The Real Nuclear Option
Well Bush and company seem to be at it again, this time blurring the line between conventional and nuclear war.
Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan
Although the US has never had a formal “no first use” policy with regards to nuclear weapons, it has stood behind the principle of that argument for years. Basically, we would only retaliate with nuclear weapons only if we were attacked with them first. But of course, now that Bush has set a precedent for preemptive action, “all options would be available to the President”.
Some of the possible uses for nuclear weapons as outlined by the defense department document:
1. To preempt the use of WMD’s against the US, it’s forces or allies by nonstate (terrorist, criminal) groups or hostile nations.
2. To destroy known enemy stockpiles of WMD’s.
3. To counter potentially overwhelming conventional forces.
4. To gain a rapid and favorable war termination on US terms (think Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
5. To preempt the affects of an imminent biological attack that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy.
The document also discusses the possibility of using nuclear weapons to cripple a hostile nations ability to conduct war. While the document does not expressly call for the targeting of civilian populations, it does mention that infrastructures that support military operations may be added to the list of possible targets (one would assume this implies direct support, such as making weapons or ammunition but it might be used to justify targeting other industries such as food production.) This tactic has been referred to as "counter-value" targeting.
At least some members of the military find this aspect of the document appalling. From US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) which directs nuclear war-fighting:
Isn’t it ironic that in fighting terrorism, we should give consideration to adopting the same tactics the terrorists use?
The possibility of the preemptive use of nuclear weapons, while it may have some good arguments, also has its downsides. Yes it might stop an imminent attack by other nations but a nuclear strike would probably do little to deter Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization. That’s the problem when you’re fighting a nonstate entity like Al Qaeda; they are not bound geographically to any one particular place. You could bomb every city in the world and still not get them all.
Then there is the “fallout” (no pun intended) of bombing civilian population centers. Chances are if you are wanting to target terrorists (even with conventional weapons), you won't find them on some lonely battlefield waiting to be sniped at. Terrorists are trained to hide in plain sight, to blend into the fabric of society. It is how they are able to strike seemingly without warning. This is the disadvantage of fighting an unconventional foe with conventional means.
The political leadership likes to talk about “precision” strikes with regards to the ability of the US military. This language, while it gives praise to the military's capabilities, belies the underlying truth.
Bombs. Do. Not. Discriminate.
They don't care if you were the intended target or not. Yes, it is an advantage to be able to center a bomb’s damage over a particular target because then you can more-reliably take out said target but in the objectionable polito-speak, you try to sell the notion that we can drop bombs on civilian areas with “minimal collateral damage” (yet more polito-speak for “target a house, and hope you don’t take out a neighborhood"). If you were to add the effects of even a low yield nuclear warhead to the mix, just how minimal would the damage of this “precision” strike be?
Another nightmare scenario that gives credence to the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used in the future is this: Because the US has become bogged down in Iraq, we are short on manpower, thus we must begin to look to less-desirable options to deal with the real threats multiplying beyond Iraq’s borders (i.e. Iran, North Korea). And let’s face it, nuking our enemies does have advantages over invasion and occupation:
1. It’s cheap; just a few multi-million dollar warheads should do the trick. (Sure beats 5 billion a month.)
2. Doesn’t require significant manpower or long-term commitment. (The target would basically be an irradiated wasteland. Who needs to guard that?)
3. Renders underlying justification more or less immune to proof. (No need to worry about finding those pesky WMDs. “Oh yea we had solid intel that there were WMDs here. And you’d be seeing evidence of that, if they hadn't been vaporized along with the former residents of this area.”)
4. It's not technically illegal. The defense document underscores the fact that there is no international law prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons in armed conflict. (Absence of a law prohibiting something doesn't mean it still isn't wrong. Though try telling that to the Bush administration.)
Only time will tell if President Bush will decide to exercise that itchy trigger finger of his.
(Originally posted on Yahoo360)
Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan
The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002.
Although the US has never had a formal “no first use” policy with regards to nuclear weapons, it has stood behind the principle of that argument for years. Basically, we would only retaliate with nuclear weapons only if we were attacked with them first. But of course, now that Bush has set a precedent for preemptive action, “all options would be available to the President”.
Some of the possible uses for nuclear weapons as outlined by the defense department document:
1. To preempt the use of WMD’s against the US, it’s forces or allies by nonstate (terrorist, criminal) groups or hostile nations.
2. To destroy known enemy stockpiles of WMD’s.
3. To counter potentially overwhelming conventional forces.
4. To gain a rapid and favorable war termination on US terms (think Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
5. To preempt the affects of an imminent biological attack that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy.
The document also discusses the possibility of using nuclear weapons to cripple a hostile nations ability to conduct war. While the document does not expressly call for the targeting of civilian populations, it does mention that infrastructures that support military operations may be added to the list of possible targets (one would assume this implies direct support, such as making weapons or ammunition but it might be used to justify targeting other industries such as food production.) This tactic has been referred to as "counter-value" targeting.
At least some members of the military find this aspect of the document appalling. From US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) which directs nuclear war-fighting:
Many operational law attorneys do not believe "counter-value" targeting is a lawful justification for employment of force, much less nuclear force. Counter-value philosophy makes no distinction between purely civilian activities and military-related activities and could be used to justify deliberate attacks on civilians and non-military portions of a nation's economy... For example, under the counter-value target philosophy, the attack on the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11 could be justified.
Isn’t it ironic that in fighting terrorism, we should give consideration to adopting the same tactics the terrorists use?
The possibility of the preemptive use of nuclear weapons, while it may have some good arguments, also has its downsides. Yes it might stop an imminent attack by other nations but a nuclear strike would probably do little to deter Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization. That’s the problem when you’re fighting a nonstate entity like Al Qaeda; they are not bound geographically to any one particular place. You could bomb every city in the world and still not get them all.
Then there is the “fallout” (no pun intended) of bombing civilian population centers. Chances are if you are wanting to target terrorists (even with conventional weapons), you won't find them on some lonely battlefield waiting to be sniped at. Terrorists are trained to hide in plain sight, to blend into the fabric of society. It is how they are able to strike seemingly without warning. This is the disadvantage of fighting an unconventional foe with conventional means.
The political leadership likes to talk about “precision” strikes with regards to the ability of the US military. This language, while it gives praise to the military's capabilities, belies the underlying truth.
Bombs. Do. Not. Discriminate.
They don't care if you were the intended target or not. Yes, it is an advantage to be able to center a bomb’s damage over a particular target because then you can more-reliably take out said target but in the objectionable polito-speak, you try to sell the notion that we can drop bombs on civilian areas with “minimal collateral damage” (yet more polito-speak for “target a house, and hope you don’t take out a neighborhood"). If you were to add the effects of even a low yield nuclear warhead to the mix, just how minimal would the damage of this “precision” strike be?
Another nightmare scenario that gives credence to the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used in the future is this: Because the US has become bogged down in Iraq, we are short on manpower, thus we must begin to look to less-desirable options to deal with the real threats multiplying beyond Iraq’s borders (i.e. Iran, North Korea). And let’s face it, nuking our enemies does have advantages over invasion and occupation:
1. It’s cheap; just a few multi-million dollar warheads should do the trick. (Sure beats 5 billion a month.)
2. Doesn’t require significant manpower or long-term commitment. (The target would basically be an irradiated wasteland. Who needs to guard that?)
3. Renders underlying justification more or less immune to proof. (No need to worry about finding those pesky WMDs. “Oh yea we had solid intel that there were WMDs here. And you’d be seeing evidence of that, if they hadn't been vaporized along with the former residents of this area.”)
4. It's not technically illegal. The defense document underscores the fact that there is no international law prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons in armed conflict. (Absence of a law prohibiting something doesn't mean it still isn't wrong. Though try telling that to the Bush administration.)
Only time will tell if President Bush will decide to exercise that itchy trigger finger of his.
(Originally posted on Yahoo360)
Post a Comment