Home

Pre-emptive Nuclear War?
Comment by Larry Ross October 20, 2004

To even consider a "pre-emptive nuclear first strike" indicates the flawed thinking of
some of the top military and political people in the European Union (EU).

It is crazy for the following reasons:

  1. Any use of nuclear weapons by one side can lead to counter use by the other. And then a rapid escalation process could follow, leading to world nuclear destruction. In the unlikely event that nuclear weapon use did not escalate to widespread nuclear destruction, the stage would be set for future nuclear wars.

  2. A pre-emptive nuclear first strike strategy adopted by a nation, as has been done by the US under the Bush Administration, leads to other nations doing the same.

  3. For example: The UK government under Blair said it would initiate the use of nuclear weapons during it's illegal Iraq war, if it's objectives were opposed with weapons of mass destruction. Both the US and UK used big lies to justify war with Iraq and threatened to use nuclear weapons to back it up.

  4. The Russians have also adopted a pre-emptive nuclear first strike strategy

  5. Israel is considering a first strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, in case Iran might make it's own nuclear weapons.

  6. From weapons of last resort or revenge, nuclear weapons have joined the growing list of tools that military forces everywhere may use to achieve their goals. These goals may be based on lies and imagination, as in the case of the Iraq war, or just suspicion that a nation may become an enemy in the future.

  7. Thus Israel did a pre-emptive strike against Iraq's nuclear facilities in the 80's and is now preparing to do the same to Iran. Israel, with it's arsenal of 200-400 nuclear weapons, wants the freedom to slaughter, expand, and make war on it's neighbours like it is doing with Palestine. It's nuclear arsenal ensures that the Arabs will not respond. It launched a pre-emptive strike against Syria. It is ready to go to war against other neighbouring states before they can develop nuclear weapons.

  8. Generally the publics of Russia, the US, UK, EU nations and Israel are given lies and justifications by their governments, that enable them to accept the war strategies and weapons their leaders may decide to use.

  9. It used to be that most nations were deeply worried about the possibility of a global nuclear war launched by "accident, miscalculation or madness" as President Kennedy warned in the UN in 1961. This fear has given way to plans to actually use these mass destruction devices in certain conditions that may based on suspicion, faulty intelligence, lies and exaggeration as in the Iraq war.

  10. The new Bush doctrines of pre-emptive war, even pre-emptive nuclear war, based on suspicion and lies, has been adopted by other governments. The nuclear war dangers have increased.

  11. The idea that it is okay to make war, even nuclear war, on another nation because you think, or falsely claim, they have been involved in a terrorist act against you is a nonsense. Such wars, as in Iraq, do not defeat the terrorism that did not exist there in the first place. However the US-UK bombings, killings, imprisonments and shameful tortures do create a new breeding ground for terrorists. The US and UK are providing a tangible example to the world of rogue states, unleashing a military madness that is prepared to go all the way, even if it leads to global destruction - to achieve it's goals.

  12. There are 8 nuclear weapon states and many flash points where they might use nuclear weapons. If they wait for a suspect nation to attack, their nation and their own nuclear weapons might be destroyed. Some will think that as the enemy is preparing to attack, they had better strike first and prevent it. Thus pre-emptive war doctrines increase the risks and reduce the possibility for peaceful resolution.

  13. The nuclear arms race will be accelerated by the new doctrines. As nations learn they could become pre-emptive war, or pre-emptive nuclear war targets, many will try to make nuclear weapons to protect themselves. This will increase nuclear proliferation, thus increasing the risks of a nuclear war by accident or intent.

  14. After thousands of years of wars, finally mankind developed international laws, the UN Charter and agreed dispute procedures to settle disagreements between states without resort to warfare.

It was generally understood that the use of nuclear weapons could lead to the destruction of mankind. This no longer seems to matter much to most people.

They have been conditioned to be suspicious of those who resist or protest war, and learned to accept what comes.
The Bush regime is demonstrating a new lesson: If there is a dispute, suspicion or they have a hidden agenda, the way to resolve it is by bombing, and more bombing and be prepared to go all the way as in Iraq.

Diplomacy and negotiating peacefully to resolve disputes, is rapidly becoming a lost art.

The US and UK have created many more terrorists than they have killed by their tactics.

Larry Ross

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

EU Preemptive Nuclear War

Newsletter in English language From www.german-foreign-policy.com

17.10.2004
The Newsletter is now available in English language too. If you subscribe to it you will receive it each time there is a new publication in English on this website. HERE


Nuclear War

10.10.2004
PARIS (Own report) - Military strategists of the European Union define the EU defense strategy initiated by Berlin and are considering a preemptive nuclear first strike. The EU military doctrine initiated by Berlin - the first one in the history of the EU - specifically envisions the possibility of conducting preventive wars. A recently presented "European Defense Paper", written with the participation of a former German minister of state, included nuclear arms in the first strike strategy of the EU. It states that British and French nuclear powers could be included "explicitly or implicitly" in this preventive military option.


Ultimatum
The "European Defense Paper," commissioned by the EU governments, is a conceptual document concerning European military policy. Its purpose is to define the application of "European security strategy"1) agreed upon in 2003. The authors of the study, a group of high ranking military advisors, demand energetic, prompt and inclusive armament by the EU. The goal is to reach the status of a world power able to conduct preventive wars: "Sharing more global responsibilities (...), and taking on a preventive engagement strategy are ambitious goals that will stay unfulfilled if the current gap between ends and means persists."2) The foreign ministers of the EU will shortly consider the document and will make firm decisions concerning the state and perspectives of the military options.

Central
The Institute for Security Studies (ISS), which worked for the European military pact of the western European Union (WEU) until 2001, is responsible for the paper. Since the transfer of the operative functions of the WEU to the EU it functions as an autonomous EU institute. It is dominated by the German-French power cartel: Established in Paris, the ISS is under the leadership of Nicole Gnesotto since October 1999. Previously, she had worked for the semi-official French think tank "Institut français des Relations internationales". Burkard Schmitt, former SPD-colleague in the social
democratic Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (foundation), is acting director. EU's strategies for armaments, including "nuclear issues," are in Schmitt's area of responsibility. In his publications, the German "senior research fellow" demanded that those industries among the EU member states which produce armaments "should be subject to a specific defence procurement directive."3) In the meantime, this has become a foregone conclusion with the agreement for "European defense."4)

Unavoidable
Due to the resistance of several states, especially regarding weapons of mass destruction, armaments centralization is still limited.5) For this reason the German weapons expert, Schmitt, considers a discussion of these limitations as unavoidable.6) Berlin's military and government advisors have been examining nuclear options for some time, and now demand a plan for surmounting the existing resistance against the intended "nuclear power Europe" from the federal government. Thus, the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS foundation), which is close to the CDU, demanded at the beginning of 2004 a "new direction of the partially conventional understanding of international law." According to KAS, the "admissibility of preventive strikes" must be determined and a preventive war with nuclear arms must be legitimized: "Even nuclear preemption is, at least theoretically, a conceivable option."7) The German-French strategy paper presented concrete suggestions for the joint deployment of nuclear arms. The paper proposes the tactical bypassing of
resistance to, nevertheless, "recall all steps of the escalation ladder (...) up to threatening deployment of nuclear weapons." The author of the paper was the "German society for foreign policy", with the re-emerged "Institut français des relations internationales" as co-author.8)

Explicit or Implicit
Thus, the concept of a nuclear pre-emptive war has now become anchored in European politics. Lothar Ruehl, former minister of state in the German defense ministry and co-author of the "European Defense Paper" noted with satisfaction that the topic "preemption/prevention" in the document is primarily considered from the point of view of military deployments with conventional armed forces and operative special forces. "Nevertheless", the possibility to include British and French nuclear armed forces "explicitly or implicitly", is mentioned.9) Concerning the war scenarios of the future EU military, in fact, the strategy paper mentions: "[W]e have not avoided presenting scenarios in which the national nuclear forces of EU member states (France and the United Kingdom) may enter into the equation either
explicitly or implicitly."10)

1) see also EU Strategy: "Preemptive Wars", worldwide and Plans for action

2) Institute for Security Studies, European Union: European defence. A proposal for a White Paper; Paris, May 2004, ISBN 92-9198-056-0 (www.iss-eu.org), p. 13. "These goals call for rapidly deployable and long-term sustainable forces, they imply a better integration of civilian and military missions; they are based on the assumption of a more autonomous Union in defence matters (...). The credibility of Europe's strategy will ultimately be based on its capacity to fulfil these ambitions."

3) Burkard Schmitt: The European Union and armaments. Getting a bigger bang
for the Euro; Chaillot Paper 63 - August 2003 (www.iss-eu.org), p. 55

4) see also The End of "Civilian Power"

5) "Nuclear, radiological, biological and chemical products should continue to be excluded from European rules". Burkard Schmitt: The European Union and armaments. Getting a bigger bang for the Euro; Chaillot Paper 63 - August
2003 (www.iss-eu.org), p. 55

6) Nuclear weapons: A new Great Debate (Edited by Burkard Schmitt); Chaillot Paper 48 - July 2001 (www.iss-eu.org), p. 168

7) see also War is Peace

8) see also Bright Abyss

9) Lothar Ruehl: Luecke zwischen Mittel und Zweck. Das "European Defence Paper"; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 01.10.2004

10) Institute for Security Studies, European Union: European defence. A proposal for a White Paper; Paris, May 2004, ISBN 92-9198-056-0 (www.iss-eu.org), p. 68

ARTEL`s comment: History is maybe not repeating but the interests and the means of the big powers doesn`t change.


news-Archiv anzeigen

 

Home     Disclaimer/Fair Use