Home

Pre-emptive Nuclear Strikes
May Be Initiated by Local Commanders
Comment by Larry Ross, May 2, 2005

Here is a Pentagon paper on implementing Bush's new pre-emptive nuclear war doctrines.
It is a proposal on actions a local commander may request to initiate a limited nuclear war action.

Once nuclear weapons are used, a war may spiral out of control, and become a much wider war involving other states - some of which may possess and use their own nuclear weapons. Some combatants may believe that if they don't use their own nuclear weapons, an opponent may launch a surprise nuclear pre-emptive strike aimed at destroying those weapons before they can be used. Other powers may feel threatened by a possible similar pre-emptive nuclear strike, and launch their own before they get destroyed. And so on. The possible permutations are endless.

Remember that Russia and the US are known to have thousands of nuclear missiles on alert status, ready to be launched on warning. Some of the other 7 nuclear states may have similar hair trigger alert status systems. See accompanying article on warning of the hair-trigger alert status by Nobel prize winners.

It all makes for a very complex global nuclear war system that can easily fail. The system is based on mutual suspicion and instant readiness to use these weapons. President Kennedy's famous warning in 1962 of the danger of nuclear war by "accident, miscalculation or madness" (and we should add "intention"), is very, very relevant today. Previous Secretary of Defence, Robert McNamara and US Nuclear Forces General Lee Butler (Ret) both said it was a miracle that nuclear war had not happened in several war crisis situations. If the US uses a nuclear weapon, that will be a serious world crisis situation. There have already been many near misses and there are numerous ways it can happen. The risks increase as tensions increase. Today there is much tension and war talk and much suspicion as to real intentions and war plans. For example, if the US extends the Iraq war to other states such as Iran or Syria, the risks of nuclear war go up.

How long can a hair-trigger nuclear system like this continue before it is activated by accident or intent?

There is no doubt in my mind that the sensational situation today represents the greatest nuclear crisis humanity has ever experienced. There are many, many other risks that add to, or accentuate the above, that are not included in this short analysis.

Why do you think the media gives this kind of story little or no coverage?

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

Draft U.S. Paper Allows Commanders to
Seek Pre-emptive Nuke Strikes

By Kyodo News, May 1, 2005

The U.S. military plans to allow regional combatant commanders to request the president for approval to carry out preemptive nuclear strikes against possible attacks on the United States or its allies with weapons of mass destruction, according to a draft new nuclear operations paper (Link to original document .pdf file) .

The paper, drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the U.S. Armed Forces, also revealed that submarines which make port calls in Yokosuka, Sasebo and Okinawa in Japan are prepared for reloading nuclear warheads if necessary to deal with a crisis.

The March 15 draft paper, a copy of which was made available, is titled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" providing "guidelines for the joint employment of forces in nuclear operations...for the employment of U.S. nuclear forces, command and control relationships, and weapons effect considerations."

"There are numerous nonstate organizations (terrorist, criminal) and about 30 nations with WMD programs, including many regional states," the paper says in allowing combatant commanders in the Pacific and other theaters to maintain an option of preemptive strikes against "rogue" states and terrorists and "request presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons" under set conditions.

The paper identifies nuclear, biological and chemical weapons as requiring preemptive strikes to prevent their use.

But allowing preemptive nuclear strikes against possible biological and chemical attacks effectively contradicts a "negative security assurance" policy declared by the U.S. administration of President Bill Clinton 10 years ago on the occasion of an international conference to review the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Creating a treaty on negative security assurances to commit nuclear powers not to use nuclear weapons against countries without nuclear weapons remains one of the most contentious issues for the 35-year-old NPT regime.

A JCS official said the paper "is still a draft which has to be finalized," but indicated that it is aimed at guiding "cross-spectrum" combatant commanders how to jointly carry out operations based on the Nuclear Posture Review report adopted three years ago by the administration of President George W. Bush.

Citing North Korea, Iran and some other countries as threats, the report sets out contingencies for which U.S. nuclear strikes must be prepared and called for developing earth-penetrating nuclear bombs to destroy hidden underground military facilities, including those for storing WMD and ballistic missiles.

"The nature (of the paper) is to explain not details but cross spectrum for how to conduct operations," the official said, noting that it "means for all services, Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine."

In 1991 after the end of the Cold War, the United States removed its ground-based nuclear weapons in Asia and Europe as well as strategic nuclear warheads on warships and submarines.

But the paper says the United States is prepared to revive those sea-based nuclear arms.

"Nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missiles, removed from ships and submarines under the 1991 Presidential Nuclear Initiative, are secured in central areas where they remain available, if necessary for a crisis," the paper says.

The paper also underlined that the United States retains a contingency scenario of limited nuclear wars in East Asia and the Middle East.

"Geographic combatant commanders may request presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons for a variety of conditions," the paper says.

The paper lists eight conditions such as "an adversary using or intending to use WMD against U.S. multinational or alliance forces or civilian populations" and "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy."

The conditions also include "attacks on adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons" and countering "potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces."

2002 Kyodo News © Established 1945. All Rights Reserved.