Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Draft U.S. paper allows commanders to seek preemptive nuke strikes(N. Korea/Iran)
Kyodo News ^ | 05/01/05

Posted on 05/01/2005 12:22:02 PM PDT by TigerLikesRooster

Sunday May 1, 5:39 PM

Draft U.S. paper allows commanders to seek preemptive nuke strikes

(Kyodo) _ 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. 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 set 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."


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush43; bushdoctrine; geopolitics; irannukes; military; nknukes; northkorea; nuclearstrike; preemption; preemptive; prolifertion; roguestate; submarine; terrorist; yokosuka
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-137 next last
Bush unloaded on Kim Jong-il the other day. Now this. Suddenly the pace of events are picking up.
1 posted on 05/01/2005 12:22:04 PM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster; AmericanInTokyo; OahuBreeze; yonif; risk; Steel Wolf; nuconvert; MizSterious; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 05/01/2005 12:23:11 PM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

Weakness of the allies started WWII and later encouraged the Soviets and then the Maoists. And weakness invited North Korea to attack the south. Peace can only be held through overwhelming deterrence.


3 posted on 05/01/2005 12:25:49 PM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

Kim better practice ducking. And put the final touches on his shelter(s).

Of course what he really needs to practice, is shutting up, but that doesn't appear to be an option with him.


4 posted on 05/01/2005 12:26:15 PM PDT by SusaninOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SusaninOhio

The sooner we take out NK and Iran nukes, the safer the us.


5 posted on 05/01/2005 12:27:49 PM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

This is a shot across somone's bow.


6 posted on 05/01/2005 12:28:20 PM PDT by Flint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

Ya know...planning possible attacks on Iran and North Korea only proves their point in getting nuclear weapons...we might attack them! So they better get in on the M.A.D. plan before its too late. Anyway there is a very good alternative which takes time but would instill permanent change inside the nation...free-market capitalism! The societies in China and Saudi Arabia are slowly liberalizing as we do trade with them. Why not do trade with the Irans, Cubas, and North Koreas of the world? It may seem like we are caving in to dictators, but in order to stay competitive in a capitalist nation, you have to spread ideas and concepts in order to fill niches and continue to be successful or start to be successful. Is it any coincidence that the nations with the freest markets have the freest lives?

And also, wouldn't it be best if that was our policy and we left the manpower to defend the homeland?


7 posted on 05/01/2005 12:31:01 PM PDT by leftwingrightwingbrokenwing (vitriolic libertarian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

Hey kim Dumb Ill, you better star learning to Duck and Cover (as if that will really work)!


8 posted on 05/01/2005 12:33:22 PM PDT by Paul_Denton (Get the UN out of the US and US out of the UN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

"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.
---

Are you telling me we don't have any nukes on ships and subs? 1. I don't believe it. 2. If true, it represents a huge breach in our national security and I can't believe even the Rhino Bush SR would sign something like that.


9 posted on 05/01/2005 12:33:43 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/foundingoftheunitedstates.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: leftwingrightwingbrokenwing

Yeah, that's an ideal outcome, and I'll bet they're shooting for it. But I think they're making them a deal they can't refuse, nukes on one hand, freedom on the other.


10 posted on 05/01/2005 12:36:39 PM PDT by neptune235
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: leftwingrightwingbrokenwing
These states are just insane. Letting them arm is like handing scissors to a violent inmate of an insane asylum. We can't use MAD with them, especially given the potential for anonymous terror. MAD assumes human reasoning.
11 posted on 05/01/2005 12:37:56 PM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster
Is this the tortured fantasy of some Japanese leftist?

I can understand reloading the equipment, but the US publicly committing to first use of nuclear weapons seems unlikely, especially without Congressional authorization. Such would create a furor that might force us into a position that hampers our options more than they are now. I can't imagine that the Pentagon would leak such a story either.

12 posted on 05/01/2005 12:40:30 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are REALLY stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

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.


Dear Kyodo News,
You're not in Arkansass any more.


13 posted on 05/01/2005 12:42:01 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

How on earth does this stuff get made public ..??

I suppose we still have a bunch of Clinton people in the Pentagon trying to screw things up by informing our enemies what we might be planning. After all, the dems believe we should level the playing field with our enemies by giving them our information - that way they wouldn't have any need to attack us. THESE PEOPLE ARE NUTS!!

Hmmmm?? ISN'T THAT TREASON OR SOMETHING ?? I MEAN WE USED TO CARE ABOUT THAT - BUT I GUESS WE DON'T ANYMORE.


14 posted on 05/01/2005 12:46:39 PM PDT by CyberAnt (President Bush: "America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flint

You think it was released on purpose ..??


15 posted on 05/01/2005 12:47:41 PM PDT by CyberAnt (President Bush: "America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: leftwingrightwingbrokenwing
Why not do trade with the Irans, Cubas, and North Koreas of the world?

All NK has to export is starving people, drugs, counterfeit currency, and weapons.

16 posted on 05/01/2005 12:49:33 PM PDT by Mister Baredog ((Minuteman at heart, couch potato in reality))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster
a "negative security assurance" policy declared by the U.S. administration of President Bill Clinton 10 years ago

What is a "negative security assurance"?

[The further I read in the article, the less understandable it becomes.]

Ran this through Google translator:

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.

Google returned this: "Beats me what it means."
17 posted on 05/01/2005 12:51:41 PM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

It's always best to negotiate from a position of strength, and it doesn't take a rocket science to realize that our strength will be tested in these coming years. This is a good plan.


18 posted on 05/01/2005 12:54:18 PM PDT by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster
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.

BS...not all.

19 posted on 05/01/2005 12:57:38 PM PDT by demlosers (Rumsfeld: "We don't have an exit strategy, we have a victory strategy.'')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

With Iran or NKorea now, assuming they did have the capability of getting a missile or two to the US, then what?

Say they take out LA or Atlanta. Surely, their leadership knows that within 10 minutes they would occupy a hold in the ground where their nation used to be.

Bin Laden at least thought he could hide safely in the depths of Afghanistan, a landlocked country filled with tunnels and underground facilities.

I just don't see NK or Iran doing more than blustering in their rhetoric -- unless their leader has decided on suicide by US Military.


20 posted on 05/01/2005 12:57:42 PM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-137 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson