Posted on 05/01/2005 12:22:02 PM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
Sunday May 1, 5:39 PM
(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."
That way, the rest of us (as in U.S.) can get on with the job of fighting and winning any wars that come our way, and the scholars can debate it after the fact.
There is no war with North Korea for all practical purposes right now. If Congress wants to authorize first use, there is nothing stopping them, but for the gutlessness of our leaders that you (rightly) so fear that you will assume the latitude for a Republican President against North Korea that you would otherwise rightly fear in the likes of Clinton when he went to Kosovo. It is hypocritical to criticize the latter while assuming the necessity of the former. If we had a Congress with any principal or intellect, we wouldn't be having this discussion because the need for preemptive contingencies would already be under discussion. The Constitutional principal requiring the support of the people through their representatives in Congress before going to war is not something you can just blow away for political or military convenience. It is unnecessarily handing our political enemies on the left a weapon against us, that may well hamper the President in the future. It isn't necessary and that is my concern.
By putting the power to declare war in the hands of Congress, the Constitution, as a limiting document, did not give the President the power to initiate war on his own. It is so obvious that to say otherwise is mere obfuscation.
First use of nuclear weapons is an act of war. It is not blowing a ship on the high seas. It is not defending the homeland directly. It is not a defense of American assets abroad when they have not been attacked. If the nature of war has changed such that Congressional authorization is no longer practical, then amend the Constitution, else we do not operate under even the pretense of the rule of law.
Intercontinental ballistic missile technology and state-sponsored international terrorism have forever changed the legal nature of war. One obviously cannot wait until the beastie is in the air and confirmed to be a nuke before calling Congress into session for a vote so that our military can respond. So, the obvious thing to do is to pass enabling legislation authorizing first use against North Korea if the President has determined that there is an imminant threat of first use OR amend the Constitution as appropriate. The former is an obvious thing to do given Kim Jong Il's multiple violations of agreements, his actions, and his statements.
So, why do you fear that?
If the Congress won't do that then the President has some selling to do. If the American people won't support the Congress in passing a contingency plan then we deserve what we get. Punching the button every time the President perceives a threat is a precedent that justifies surprise nuclear attacks against us. It gives a President Hillary tools I really don't want her to have. (I would bet any money that you two were bitching about Bubba's cruise missiles into the Sudan, much less his illegal war in Kosovo.) Such actions would consolidate and deepen international hatred for the United States including acts of war. If that's the world you want, you have made yourself clear. It's a heck of a position to take when we now have plenty of time and latitude to discuss our options on the Korean peninsula in open Congressional debate.
"This is just one step towards shutting NK ability to do anything but play with themselves down."
This strategy has not been a resounding success the last 2 1/2 years.
Our israeli allies can enjoy the fruits of their own extensive nuclear program, which undoubtably has been a motivating factor in the programs of various middle eastern countries.
I heard about a program to develop those kinds of bombs near the beginning of the latest conflict in Iraq. There are probably a few out there, but not many.
My only concern in using them would be would the radiation leaks damage the groundwater for the survivors of the conflict. Would taking Kim Jong Il out with a bunker buster nuke be worth it, if we also kill many of his people by poisoning their ground water?
I can't answer your question about ground water contamination. I can only counter, does the risk of bioweaponry use, the cost in lives from such an attack and the possibility of taking out the bioweapons by deep-ground preemptive strike balance out the concern about possible water contamination?
Hmm.
Little Kim had better be careful.
I was posing a rhetorical question. Taking out a madman, or taking out bioweapons both have their advantages. I think that long term the potential lives lost on either side of the equation, by contaminated water, or by being victims of the bioweapons, may seem horrible at the time, but a neccessary evil and probably even expected in a time of war, or to prevent a time of war.
I think it's more accurate to say that we are planning on attacking them because they are plannning on getting nukes in order to attack us.
So the Joint Chiefs write up a paper explaining how we decide to use nukes---and it appears to be news only in Japan? Was the story, two weeks old, only reported by Kyodo News? Never mind Clinton--I've said many times it would take two decades to clean up the mess he made. In spite of his Rodney King nuclear policy he still CARRIED THE FOOTBALL! And so does GW, only closer, I think. The outline in the paper is how I always thot the call for weapons DID WORK. The notion that somehow Regional Commanders could not call for weapons before is somewhere up around plain stupid. Picture that: A fight starts but nobody can tell the Prez?
That did happen in Egypt. (73) Nobody would tell the boss they'd already lost the war while he was ramping up the victory party and calling in the Jordanians to help!
If there is an external purpose to the paper it is to put the J's on notice that there might be a little more horsepower in their neighborhood in the near-term.
Read "cross-spectrum " as " same page" ie no question as to what a commander's next move should be if attacked.
Nice math example and I expect lilKim understands it.
Aww, c'mon---no self respecting commie dictator would dig his bunker where there was even ANY groundwater. Every tunnel rat knows if the ground is not dry and the blast doesn't get you the steam bubble would. And what radiation LEAK would you mean? Unless the blast fizzles there's nothing left to SOAK.
Tick tock...
You make an excellent series of points. I concede mine to your brilliance.
You really need to try the decaf there.
And let's get something straight: I do not "fear" anything except God Almighty, although I do subscribe to Will Rogers famous maxim about "no man or his property is safe when the Congress is in session" (paraphrased).
Now moving right along here, the best defense is a good offense, and the Israelis have had no problem with preemptive strikes, and you can bet your ass that if they knew that Iran or Syria were preparing to lob a nuke in their direction, they would preempt them with their own nukes on Damascus and/or Tehran. That IMHO, is a real possibility, but more likely from Iran, which has truly demonic leadership in charge, compared to Syria, which has truly buffoonish leadership in the form of ASSad (rhymes with Asshat) Jr.
Now if, on the other hand you wish to subscribe to the idea that America must not preemptively strike first (be it conventional OR nuclear), then you will need to face the fact that should that day dawn that America is sucker punched with a nuke on our own soil, that the sage prediction of no less than retired General Tommy Franks will come true: we will have an unlimited state of martial law declared, we will cease to be a true Republic, and the military will be running the Country.
That means that all of your Constitutional contemplations will become moot.
Nonsense - the same fundamentals as always are in play - the frequency of "paradigm shifts" that people claim is about as overstated as the "New Economy." The more things change, the more they stay the same...
The exponential increase in the speed of information transfer does not and (for now) can not substantially change the reaction time of an individual, group, industry, government, etc. Information may be power - but the ability to act on it is significantly more powerful.
national soverignity will give way to individual soverignity as the most important thing to preserve.
For most, individual sovereignty has always been the most important thing to preserve. Historically, here in the U.S., preservation of that on a national scale has ensured a like preservation on the personal scale.
You seem very fixated on the macro outlook when the world is evolving to the micro outlook.
So be it. Fixation of some on the "micro outlook" creates opportunities for those who focus on the fundamentals of the "macro outlook." It is really a seeing the forest for the trees scenario. The smaller the scale, the higher the noise. Those who focus on the "micro outlook" are doomed to being swamped with a tidal wave of information, 90% of which is useless. Even worse, the time necessary to analyze the worthless information is pure institutional waste.
National interests don't mean anything anymore
Sure they do - possibly even more so than before. If national interests align with individual interests, as they do in the U.S., they are a significant motivating factor. In areas, or regions where they fail to align the governments may be able to secure short term nationalism, but the rhetoric is, in the end, unsustainable.
The increase in the speed of information transfer has resulted in this difference being more in play than ever. By in large, governments can no longer control information transfer, so while it may seem that that limits national interests, the truth is it only limits those interests in those places where those interests conflict with individual interests, such as freedom...
That was Twain. If you didn't fear the necessary consequences of a weasely stupid, cowardly vote in Congress, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Now moving right along here, the best defense is a good offense, and the Israelis have had no problem with preemptive strikes, and you can bet your ass that if they knew that Iran or Syria were preparing to lob a nuke in their direction, they would preempt them with their own nukes on Damascus and/or Tehran. That IMHO, is a real possibility, but more likely from Iran, which has truly demonic leadership in charge, compared to Syria, which has truly buffoonish leadership in the form of ASSad (rhymes with Asshat) Jr.
What you are talking about is tactics and strategy. Allow me to cite Clausewitz: "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means." Politics must come first. Ours is a government of the people. That's the way the Founders wanted it and so do I.
Now if, on the other hand you wish to subscribe to the idea that America must not preemptively strike first (be it conventional OR nuclear), then you will need to face the fact that should that day dawn that America is sucker punched with a nuke on our own soil, that the sage prediction of no less than retired General Tommy Franks will come true: we will have an unlimited state of martial law declared, we will cease to be a true Republic, and the military will be running the Country.
Then you didn't read what I wrote very carefully. I have no objection to your tactical preferences, as long as they are authorized by Congress. Both they and the public could use a dose of hard reality necessary to require passage. Such a choice tends to weed the weenies out of the house of the people.
That means that all of your Constitutional contemplations will become moot.
If you read again what I wrote, rather than what you were predisposed to think it meant, you might note what I said above, "If the American people won't support the Congress in passing a contingency plan then we deserve what we get."
TROLL ALERT ON POST #64......
what do we need them for... our land based arsenal has the power and range to wipe out the world... don't fret!
I'm not arguing, but didn't LBJ's tonkin gulf resolution modify this? And while you might be technically right on "declared" war, I believe VietNam was not a declared war. I believe that the president has some, maybe unlimited options to "go to war" and notify congress after the fact, but I won't bet the farm on any of this.
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident never happened; it was a fabrication. I cannot imagine the scope of that resolution would apply to other conflicts. Congress cannot abrogate its Constitutional responsibilities by resolution; that requires an amendment.
And while you might be technically right on "declared" war, I believe VietNam was not a declared war.
Correct. There has not been a declared war since the founding of the UN (although Iraq comes close).
I believe that the president has some, maybe unlimited options to "go to war" and notify congress after the fact, but I won't bet the farm on any of this.
I believe you are citing the War Powers Act (much of whose scop should have been covered by a Constituional amendment). The Constituion does not allow one branch of government to delegate its powers or responsibilities to another. As it is, Congress has "empowered" the President to start a war by not calling it a war.
Again, I am not averse to amending the Constitution to allow the President more latitude in the conduct of war. Technology has changed the speed with which conflict can initiate and asking the President to wait for Congress is plainly silly.
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.