Lowering Still Further, the Barrier to Nuclear War.

Lowering Still Further, the Barrier to Nuclear War

Comment on "Draft U.S. Paper Allows Commanders to Seek Pre-emptive Nuke Strikes"
By Kyodo News, May 1, 2005

After rereading and analysing this important paper still more,
I decided to write a deeper, longer analysis of it as follows: - see original articles

Pre-emptive Nuclear Strikes May Be Initiated by Local Commanders,
Thus Lowering Still Further, the Barrier to Nuclear War.

by Larry Ross, May 11, 2005

Following this analysis, is a Pentagon paper on implementing Bush's new pre-emptive nuclear war doctrines. It has much deeper implications than I first thought.

It is a proposal on actions a local commander may request to initiate a limited nuclear war action. That spreads the nuclear war decision-making process much wider - to more people and to more military situations. It opens a Pandora's box of different situations, which vary, with different people and different qualities of intelligence. What one commander might think he can handle with conventional arms, another might decide requires pre-emptive nuclear strikes. The intelligence given to one unit might indicate that an enemy has WMD and may use them. Another unit may be advised that the enemy does not have WMD, or may have them, but not intend to use them. As we saw with the Iraq war, the decision to go to war, and that Saddam had WMD, and was prepared to use them to attack the US and UK, was bogus intelligence, invented by people who wanted the US to go to war with Iraq. In fact there is much evidence that the Bush Regime itself wanted excuses to go to war with Iraq and had the intelligence invented to supply the justifications. Then after some of the truth came out that Saddam did not have WMD and plans to attack, Bush tried to absolve himself from blame by claiming that he was supplied with faulty intelligence. He even had a commission of enquiry to make findings which backed the faulty intelligence claim. In fact, the Bush Administration was given lots of good intelligence before the war that Saddam did not have WMD, was not planning an attack, and was not linked to 9/11, to Al Qaeda, or to any other international terrorist group.

What this shows is that the Bush Administration invents reasons to make pre-emptive war, and that it can fool, and/or persuade allies like the UK and Australia and others, to support such wars. Also, these allies, knowingly, lied to their own people and used their people and resources to violate international law and engage in criminal wars. That gives other friends, like France and Germany, and chosen enemies several very important lessons.

That the Bush Administration will make war on who it wants without any real justification.
It will invent any number of lies to justify the illegal war.
A third, vitally important lesson, is that Bush, and his ally, the UK, both threatened to use nuclear weapons to accomplish their objectives - if they claimed their chosen enemy used what Bush and his allies decided was WMD. That is, Bush and his allies threatened to use nuclear weapons to accomplish military objectives in a war they started based on lies they invented. I find that mind-blowingly evil and pathologically stupid.

It has been well known and accepted for decades, that jumping the previous nuclear barriers and actually beginning to use such weapons, would most probably result in escalation - perhaps a rapid uncontrollable escalation to general or global nuclear war. It is also well-known that millions and millions of men, women and children, perhaps billions would be horribly killed and mutilated by such a war - some to be immediately incinerated, but most to die lingering deaths over the days, weeks and months to follow from wounds, burns, radiation, disease, starvation etc. There would be no medical aid, no hospitals and the most terrible hell for the majority who would die slowly, while they watched their children and others also die in a lingering agony.

Bush, Blair and others know of the above risks and probable consequences if their evil nuclear gamble resulted in general nuclear war. Yet they were willing to risk killing our planet and all or most of the people on it, to achieve their criminal objectives.

That shows that today's Imperial wars and conquests have become nuclear weapon-based. The various military strategy documents released by the US and UK, including The Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review 2002, show that nuclear weapons are integrated into military strategies. Many different situations are postulated where the allies have licensed themselves to use nuclear weapons. Wars on the Korean Peninsula; between China and Taiwan; and in the Middle East, have been mentioned as situations where the US might use nuclear weapons.

Perhaps it is natural for rational, sane people to still believe that the US would only use nuclear weapons as a last resort if the US was attacked. Mutually Assured Destruction was once the US official doctrine. But no longer. Like Hitler with his Mein Kamp, which most people poo-pooed or ignored, Bush and his aides and allies also have their agenda and plans. With the Iraq war, they have begun to implement their plans. Rather than the people tossing them out of office when they had the chance, they have successfully fooled enough of the people, with corporate media help, or they have cheated in their elections, and gained re-election. All of them - Bush, Blair and Howard. The millions spent on hiring skilful PR and war propagandists and setting up special operations departments have enabled them to fool enough of the people to get support for their illegal wars, even if they become nuclear.

As covered in the following article, the conditions where nuclear weapons may be used, has greatly expanded by Bush's Pentagon to include:

"attacks on adversary installations including WMD"
"Deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons"
"Countering potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces"
"An adversary using or intending to use WMD against U.S. multinational or alliance forces or civilian populations"
"Imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy"
There may be several other conditions where nuclear weapons could be used, either not mentioned, or kept secret and not published.

Here are a few hypothetical situations where nuclear weapons might be used: (a) To quickly end a conflict and accomplish military objectives. (b) to frighten other opponents into submission. For example Iraq was warned by the US and UK that they might use nuclear weapons, so their military did not put up much of a fight and the war was won quickly. In World War II with Japan, the Japanese quickly capitulated after being bombed twice by US nuclear bombs. So from the US point of view, nuclear weapons worked for them once, why not again.?

As indicated above, the number of situations where nuclear weapons could be used is greatly expanded, as is the number of military personnel who can initiate nuclear weapons usage. Suspicion, or simply claiming suspicion "that an adversary intended to use WMD..." or did make a chemical or biological attack is now sufficient for the U.S. to launch a nuclear attack. Lack of enough US and allied troops, or "potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces" is enough to order an American nuclear attack.

So if the U.S. both creates the war situations, and sends an inadequate force to accomplish their objectives, they will have tailored a situation that would require the use of nuclear weapons, according to their new nuclear use doctrines. I wouldn't be surprised if the much-predicted US war with Iran goes ahead, and that the US uses nuclear weapons at some point in it's new conquest.

The Bush Administration has a policy of endless war against terrorism to spread freedom and democracy etc. That means there will be many situations that fall within the above conditions where nuclear weapons could be used. The US and allied military personnel will get used to thinking that using nuclear weapons is now okay, normal, expected and easy in many situations. They will believe they can accomplish their military objectives more easily using nuclear weapons, so they will be much more motivated to use them. An other motivation is probable - military promotions and decorations if they accomplish their objectives quickly and well. By expanding the situations and personnel where nuclear weapons could be used, Bush will be able to argue, that it's not his fault that nuclear weapons were used. "The enemy brought it on themselves". "I trusted the advice and intelligence of our field commanders, and I felt I had to give them the permission they sought, American lives would be saved, etc". The US media will justify the decision and probably a majority of the people will approve it, as justified, "under the circumstances etc". Most will not know, or will not be told or reminded, that the US set up the war situation in the first place.

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 potential nuclear weapon combatants may believe that they are next on the U.S. hit list. They might think that if they don't use their own nuclear weapons first, the U.S. 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, or use other means before they get destroyed. And so on. The possible permutations are endless. On the other hand, the U.S. may be planning to make war on other nuclear states, as mentioned in the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review. They may think that a secret pre-emptive nuclear strike is the only way to destroy more of the opponents nuclear weapons on the ground before they can launched in a retaliatory strike against the U.S. Similarly, the opponent may think the US is planning a secret pre-emptive nuclear attack against them, and decide to strike first, before the US destroys them even if they know they can never prevent a retaliatory U.S. attack which would destroy them.

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. Total nuclear wars by accident or miscalculation are more likely today's world, due to the new Bush nuclear doctrines

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 are several other factors contributing to the nuclear risk. Some of the military or political decision makers in the various nuclear weapon states could have mental problems. They may not always be sane and rational in their decisions about the use of nuclear weapons. That problem may increase, as international tensions and suspicions increase.

Another risk factor is the ascendancy into real power of right-wing fundamentalist Christians in the U.S. They believe that a nuclear armageddon could be a fulfilment of biblical prophesy. They may believe that end times are upon us and it is the will of the Lord who promised a final battle against evil. Some even look forward to being raptured directly to heaven where they will live in happiness forever, and the unbelievers will suffer eternal damnation in hell. George Bush describes himself as a fundamentalist Christian who has been saved from alcoholism and born again. I don't know how much he believes about a nuclear armageddon being god's will and therefor not an event to be feared, but one that believers should welcome as part of God's plan for humanity.

As I say, I don't know how far Bush goes, or will go, with his fundamentalist beliefs. What is obvious is that Christian nuclear armageddonism is a form of fundamentalist belief that is very, very dangerous to all of humanity. But belief in a god-ordained fiery armageddon is certainly suited to a nuclear fiery end for humanity. It certainly fits in well with Bush's new nuclear doctrines, which greatly increase the likelihood of it happening. Also, it fits in with Bush's lack of concern about the environment, rapid global warming, peak oil etc. The Christian Fundamentalist does not worry about such things as God is coming soon and will look after these problems.

There is no doubt in my mind that the sensational situation today represents the greatest nuclear crisis humanity has ever experienced. It is vitally important that people take action to help prevent the use of nuclear weapons, and help educate others about the very great risk to the world from Bush's perceptive nuclear war strategy.

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

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."

Home Disclaimer/Fair Use