BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

US Nuclear Pre-Emptive Strike Option

  
 
*
17:44 / 12.09.05
Or, The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations.

I would like to be able to say more about this other than that it is terrifyingly, unbelievably, mind-numbingly bad. So I'll talk about the coverage. In light of the recent news story in the Washington Post, information about this document has reportedly been removed from the Department of Defense website. Is this because someone with a modicum of survival instinct has rethought the revision? Or is it just to keep the liberals from getting all hysterical about the possibility of a little nuclear action?

Apologies if there is already a much more coherent thread about the DJNO revision somewhere. If so top that one and I'll move this one for deletion.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
19:02 / 12.09.05
This feels a bit stage-managed. It seems to be in the interest of certain aspects of the current US administration to put it around worldwide that the country's run by trigger-happy lunatics - I don't have the thing to hand unfortunately, but there's a lot about this in 'Deterring Democracy' by Noam Chomsky I think, the 'crazy man' theory of American politics, that there's someone so apparently unstable in charge of the military-industrial complex that the 'enemies of freedom' don't honestly have a clue what the guy's likely to do next, if pushed. Hence an apparent maniac like Donald Rumsfeld, say, who probably isn't as stupid as he looks, in the position he's in.

It's pathetic, frankly, that the most powerful destructive force ever assembled in the history of the whole wurl, at least excluding some of the more 'out there' theories about the kingdom of Atlantis anyway, feels it has to behave in this way, but still, there you go.

I suppose the only country now on the planet that might 'genuinely' represent the kind of threat to US interests that would justify the use of nuclear weapons is China, and I can't see them going anywhere near that, really.

So again, sadly, this policy would appear to be the work of a US administration that's dead-set on waving it's diseased, tumnescent schlong in the rest of the world's tired and worried face because it's very much out of other ideas.

I try not to think about it these days though, America - I've moved from valium to roofies in my bedtime Horlicks, and morning coffee, and lunchtime milk stout, and it seems to be working out all right.
 
 
alejandrodelloco
20:23 / 12.09.05
This is just... icky. I bet it is just to get the whole "War on Terror" back on the map, since Katrina is taking up 90 percent of news coverage these days (and rightfully so). Since that has been such an embarassment to the Administration, it would make perfect sense to start throwing around the ol' terr'ah buzzwords. Still, ick ick ick.
 
 
unheimlich manoeuvre
23:03 / 12.09.05
Hence an apparent maniac like Donald Rumsfeld, say, who probably isn't as stupid as he looks, in the position he's in.

I don't think this is solely a diversionary tactic. Donald Rumsfeld *is* not as stupid as he looks. I've read a little about Leo Strauss and the Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz and Abrams cabal. The Project for the New American Century is not just for show.
This is the continuation of the shift of foreign policy from Kissinger's pragmatic realpolitik to Republican idealism that started in the 1980's.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
01:17 / 13.09.05
Kissinger's pragmatic realpolitik

I'd be interested to hear how this manifested itself. Not to do down the Nixon administration, which these days actually doesn't seem all that bad as compared to the present incumbents, but Kissinger, honestly... What, exactly, was rational or sane about his (I dare say nothing was signed in Kissinger's name, but even so,) policy with regard to Cambodia?

The idea that Henry Kissinger was anything other than an extremely disturbed individual with far too much power at his disposal and absolutely no idea what to do with it, at all, just eludes me, really.

Party round at mine on the day of his funeral
 
 
Sjaak at the Shoe Shop
08:26 / 13.09.05
Fits well into the US campaign against Iran, and previous White House statements on that country (which is as we all know the Root of All Evil). So I guess that is the main target at the moment.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
11:50 / 13.09.05
Hmmm..what are they really saying though?

Seems to me the statement says : If we think you are going to nuke us, we'll nuke you. So ner!

Hardly news, really. Just seems a bit socially/diplomatically inept, like mentioning you've farted at a dinner party when it was really obvious anyway.
 
 
P. Horus Rhacoid
13:17 / 13.09.05
the revised doctrine would allow pre-emptive strikes against states or terror groups, and to destroy chemical and biological weapons stockpiles.
...
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”.

It's not a case of 'if you're planning to nuke us, we're going to nuke you' it's a case of 'if we think you're going to attack us, we're going to nuke you.' I don't know how WMD's are defined in the doctrine, but it's a pretty broad phrase- how much potential damage does something have to cause for it to be a WMD?

I don't think this is necessarily as bad as it sounds- just because Teh Leader Of Teh Free World is claiming the right to, say, fly into Pakistan without permission and nuke an Al Qaeda training camp there doesn't mean he's actually going to, given that it would piss off, oh, at least 50% of the people in the world. On the other hand, 'rational thought' isn't a buzzword one usually associates with Dubs. And of course, his record on preemptive military strikes is not exactly stellar either. And principles of cause-and-effect (e.g. 'If I do this it will make lots of people angry and make them want to kill me') are not entirely his strong point. That Teh Commander In Chief considers nukes a viable option isn't news (anybody remember bunker-busters? 'Cute nukes' Molly Ivins called them). Having that codified, however, is, and suggests to me that maybe it's not an idle threat. Still, only two more years, right? Fuck.

Anyway, the coverage. Most of what I've read so far (generally international sources) has been overwhelmingly negative and focused on this being a Really Bad Idea. I don't think they're sensationalizing the issue, though. I was born at the tail end of the cold war, so I didn't have to grow up in fear of nuclear annihilation, but I don't think it's particularly wise to ignore 40-odd years of constant pants-shitting terror and think, well, Russia's nice enough now and the fear's worn off a little- it's nukin' time! Okay, I concede that's a little bit of an exaggeration, but still. Granted, this could be a bluff; and it's presumably a last-resort measure (though come to think of it, maybe not); but the fact that the option is even being considered, and moreover is being made official doctrine- well, that deserves all the negative coverage it can get.

I haven't read much US coverage of this- what's it been like? How are the editorials treating it? How are Americans reacting? My hopes of a huge public outcry against this are not high, and anyway he wouldn't pay attention, because (this is true) he sees himself as an adult guiding a wayward child (the American people). Thanks, you condescending fuck.

Sorry for the rant. I'm finished.
 
 
*
15:47 / 13.09.05
I'm not sure that the administration's current intentions are the only thing that matters right now, or even the major thing that matters. The consequences of this are potentially very bad whether it's currently a bluff or not.

One of the major problems with nukes vs. a ground war accompanied by conventional bombs is that the ground war and conventional bombs take time. It takes enough time, in fact, that the rest of the world can object, get some innocents to safety, show evidence that the war is wrong, etc. And if there were a government in power who felt accountable to the rest of the world and to their own people, that might work. Once nuclear weaponry is deployed, tens of thousands of people are going to die at minimum. Period. And this doctrine as I understand it removes one more safeguard, makes it possible to release nuclear weaponry a few hours faster, with a little less deliberation and a little less time for the rest of the world to respond in any way other than with a nuclear attack of their own.

And Vecton has it right that WMD, as the term is being used in the administration right now, covers biological and chemical weapons of moderately large destruction, as well as nuclear weaponry. This extends the purview of nuclear response significantly. Also there is no provision for what constitutes cause to believe that WMD were going to be used. Also also this doctrine as I understand it means that if there is a terrorist cell with, we believe, weapons of moderately big destruction hiding in, say, France, with, we believe, the potential to attack the US with them, we can deploy nuclear weaponry against their position in France even though France is not our enemy.

Whether anyone intends to use this doctrine is not the point. Now that it's there, we're at much greater risk for someone using it than when previously it was not there. And can anyone honestly affirm that they believe, if this revised doctrine had been in place four years ago, Afghanistan and Iraq would not be two radioactive craters right now? It would have saved so much time, and surely would have kept the libruls from complaining that American lives were being lost over there for no reason...

I think someones up there just have nostalgia for the fifties, and are trying really hard to get us back there. And I think that's a shitty idea.
 
 
Chiropteran
16:09 / 13.09.05
And can anyone honestly affirm that they believe, if this revised doctrine had been in place four years ago, Afghanistan and Iraq would not be two radioactive craters right now?

Afghanistan, maybe, but not Iraq - you don't nuke oil fields you want.

It'll be interesting to hear Iran and North Korea's reaction to this, too.
 
 
ibis the being
16:17 / 13.09.05
I'm sorry I don't have a link to verify - I heard it on NPR news today - but the story on this is that it was already policy, this Doctrine is just a public report on what was, up until now, classified-only.
 
 
*
16:34 / 13.09.05
Lep: Er, yeah, your point is taken.

Ibis: I knew it had been proposed back in March, but was due to be signed right about now. Is that what you mean, or was it policy before this doctrine was even conceived of? or, for instance, before four years ago, which makes a big difference to my argument above?
 
 
*
16:35 / 13.09.05
before this doctrine was even conceived of

Document, I meant.
 
 
ibis the being
22:48 / 13.09.05
I knew it had been proposed back in March, but was due to be signed right about now. Is that what you mean, or was it policy before this doctrine was even conceived of? or, for instance, before four years ago, which makes a big difference to my argument above?

I'm trying to find the answers to these questions without much luck.

I heard it here. If you skip forward to about 42 min the host Tom Ashbrook does a brief segment with Jeffrey Lewis (sp??), author of the blog armscontrolwonk.com on this subject. I searched through the blog and found nothing. Googled the guy's name but not finding anything.

However, Ashbrook said something like 'the story hit the papers today but Lewis reported on it back in May,' so I would infer from that that the policy probably doesn't date back much further from May 05.
 
 
*
23:18 / 13.09.05
Really? Nothing? That's odd. Still, thanks for the link to the site. With a little more research it may yield something useful.

Okay, so I think we've learned that these documents have been around since March at least, but were classified, the story was broken in April, and news agencies haven't peeped until a few days ago when the Washington Post (leans conservative) reported on it. Is the fresh attention to diffuse criticism about the handling of the "we don't care about black people" disaster, to show how big our collective penis is right now, or for some other reason? I suppose it's idle speculation at this point...
 
 
ibis the being
01:26 / 14.09.05
Wow, that had to be the most sarcastic thanks I've ever received.

It's been a long day, and I didn't have much of a head for combing through blogs this evening so I placed my trust in the search function, but you're welcome anyway.
 
 
*
03:08 / 14.09.05
No, actually, the thanks was entirely sincere. Imagine that in a more amused than biting tone. I do truly appreciate the link to the blog, otherwise I wouldn't have found all that cool stuff.
 
 
Slim
04:08 / 14.09.05
Technically, I would support a preemptive nuclear strike in order to stop the launch of an enemy nuke. However, that kind of situation is so unlikely that it should never be made into an explicit policy that can be released to the press. The political feedback is predictably negative and not worth it.

The U.S., as well as any nation, would do a number of nasty things to protect itself. However, the Bush administration seems to wish that all of these options be made explicit. It's a goddamn foolish thing to do, especially after the Iraqi preemptive/preventive war bullshit. Normally, as a hegemon the U.S. has the ability to replenish political capital almost at will. Dumb shit like this reduces our ability to do so. I can't stand how nearly useless policies such as this are drastically affecting U.S. legitimacy.

Stupid fucker.
 
 
P. Horus Rhacoid
09:00 / 14.09.05
Technically, I would support a preemptive nuclear strike in order to stop the launch of an enemy nuke. However, that kind of situation is so unlikely that it should never be made into an explicit policy that can be released to the press. The political feedback is predictably negative and not worth it.

That's just the point though- this is saying that nukes are no longer an absolute last resort. It's saying 'if we think you might in the future attack us in any of a number of vaguely defined ways, we claim the right to nuke you.'
 
 
Slim
11:59 / 14.09.05
That's not what it's saying, it's what you're inferring. I agree that it's cause for concern though because the administration clearly perverted the meaning of preemption when it came to Iraq and it would be a very, very bad thing to do when it comes to nuclear weapons.
 
 
P. Horus Rhacoid
12:30 / 14.09.05
Sorry, I wasn't too clear. The point I was making is that this doctrine is not about response to nuclear attacks (which you seemed to imply it was when you said "I would support a preemptive nuclear strike in order to stop the launch of an enemy nuke")- it affirms the US of A's right for preemptive nuclear strikes against non-nuclear powers. That's the part that worries me, and is, as far as I know, unprecedented.
 
 
Slim
02:06 / 15.09.05
In the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review the Bush administration declared it had the right to nuke any state that attacked with a WMD, thereby giving the U.S. the right to nuke a non-nuclear state. This, as you undoubtedly know, went against decades of U.S. policy.

I believe the preemption part is a new twist although it's been a while since I've researched/written on the topic.
 
  
Add Your Reply