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 previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-137 last
To: pookie18

see #22


121 posted on 05/02/2005 8:27:50 PM PDT by bitt ("There are troubling signs Bush doesn't care about winning a third term." (JH2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
...Will Rogers famous maxim about "no man or his property is safe when the Congress is in session" (paraphrased).
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.


No, I suspect we'll be having this discussion as long as I choose to deny you the last word. As for Rogers, his sentiments were nearly identical with Twain, when he said "This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer"

You know, the same sort of feeling people get when faced with a Constitutional 'expert' ;)

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.
What you are talking about is tactics and strategy. Allow me to cite Clausewitz: "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means."


Tell you what, here's another quote by Will Rogers: "Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock."

I'll take Rogers over Clausewitz.

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.

In the interest of fairness, here's a quote from Twain:" Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."

We'll put you down on the side of idiots.

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."


Here's a quote from the Mammoth Book of Wisdom: "If the American people put their faith in the Congress, they're liable to end up dead. Just ask Terri Schiavo."

Back to you Professor.
122 posted on 05/02/2005 11:35:41 PM PDT by Mad Mammoth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: bitt
Thanks...an oldie, but goodie which I'll rerun in Today's Toons 5/3/05.


123 posted on 05/03/2005 1:58:09 AM PDT by pookie18 (Clinton Happens!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Mad Mammoth
Oh, I see we went and looked up a quote page!

What talent. Maybe you'll learn to apply it to debate one day, now that you don't have any excuses left.

124 posted on 05/03/2005 5:57:16 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to be managed by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: dominic housatonic62

Yep, most people don't realize that there are two types of missiles.

Ballistic and Cruise.

Ballistic missiles being the typical missile that we picture, with a rocket engine and the trajectory that goes upwards.

Cruise missiles usually have a jet engine and stubby wings. They fly at lower altitudes and act more like a plane.


125 posted on 05/03/2005 7:33:58 AM PDT by gogogodzilla (Raaargh! Raaargh! Crush, Stomp!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

Tick, tick, tick.....boom.


126 posted on 05/03/2005 11:32:38 AM PDT by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: leftwingrightwingbrokenwing

The problem with that is that the dictator becomes extremely rich and can cause more damage because he gets better technology usually supplied by countries soon to be the next victim. Selling or giving the technology to these dictators creates our own demise.
Total embargo by every country is required or those who do trade also get embargoed.


127 posted on 05/03/2005 6:30:36 PM PDT by KingofQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

You are forgetting the War Powers Act.


128 posted on 05/03/2005 6:37:03 PM PDT by KingofQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: KingofQue
You are forgetting the War Powers Act.

No, I'm not. Are you forgetting the furor over its Constitutionality when it was passed?

Congress cannot delegate its powers. What we need is an amendment, to which I am not opposed in principle.

129 posted on 05/03/2005 6:41:38 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to be managed by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: SusaninOhio

It was just little Kim's birthday. Airmail him the gift of Plutonium,"the gift that keeps on giving!"


130 posted on 05/04/2005 2:46:33 PM PDT by sheik yerbouty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jslade

Kimmie has no future..


131 posted on 05/04/2005 2:48:16 PM PDT by sheik yerbouty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: leftwingrightwingbrokenwing
Not might, will. And if they get nukes, we will attack them. And if they have more nukes, we will attack them with nukes. Get it through your head - they will not be allowed to have nukes. If we have to burn down half the world, we will burn down half the world, but we won't let them have nukes. Suck your thumb, roll up your Guardian, spin your spiel all you want - we won't let them have nukes, for love or money. Deal.
132 posted on 05/05/2005 5:12:56 PM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt

Actually, for deterrence to work, the other side needs to really KNOW you mean business.


133 posted on 05/06/2005 10:56:09 AM PDT by Paul Ross (Working for God on earth does not pay much, but His Retirement plan is out of this world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

Hmmmm? I guess I hadn't thought of it that way - but that's very logical. Thanks.


134 posted on 05/06/2005 10:59:49 AM PDT by CyberAnt (President Bush: "America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Mad Mammoth

Good point on Duck & Cover.

Another analogy,

When I tell folks I built my guest house out back stout because of tornadoes, they laugh...

But which is more likely, to get a direct hit from a tornado (250 mph winds), or merely moderately violent wind gusts (120 mph) winds from one passing nearby?


135 posted on 05/06/2005 7:26:24 PM PDT by Dark Glasses and Corncob Pipe (14, 15, 16...whatever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

Once again, you come through....thanks!


136 posted on 05/08/2005 1:47:26 AM PDT by happygrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abram; Annie03; Baby Bear; bassmaner; Bernard; BJClinton; BlackbirdSST; blackeagle; BroncosFan; ...
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
137 posted on 05/08/2005 1:50:00 AM PDT by freepatriot32 (If you want to change government support the libertarian party www.lp.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-137 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