no anti-war movement - there would have been a victory parade, scant casualties, and a lot of Americans feeling good about themselves. The only victims of any ensuing civil war would be Iraqis, and while they might make news, it would not be the headlining news it is today - because no American or UK troops would be killed or involved.

Yes, there would have been pundits wringing their hands over what to do about the mess (if anything). But no protesters. No low poll ratings.

I think this will be the strategy of the future. Go in, knock the crap out of a target, and leave. Mission accomplished.

You're a Realist but an honest one, so i like you :D (Doesn't mean i agree with you)

One fallacy.... again, blowback. Can't see the future consequences of certain 'drastic' or 'extreme' actions. Might just bite you on the ass in a few years.

I think this will be the strategy of the future. Go in, knock the crap out of a target, and leave. Mission accomplished.This might be US doctrine, but the British went into Iraq with the expressed goal of creating a more friendly government. They wouldn't be able to sell the story that they went in to make things right if they leave right away.

You're a Realist but an honest one, so i like you :D (Doesn't mean i agree with you)

One fallacy.... again, blowback. Can't see the future consequences of certain 'drastic' or 'extreme' actions. Might just bite you on the ass in a few years.

If you'll notice, even though we're standing there in Iraq, we're getting the nasty "future consequences" of a "drastic" action. It's already biting us in the ass.

Much better to have it bite the country in the ass eight or so years down the road, when some other idiot is President.

This might be US doctrine, but the British went into Iraq with the expressed goal of creating a more friendly government. They wouldn't be able to sell the story that they went in to make things right if they leave right away.

That's the best part. You don't have to sell anyone on the idea.

And the precedent I would use would be Reagan's bombing of Libya, Clinton's bombing of Sudan, and for a precedent where we did sell something - Gulf War 1.

If you'll notice, even though we're standing there in Iraq, we're getting the nasty "future consequences" of a "drastic" action. It's already biting us in the ass.

Much better to have it bite the country in the ass eight or so years down the road, when some other idiot is President.
Well... I... cant really argue with that logic! Its true. :p

Well... I... cant really argue with that logic! Its true. :p

Game theory says that if you're President, you want to look strong, and you don't want anything to bite the country in the ass - while you are President.

If it bites the country in the ass down the road, after you're gone, any attempt to blame you is just sour grapes. Because you'll be remembered as the guy who got things done.

Prime example. At the very tail end of the Clinton administration, just before the election, the country was starting to dip into a recession. And despite Republican attempts to blame it on Clinton, Bush got to eat it.

The good thing about military strikes taking that form is that British troops will no longer be needed to fight American wars. We know that Blair would just let Bush dictate policy to him, so if there was another long and costly war we'd be dragged into it. So if it just takes the form of aerial strikes then we won't be needed. Certainly preferable to the situation we're in in Iraq.

...Wait, we already know that every nation in the world already plans for every possible military action (U.K. most probably has plans in a drawer to invade France, Germany to Netherlands, France to Switzerland, U.S. to Canada, Canada to U.S., Monaco to France...(heh...))

So...why is this a surprise?

So...why is this a surprise?

...they've told everyone....
That could be the suprise. :confused:

Everyone else is wondering: "What the hell did they do that for...?

Early last summer, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved a top secret "Interim Global Strike Alert Order" directing the military to assume and maintain readiness to attack hostile countries that are developing weapons of mass destruction, specifically Iran and North Korea.

Good thing this is "Top Secret"

:p :p :p

Game theory says that if you're President, you want to look strong, and you don't want anything to bite the country in the ass - while you are President.

The only problem is that it fails to take into account the possibility of escalation. You know, the whole shebang where you go in with knives and the other side brings six shooters and you come back with semi automatics and so on.

With nuclear strikes like that, you stand a fairly good chance of a heck of a lot of escalation. Not to mention that neighboring countries might not take too kindly if the fallout comes their way. What do you think China might have to say if NK was wiped off the face of the earth and was now coming to them in a great big radioactive cloud?

Sure, the politicians will say "tough noogies punk, deal with it", but the blowback might be quite quicker than you think. Quick enough to bite as quickly as it takes to arm and launch a nuclear strike depending on the severity.

Good thing this is "Top Secret"

:p :p :p

How to keep a secret with a politician.

Don't tell him anything. ;)

The only problem is that it fails to take into account the possibility of escalation. You know, the whole shebang where you go in with knives and the other side brings six shooters and you come back with semi automatics and so on.

With nuclear strikes like that, you stand a fairly good chance of a heck of a lot of escalation. Not to mention that neighboring countries might not take too kindly if the fallout comes their way. What do you think China might have to say if NK was wiped off the face of the earth and was now coming to them in a great big radioactive cloud?

Sure, the politicians will say "tough noogies punk, deal with it", but the blowback might be quite quicker than you think. Quick enough to bite as quickly as it takes to arm and launch a nuclear strike depending on the severity.

I think the nukes are a last resort. But the plan does indicate an extreme reticence to sticking around after you decimate the enemy country, by whatever means.

The not sticking around is the part I think is actually smart.

Not many details, but that was to be expected. The opplan offers very little that is not already known, so why is it being released?

Keep in mind that data like this is never released without reason. Also keep in mind that all the nations mentioned, specifically North Korea and Iran, are reading virtually everything they can get their hands on. They will read this too.

Nuff said.

I'm not going to pursue this. I'm just going to state my position so we'll know where we stand relative to each other in the future. Trash it if you like. Here it is:

The policy of pre-emptive strike is unethical and immoral. To consider using nuclear weapons as a first strike weapon is even worse -- it's not only inhumanly cruel, it's also self-defeating in three ways.

1. It assumes that other nations don't play by the same rules as us. It assumes that everyone in the world will instantly cower in fear and obey the US forever more. What if they don't? I think it's far more likely that the majority of nations in the world will band together against us, thus creating several big, strong enemies.

2. Related to #1, it is just as likely to launch a global war as to silence enemies. Once nukes are used in a first strike, all bets will be off, and no other nuclear nation will hestitate to use them, especially as all later attacks could be classed as defensive. Even if they don't use nukes, they will have a strong motive to break the nation that initiated the attack as being a threat to the rest of the world.

3. Nukes create lethal pollution. The human suffering they cause, and the likelihood that the death and disease will spread beyond the target nation will be classified as an international crime against humanity, thus creating more impetus for war to be declared against the US. Also, the pollution caused by such attacks will eventually find their way home (nukes are a very karmic weapon). Our soldiers won't die in battle, but they will very probably die at home of cancers caused by their government's cowardice and cruelty.

So, sorry, Sierra, but your entire argument is reprehensible, uncivilized, and short-sighted. On every level I reject it. Further, I could never trust the views of anyone who would support it.

I'm not going to pursue this. I'm just going to state my position so we'll know where we stand relative to each other in the future. Trash it if you like. Here it is:

The policy of pre-emptive strike is unethical and immoral.

Ethics and morality have little to do with realpolitik. Or the real world.


To consider using nuclear weapons as a first strike weapon is even worse -- it's not only inhumanly cruel, it's also self-defeating in three ways.

1. It assumes that other nations don't play by the same rules as us.


Some do not play by "the rules" as Western nations see them.

It assumes that everyone in the world will instantly cower in fear and obey the US forever more. What if they don't? I think it's far more likely that the majority of nations in the world will band together against us, thus creating several big, strong enemies.
It worked after WW II - until everyone got fuzzy about Hiroshima, and got to believing that the US was a pansy nation post-Vietnam.

2. Related to #1, it is just as likely to launch a global war as to silence enemies. Once nukes are used in a first strike, all bets will be off, and no other nuclear nation will hestitate to use them, especially as all later attacks could be classed as defensive. Even if they don't use nukes, they will have a strong motive to break the nation that initiated the attack as being a threat to the rest of the world.
I don't see any major nations attacking the US at this point for invading Iraq. I would imagine that unless someone else had already used a nuke or other WMD, the US would use conventional but very lethal methods.

3. Nukes create lethal pollution. The human suffering they cause, and the likelihood that the death and disease will spread beyond the target nation will be classified as an international crime against humanity, thus creating more impetus for war to be declared against the US. Also, the pollution caused by such attacks will eventually find their way home (nukes are a very karmic weapon). Our soldiers won't die in battle, but they will very probably die at home of cancers caused by their government's cowardice and cruelty.
Not the modified B-61. The only fallout from a B-61 airburst is tailored fallout designed to depopulate a set area in less than a month. And if you use the tailored fallout option, your troops won't be in country. They'll be at home watching TV.

So, sorry, Sierra, but your entire argument is reprehensible, uncivilized, and short-sighted. On every level I reject it. Further, I could never trust the views of anyone who would support it.

I admire your delusions of morality. You sound so like the generals who ran the British Army in WW I who saw the machinegun as "uncivilized" and "rejected" it, rather than recognize the reality of having to deal with it. Unfortunately, millions died before the generals woke up.

I'm not going to pursue this. I'm just going to state my position so we'll know where we stand relative to each other in the future. Trash it if you like. Here it is:

The policy of pre-emptive strike is unethical and immoral. To consider using nuclear weapons as a first strike weapon is even worse -- it's not only inhumanly cruel, it's also self-defeating in three ways.

1. It assumes that other nations don't play by the same rules as us. It assumes that everyone in the world will instantly cower in fear and obey the US forever more. What if they don't? I think it's far more likely that the majority of nations in the world will band together against us, thus creating several big, strong enemies.

2. Related to #1, it is just as likely to launch a global war as to silence enemies. Once nukes are used in a first strike, all bets will be off, and no other nuclear nation will hestitate to use them, especially as all later attacks could be classed as defensive. Even if they don't use nukes, they will have a strong motive to break the nation that initiated the attack as being a threat to the rest of the world.

3. Nukes create lethal pollution. The human suffering they cause, and the likelihood that the death and disease will spread beyond the target nation will be classified as an international crime against humanity, thus creating more impetus for war to be declared against the US. Also, the pollution caused by such attacks will eventually find their way home (nukes are a very karmic weapon). Our soldiers won't die in battle, but they will very probably die at home of cancers caused by their government's cowardice and cruelty.

So, sorry, Sierra, but your entire argument is reprehensible, uncivilized, and short-sighted. On every level I reject it. Further, I could never trust the views of anyone who would support it.


Agreed. In the event that the US Military bombed a country's infrastructure and leadership and laid waste to the country before quickly making an exit, American casualties may be light during the operation and not create Cindy Sheehans (As in grieving mothers of slain soldiers), but as somebody said, you have to take "blowback" into account, as in Americans may very well suffer for their military's actions, for it will create more Bin Ladens, more Kims.

Not to mention that leaving civillian casualties behind as a result (Especially in a nuke strike).....well if America thinks it's hated and isolated now....they would have seen nothing yet.

And if a civil war ensued in the bombed country, then it would be US responsibility, quite simply because the US destroyed the country's infrastructure to exist as a functioning country.

A good example of this was when the US bombed Cambodia because of Viet Cong supply routes in the country in The Vietnam War.

It led to the collapse of Cambodia's infrastructure, and it was Pol Pot who took advantage of the situation, declaring that everybody should return to the fields and that it was now 'Year Zero'.

Hundreds of thousands, if not millions died.

And if this did not occur, then the people of the country would rally behind their leader baying for the blood of Americans.

Sierra, you said how Americans would quickly forget about the strikes.

Not if they were shown the consequences....through media coverage of the aftermath, and any backlash that followed, as in international condemnation and backlash, and a war being brought on to America's soil.

And I fear it would be then, that September 11th 2001, would be dwarfed in the scale of horror that ensued.

Agreed. In the event that the US Military bombed a country's infrastructure and leadership and laid waste to the country before quickly making an exit, American casualties may be light during the operation and not create Cindy Sheehans (As in grieving mothers of slain soldiers), but as somebody said, you have to take "blowback" into account, as in Americans may very well suffer for their military's actions, for it will create more Bin Ladens, more Kims.

Not to mention that leaving civillian casualties behind as a result (Especially in a nuke strike).....well if America thinks it's hated and isolated now....they would have seen nothing yet.

And if a civil war ensued in the bombed country, then it would be US responsibility, quite simply because the US destroyed the country's infrastructure to exist as a functioning country.

A good example of this was when the US bombed Cambodia because of Viet Cong supply routes in the country in The Vietnam War.

It led to the collapse of Cambodia's infrastructure, and it was Pol Pot who took advantage of the situation, declaring that everybody should return to the fields and that it was now 'Year Zero'.

Hundreds of thousands, if not millions died.

And if this did not occur, then the people of the country would rally behind their leader baying for the blood of Americans.

Sierra, you said how Americans would quickly forget about the strikes.

Not if they were shown the consequences....through media coverage of the aftermath, and any backlash that followed, as in international condemnation and backlash, and a war being brought on to America's soil.

And I fear it would be then, that September 11th 2001, would be dwarfed in the scale of horror that ensued.


By then, the blowback would be another President's problem.

Additionally, I do not believe for a second that any Western nation would bring war onto American soil, nor would they support a radical Islamic attempt to do so. The US would have to bomb France wholesale before anyone in Europe would invade the US. And even then, they do not have the logistical means to do so.

By then, the blowback would be another President's problem.


Meaning that it will be a blowback that may very well last some time, and that it would still be America's problem.



Additionally, I do not believe for a second that any Western nation would bring war onto American soil, nor would they support a radical Islamic attempt to do so.


I never said that a Western nation would be the ones bringing war onto American soil, but perhaps it is best not to rule anything out.


The US would have to bomb France wholesale before anyone in Europe would invade the US. And even then, they do not have the logistical means to do so.

You would see war. Via Suicide bomber or missile or sabotage on US soil and US interests in regions of the world, it would be the blowback.

Who it would be would depend on the country attacked, although if a country is attacked, it may well form alliances with others who feel threatened.

You would see war. Via Suicide bomber or missile or sabotage on US soil and US interests in regions of the world, it would be the blowback.

We weren't invading anyone, and some jackasses flew civilian airliners into our buildings.

By then, the blowback would be another President's problem.

Additionally, I do not believe for a second that any Western nation would bring war onto American soil, nor would they support a radical Islamic attempt to do so. The US would have to bomb France wholesale before anyone in Europe would invade the US. And even then, they do not have the logistical means to do so.
To The State of It:

Sierra is a fool. Like the Bush admin, he commits the classic, fatal error of underestimating the enemy. And like a schoolyard bully, he commits the classic, fatal error of thinking he's the biggest, meanest, scariest kid on the block. He's wrong. History proves it. Current events prove it. The future will prove it. And the only comfort for the rest of us will be to look at Sierra and say "We told you so."

To The State of It:

Sierra is a fool. Like the Bush admin, he commits the classic, fatal error of underestimating the enemy. And like a schoolyard bully, he commits the classic, fatal error of thinking he's the biggest, meanest, scariest kid on the block. He's wrong. History proves it. Current events prove it. The future will prove it. And the only comfort for the rest of us will be to look at Sierra and say "We told you so."

If you'll notice the change in the OPLAN, the next war will be one of complete, rapid decimation. And no occupation.

Really, if there were some way for other nations to stop us, they would have. Most don't even have a real interest in doing so. Certainly no member of the G-8 - their economies are inextricably tied to the US.

History shows that violence settles everything.

If you'll notice the change in the OPLAN, the next war will be one of complete, rapid decimation. And no occupation.

Really, if there were some way for other nations to stop us, they would have. Most don't even have a real interest in doing so. Certainly no member of the G-8 - their economies are inextricably tied to the US.

History shows that violence settles everything.

Actually, History shows us that violence only works until greater violence is brought to bear. Think on that for a little while...

We weren't invading anyone, and some jackasses flew civilian airliners into our buildings.

....because of the US troop presence in Saudi Arabia, which is considered disrespectful to the sanctity of Islam in strict Sunni Muslim eyes, the US snub to Bin Laden when he offered to fight Saddam Hussein's Army in Kuwait instead of US Troops being on Saudi Arabian soil, The US arming Israel against the Palestinians, the delay in US intervention of the genocide of muslims in The Balkans, US intervention in coups of The Middle East Including support of Saddam himself who most Muslims thought was a Shatain which means 'Devil' all lead to some muslims, together with Bin Laden feeding upon this and spewing propoganda regarding all this, leads to the conclusion the US has a disliking of Islam.

Actually, History shows us that violence only works until greater violence is brought to bear. Think on that for a little while...

And my point is that no member of the G-8 would be willing to bring it. Nor would virtually any other nation that would stand half a chance.

As for bringing more airliners into civilian buildings, they did it even before we invaded anyone. So they're not doing this because we invaded them.

Really. You should read what Osama writes more often. They want to kill us - every last one of us in the Western world - and bring Dar al-Islam to the entire planet.

Of course, that means that they might have to kill just about everyone, but that's ok with them.

Think on that a little while.

To The State of It:

Sierra is a fool. Like the Bush admin, he commits the classic, fatal error of underestimating the enemy. And like a schoolyard bully, he commits the classic, fatal error of thinking he's the biggest, meanest, scariest kid on the block. He's wrong. History proves it. Current events prove it. The future will prove it. And the only comfort for the rest of us will be to look at Sierra and say "We told you so."

If we survive their mistake and it's consequences.

....because of the US troop presence in Saudi Arabia, which is considered disrespectful to the sanctity of Islam in strict Sunni Muslim eyes, the US snub to Bin Laden when he offered to fight Saddam Hussein's Army in Kuwait instead of US Troops being on Saudi Arabian soil, The US arming Israel against the Palestinians, the delay in US intervention of the genocide of muslims in The Balkans, US intervention in coups of The Middle East Including support of Saddam himself who most Muslims thought was a Shatain which means 'Devil' all lead to some muslims, together with Bin Laden feeding upon this and spewing propoganda regarding all this, leads to the conclusion the US has a disliking of Islam.

Amen!

History shows that violence settles everything.

Violence settles what our future may be, in that there maybe no future at all.

Violence settles what is left, and that may very well be just the ashes and the dying screams.

Really. You should read what Osama writes more often. They want to kill us - every last one of us in the Western world - and bring Dar al-Islam to the entire planet.

Assuming that they have enough support to do that (remember, there's guys in the US that preach the killing of homosexuals and the forced conversion of everyone to their brand of christianity).

Personally I'd bet that every country in G8 and the rest of the world has a plan to get away from the US as fast as possible if it does start acting like you want it to. Economic damage is preferable to destruction.

Really. You should read what Osama writes more often. They want to kill us - every last one of us in the Western world - and bring Dar al-Islam to the entire planet.

Of course, that means that they might have to kill just about everyone, but that's ok with them.

Think on that a little while.

There are 1.3 billion Muslims on this planet. If they all really wanted to kill you, you would know about it, September 11th 2001 would pale in comparison with all due respect in regards to the horrible events of that day.

Don't make the mistake that Bin Laden has every muslim's ear, for in doing that, you are already alienating those that do not support him, which is the greater percentage, and handing Bin Laden victory.

Assuming that they have enough support to do that (remember, there's guys in the US that preach the killing of homosexuals and the forced conversion of everyone to their brand of christianity).

Personally I'd bet that every country in G8 and the rest of the world has a plan to get away from the US as fast as possible if it does start acting like you want it to. Economic damage is preferable to destruction.

In his writings, Osama mentions temporary truces and negotiation only as a delaying tactic while they tackle the US. Then they're coming for you.

Their solution to US intervention overseas, as well as the influx of Western culture (which is not all from the US), is to annihilate the West.

Do you really think you're doing anything more than buying time when you negotiate with them?

And if they get hold of something as simple as smallpox, do you think you'll be able to distance yourself then?

I think not.

And if they get hold of something as simple as smallpox, do you think you'll be able to distance yourself then?

Of course neither will they...

In his writings, Osama mentions temporary truces and negotiation only as a delaying tactic while they tackle the US. Then they're coming for you.

Again, you assume that every Muslim in the world is out to get you. keep that attidude and they will.

Their solution to US intervention overseas, as well as the influx of Western culture (which is not all from the US), is to annihilate the West.

'Their' being a minority.

really i'm just pissed off by the short sightedness of this war. i thought the whole point was to shroud the getting more oil thing in the war on terror (we still have terror it's metaphysical you can't get rid of it, it'd be like trying to launch a war on thought then again not such a bad idea if youre george bush) and now that anerica has got it's 51st state saudi irania or whatever your gonna call it petrol has never cost more :mp5:

Personally I think it's the best possible idea. If you're serious about controling nuclear proliferation then you need to be able to make sure that developing a nuclear weapon doesn't guarantee your nation's safety from attack, but instead guarantees that your nation will be attacked and forcibly disarmed. That takes away all motivation for rogue states like N. Korea and Iran to attempt to build nuclear weapons.

If we survive their mistake and it's consequences.
Well, yes, there is always that.

That's why I choose to believe in an afterlife -- so I can take comfort in having all of eternity to gloat over how frigging wrong they are. :D (wry; not actually humorous)

Well, yes, there is always that.

That's why I choose to believe in an afterlife -- so I can take comfort in having all of eternity to gloat over how frigging wrong they are. :D (wry; not actually humorous)

Well, then you're actually taking comfort in the idea that any attempt to rectify the situation in Iraq will fail. Nice. And I'm lacking in morals?

Sounds like a 2nd Dr Strangelove, in the making

More US soldiers were killed or injured in accidents than were killed by hostile action in Gulf War 1. At rates comparable to peacetime exercises.
True, but you said
no US soldiers will die on foreign soil in a war like that.

I believe that the idea behind the next war plans mentioned above is that next time, we're not going to occupy the country. Just destroy the things that bother us (the leader, his infrastructure, his nuclear facilities, his military) and leave. No sticking around and waiting for the insurgency to give us bad press.
That's a crap idea. What will be done with the country once it is destroyed? That policy is just asking for some radical nutcase to arise and become a great pain in the ass 10 or 20 years down the line. I still think the post-WW2 model is best. Utterly destroy the system and build it anew. It's not the fastest or cheapest option, but it works best.

If we had gone in this time and deposed Saddam and instantly left, we would have said, "it was just fine when we left" and few Americans would argue the point later. There would be no anti-war movement - there would have been a victory parade, scant casualties, and a lot of Americans feeling good about themselves. The only victims of any ensuing civil war would be Iraqis, and while they might make news, it would not be the headlining news it is today - because no American or UK troops would be killed or involved.

Yes, there would have been pundits wringing their hands over what to do about the mess (if anything). But no protesters. No low poll ratings.

I don't care about Americans feeling bad about the war or the pundits. Iraq is what's important, not the collective ego of Americans.

If you'll notice, even though we're standing there in Iraq, we're getting the nasty "future consequences" of a "drastic" action. It's already biting us in the ass.
No, you're not. It could have been much worse than this if the US and UK had left immediately.


The not sticking around is the part I think is actually smart.
Well, it's politically expedient. I don't think it's a good idea because of blowback. The politician who started all the shit in the first place will not suffer, but the people would.

...Wait, we already know that every nation in the world already plans for every possible military action (U.K. most probably has plans in a drawer to invade France, Germany to Netherlands, France to Switzerland, U.S. to Canada, Canada to U.S., Monaco to France...(heh...))

So...why is this a surprise?
I've yet to have been answered.

I think the nukes are a last resort. But the plan does indicate an extreme reticence to sticking around after you decimate the enemy country, by whatever means.

The not sticking around is the part I think is actually smart.

Considering the fact that ICBMs don't need you to stick around for it to hit you, go ahead. Russia has a nice big nuclear arsenal, as does China, Pakistan, and Israel as well. France and Britain have some as well. Either way, if the US starts by using one, how long before others start using their boomers? Don't pretend that they won't.

Ethics and morality have little to do with realpolitik. Or the real world.

No, but precedent has a lot to do with realpolitik. A precedent of nuclear weapons as first strike weapons in pre-emptive attacks will lead to a lot of nuclear powers revising their current standing with the United States, possibly putting it as a high risk nation to their own well being. The US would not survive if the remaining nuclear powers banded against it. They might not survive as well, but when MAD becomes a reality rather than a threat, all bets are off.


Some do not play by "the rules" as Western nations see them.


I was not aware that there were rules that were actually followed by nations if they could get away with it instead.


It worked after WW II - until everyone got fuzzy about Hiroshima, and got to believing that the US was a pansy nation post-Vietnam.


False example. Nuclear weapons used on Hiroshima had the effect they did because nobody else had them. With what, 7(?) nations now holding onto the nuclear card and with the ability to strike at almost any area around the globe, things are a lot more different with nuclear weapons now.


I don't see any major nations attacking the US at this point for invading Iraq. I would imagine that unless someone else had already used a nuke or other WMD, the US would use conventional but very lethal methods.


Not according to this article. It specifically states the use of nuclear weapons as a first strike option, not a retaliatory option.


Not the modified B-61. The only fallout from a B-61 airburst is tailored fallout designed to depopulate a set area in less than a month. And if you use the tailored fallout option, your troops won't be in country. They'll be at home watching TV.

Except that with trade winds, you will affect OTHER countries in the area that had nothing to do with this. To them, dumping a great big poisonous cloud on them is an act of war. I'm sure that if the same happened to the US, you would be screaming that it was an act of war.

So, no. Your troops wouldn't be at home watching TV. They would likely have been incinerated in a nuclear fireball. Do you like living? I do. But if you want to open pandora's box again, I don't have any long term expectations.


I admire your delusions of morality. You sound so like the generals who ran the British Army in WW I who saw the machinegun as "uncivilized" and "rejected" it, rather than recognize the reality of having to deal with it. Unfortunately, millions died before the generals woke up.

I also admire your ignorance of blowback. Particularly to the fact that other nations that might be affected by nuclear fallout might ALSO have nuclear weapons to retaliate with.

I've yet to have been answered.

To put it simply, the only real difference is the switch of policy of nuclear weapons use from defensive retaliation to active offensives. Conventional war plans is one things. Having the nuclear option as an active pre-emptive tactic is a whole different thing. It's like having the recipe for MAD and prepping the kitchen for it.

More US soldiers were killed or injured in accidents than were killed by hostile action in Gulf War 1. At rates comparable to peacetime exercises.


This is true. We lost two in our unit two an accident unrelated to enemy action. None of our unit suffered combat deaths. We were in the thick of it also for the short period of time the ground war lasted.