Nuke and Pave. Then charge tolls.

[digitaldiscipline]

WMD threat could spark American nuclear strike

From Giles Whittell in Washington [washingtonpost.com]

A PRESIDENT of the United States would be able to launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes against enemies planning to use weapons of mass destruction under a revised “nuclear operations” doctrine to be signed in the next few weeks.

In a significant shift after half a century of nuclear deterrence based on the threat of massive retaliation, the revised doctrine would allow pre-emptive strikes against states or terror groups, and to destroy chemical and biological weapons stockpiles.

Presidential approval would still be required for any nuclear strike, but the updated document, the existence of which was confirmed by the Pentagon at the weekend, emphasises the need for the US to adapt to a world of worsening proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in which deterrence might fail. In that event, it states, “the United States must be prepared to use nuclear weapons if necessary”.

The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, last revised ten years ago, extends President Bush’s doctrine of pre-emptive war to cover a US nuclear arsenal that is expected to shrink to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads by 2012.

It was drafted by the Pentagon in March and posted on the internet, but did not attract widespread attention until a report on it in The Washington Post yesterday. It has since been removed from the Department of Defence website.

It came to light as Iran insisted, in defiance of the European Union, that it would continue processing uranium at its Isfahan reactor. The US has called on the UN Security Council to impose sanctions on Tehran for failing to shelve its nuclear programme.

Referring repeatedly to “non-state actors” — parlance for terrorists — the doctrine is designed to arm the White House and US forces with a new range of threats and sanctions to counter the situation of threatened nuclear attack by al-Qaeda or one of its affiliates.

The document’s key phrase appears in a list of pre-emptive nuclear strike scenarios, the first of which is against an enemy using “or intending to use WMD”.

Elsewhere it states that “deterrence of potential adversary WMD use requires the potential adversary leadership to believe that the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective”.

The 1995 version of the doctrine contained no mention of pre-emption or WMD as legitimate nuclear targets.

Comments

[the-yellow-king.livejournal.com]

That...would not be smart, to state it mildly. Essentially, this would allow for the Prez to nuke on the political equivalent of a whim. The ability for any elected President to say "Ah, fuck it. Just nuke Mecca." without Congressional approval is not...there are really no words to express it. 0.o

[fenixinthedark.livejournal.com]

Holy shit...

And with Bush thinking he's on a mission from God, I can just see him believing himself to be somehow annointed to actually go a route like this. Is it election time yet?

[etcet.livejournal.com]

Yes, but we're not in Iraq....

[geekwuffie.livejournal.com]

Holy crap. I hate to think we have to spend the next three years on eggshells because King George has permission to destroy cities as long as he meets the rigorous prerequisite of "I feel like it."

Thank the gods he can't run again.

[fenixinthedark.livejournal.com]

You know? After allowing myself some time to ponder this, it bothers me even more than it did initially. It was like a little bug under the surface of my skin itching the hell out of me, and now I know why.

The problem with this 'option' is that many of those who would use 'WMD's' against us aren't defined by lands or borders. Al Quaeda as a for instance. It isn't a national affiliation, it's a political/religious one that spans the globe. There is no place for us to bomb without pissing off a sovereign government, and making us look even worse in the worlds eyes. And in any case, do we really want to bomb Detroit and Hoboken? Because I'm relatively sure you're going to find 'terrorists' that are planning to use 'WMD's' in places like those nearly as easily as in places like Afghanistan. And that leaves places like Iran, North Korea and Syria as the real potential targets for this "plan".

Can you say WWIII?