Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pentagon Plans First-Strike Nuclear Policy.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pentagon Plans First-Strike Nuclear Policy.

    Pentagon plans strike-first nuclear policy

    12.09.05 1.00pm
    By Rupert Cornwell

    WASHINGTON - The Pentagon has drawn up a new strategy, built on the 2002 "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive military strikes, that would allow the US to make first use of nuclear weapons to thwart an a WMD attack against the country.

    Under the scheme, developed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff but yet to be ratified by Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, commanders would be able to request permission from the President to use nuclear weapons in a variety of scenarios.

    According to the Washington Post, one possibility is an enemy that is using, or "is about to use" weapons of mass destruction against US military forces or civilian population.

    Another is where nuclear weapons could be used against biological weapons that an enemy was close to using, and which could only be safely destroyed by nuclear weapons and their after-effects.

    In practice, the strategy would update existing guidelines, drawn up in 1995 under the Clinton administration.

    It would fit in with plans mooted by the Pentagon to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons, specifically designed to attack enemy bunkers of WMD, buried deep underground.

    But Congress has thus far declined to provide funds for a study into the so-called "robust nuclear earth penetrator", not least because of criticism that such a move would make a mockery of US-led efforts to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation, and make it more, rather than less likely, that such weapons would be employed.

    However the Pentagon document argues that proliferation has already made it more likely that nuclear weapons could be used.

    It claims that some 30 nations have WMD programmes -- not to mention terrorists, or "non-state actors" as they are described, acting either independently or under the sponsorship of a state opposed to the US.

    It also points out that even during the Cold War the US refused to commit itself to a "no first use" of nuclear weapons.
    Latest breaking news articles, photos, video, blogs, reviews, analysis, opinion and reader comment from New Zealand and around the World - NZ Herald
    "Our words are backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!"​​

  • #2
    Old news, re-reported after spin.

    It's not really a big deal once you ignore the "zomfgNUKESAREEVIL!" part of your brain and look at the tactical nuke designs objectively.

    Comment


    • #3
      VJ what interest does the New Zealand Herald have in putting a "spin" on this story?
      meet the new boss, same as the old boss

      Comment


      • #4
        NZ has a left-wing press. They like Bush-bashing/anti-americanism since there's demand for it on their domestic market, just like in Finland (Finnish press bashes US all the time).

        That's my guess, anyway. I don't really know much about NZ.

        Comment


        • #5
          Don Rumsfield has been an advocate of tactical nukes (in this case, "bunker-busters") which should be used against non-nuclear powers for a long, long time... IIRC he was pushing the stuff back in the 70s, when he was in the Ford cabinet.

          Comment


          • #6
            These things "objectively" kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in collateral damage. is this not un-ZOMFG enough for you?

            Comment


            • #7
              Any such policy makes an utter mockery of any attempts at stoping nuclear proliferation. The guys in the pentagon might be right, and increading proliferation is increading the likelyhood of the use of nukes-and they are the main reason why.

              After all, the same policy of using nukes to destroy enemy WMD's before they are used applies to every other state just as well. The North Koreans have the same incentive to use their WMD"s pre-emtively to take out aggresive WMD's being aimed at their population, by say, the US.

              You can;t argue that nukes are tactically justifiable and then deny the right to have nukes to any soverign state. You might as well try to ban tanks from anyone not a permanent member of the UN. Either nukes are just another weapon in the arsenal, or they are off limits. One or the other.
              If you don't like reality, change it! me
              "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
              "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
              "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

              Comment


              • #8
                Hasn't the military always had the ability to ask to use nuclear weapons? Hasn't the president always had the ability to say no, or better yet, order a first strike?

                Yes.

                "The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.

                Comment


                • #9
                  VJ what interest does the New Zealand Herald have in putting a "spin" on this story?
                  NZ has a major thing against most things nuclear since we went anti nuclear in the 1980s. Newspaper articles generally reflect this when talking about nuclear related shiet. The anti nuclear thing is still rather strong in the the NZ charactor. Plus we do have a rather left wing media and america is treated as the boogeyman sometimes. But in less than 7 days we may have a more right wing government ourselves. Who knows? All will be revealed. NZ Election Day: September 17 2005

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Patroklos
                    Hasn't the military always had the ability to ask to use nuclear weapons? Hasn't the president always had the ability to say no, or better yet, order a first strike?

                    Yes.

                    Indeed, first strike policy dates back to the Cold War.
                    Visit First Cultural Industries
                    There are reasons why I believe mankind should live in cities and let nature reclaim all the villages with the exception of a few we keep on display as horrific reminders of rural life.-Starchild
                    Meat eating and the dominance and force projected over animals that is acompanies it is a gateway or parallel to other prejudiced beliefs such as classism, misogyny, and even racism. -General Ludd

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by GePap
                      Any such policy makes an utter mockery of any attempts at stoping nuclear proliferation. The guys in the pentagon might be right, and increading proliferation is increading the likelyhood of the use of nukes-and they are the main reason why.

                      After all, the same policy of using nukes to destroy enemy WMD's before they are used applies to every other state just as well. The North Koreans have the same incentive to use their WMD"s pre-emtively to take out aggresive WMD's being aimed at their population, by say, the US.

                      You can;t argue that nukes are tactically justifiable and then deny the right to have nukes to any soverign state. You might as well try to ban tanks from anyone not a permanent member of the UN. Either nukes are just another weapon in the arsenal, or they are off limits. One or the other.
                      100% correct analysis
                      We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham Lincoln

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Well, Iraq should consider herself lucky. Had this policy been in effect in 2003, there'd be a big honkin' glass desert in middle-east right now. I mean, Saddam had his finger on the proverbial button, right? Right about to send dozens of ICBM's raining down on Pleasantville, Illinois?


                        Better have solid intel, before they nuke some canned food factory in Iran...
                        I've allways wanted to play "Russ Meyer's Civilization"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          ....

                          Well now I understand why USA wants to use nukes.

                          Ofcourse no WMD were found, we got them all with the nukes!

                          Who needs intel when you have weapons that destroy all possible evidence.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by GePap
                            Any such policy makes an utter mockery of any attempts at stoping nuclear proliferation. The guys in the pentagon might be right, and increading proliferation is increading the likelyhood of the use of nukes-and they are the main reason why.
                            Exactly. DPRK takes a look at this and says, "Hurry up, we need our own nuclear deterrents."
                            (\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
                            (='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
                            (")_(") "Starting the fire from within."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Another is where nuclear weapons could be used against biological weapons that an enemy was close to using, and which could only be safely destroyed by nuclear weapons and their after-effects.
                              Probably as close as Saddam was using his WMD on the US!!

                              And btw, Bunker-Buster nukes can be used on civilian bunkers as well and OMFG I think they'll be used on civilian bunkers if the situation "seems" to make it necessary, in the same sense as it "seemed" that Saddam was about to invade the US! Yes, I don't trust anyone in the Bush administration, they're all suffering from severe paranoia.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X