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. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.
At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States would "respond with overwhelming force" to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces or allies, and said "all options" would be available to the president.
The draft, dated March 15, would provide authoritative guidance for commanders to request presidential approval for using nuclear weapons, and represents the Pentagon's first attempt to revise procedures to reflect the Bush preemption doctrine. A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration, contains no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from weapons of mass destruction.
Don't doubt for a second that the President would sign off on a request to do exactly this... May God have mercy on all of us...
-The Oklahoma Hippy
I am sure people will call me delusional, paranoid, etc., but I can not help but look to the side effects of this proposal, namely that this alleviates the hassle of having to actually prove to the world that the targeted weapons actually ever existed; with the current state of affairs it is readily apparent that when one chooses to invade a country based on the notion that they pose an imminent threat due to weapons of mass destuction, that someone, somewhere, will make all manner of demands for proof.
ReplyDelete“Where are the WMDs?” a journalist, social activist, foreign minister, college student, or grieving mother of a slain soldier might ask.
Where indeed?
This shiny new piece of policy provides the penultimate shoulder-shrugging, shit-eating grin answer:
“We destroyed them...weren’t you listening? They’re not there anymore because we nuked the site…and thank God we found out in time to pacify the situation with minimal civilian casualties.”
Wink, wink.
This is a part of our government's new “Epimethean Diplomacy” program; hindsight is always 20/20, but if there is nothing left but vapor and a RAD count, then who can determine what once was there to observe?
~J
What kind of precedent would this set though? How can we on one hand tell North Korea and Iran to stop trying to build nukes when we have a policy of using them in pre- emptive actions? I'm not totally against having a pre-emptive stance for defense but that should NEVER include nuclear weapons.
ReplyDelete