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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-137 next last
To: Carry_Okie
Congress has the exclusive power to authorize war. The President runs the show once it is authorized. Period.

Yeah, but! Korea wasn't 'declared'; Viet Nam wasn't 'declared'; Panama wasn't 'declared'; Grenada wasn't; Balkan bombing wasn't... ad infinitum.

Congress' only real say is control of military purse-strings. Without congressional approval the president can indeed act militarily, it's simply that the costs of such action will have to be taken from some other program within the defense department.

41 posted on 05/01/2005 2:42:44 PM PDT by IonImplantGuru (Give me heaven... or a 637!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | 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.

That was then....this is now!

42 posted on 05/01/2005 2:44:24 PM PDT by BulletBobCo (Nuke 'em 'til they glow......then nuke 'em again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

Would the United States have the will to respond with nuclear weapons to an attack on Japan or South Korea?


43 posted on 05/01/2005 2:53:32 PM PDT by sushiman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

I believe this is true, however the U.S. still maintains a fleet of Trident SSBN's with missiles that are nuclear tipped.

At any given time (24 x 7 x 365) there are more than enough warheads at sea available for targeting anything N.K. or Iran might wish to loose.


44 posted on 05/01/2005 3:22:43 PM PDT by Jambe ( Save the Cows ! -- Eat a Vegan !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
As CINC he can use weapons as he sees fit.

Physically, but not legally.

He could be impeached for improper use, but he he pushes button, and a second person in the command authority chain verifies it, we split atoms.

True, but by no means optimal. I just don't buy this story. The Pentagon brass may be saying that they might need this authority, and surely they should be armed to execute such a plan, but allowing field commanders to act on their own doesn't seem to me to be this Administration's MO. I think it more likely that the Kyodo people are taking the facts to an illogical conclusion for propaganda purposes.

45 posted on 05/01/2005 3:26:50 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are REALLY stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: IonImplantGuru
Yeah, but! Korea wasn't 'declared'; Viet Nam wasn't 'declared'; Panama wasn't 'declared'; Grenada wasn't; Balkan bombing wasn't... ad infinitum.

Going back to Tripoli and the Barbary Pirates, an awful precedent.

46 posted on 05/01/2005 3:28:55 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are REALLY stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster
Bush unloaded on Kim Jong-il the other day.

During his social Security press conference. Odds are not a reporter in the room understood a word of what he said. His prime time comments were addressed directly to foreign leaders, praise for China and Russia, scorn for N Kor.

47 posted on 05/01/2005 3:34:50 PM PDT by RightWhale (These problems would not exist if we had had a moon base all along)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
"You think it was released on purpose ..??"

You Becha Sweet Ass!

48 posted on 05/01/2005 3:35:24 PM PDT by Flint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: meatloaf

"Iran is a state sponsor of Islamic fundamentalism."

However, that nation is already liberalizing..its a great chance to try the free-market capitalism alternative.

"North Korea exists for the benefit of one nutcase and his family."

You may be correct about North Korea...but I feel diplomacy and trade should be the first alternative. Let us see how ambitious Jong-Il is....and if that doesn't work...he certainly wouldnt want to nuke the place where most of his favorite pop culture comes from!


49 posted on 05/01/2005 3:36:28 PM PDT by leftwingrightwingbrokenwing (vitriolic libertarian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: leftwingrightwingbrokenwing
I feel diplomacy and trade should be the first alternative

Politics is the continuation of war by other means.

50 posted on 05/01/2005 3:41:02 PM PDT by RightWhale (These problems would not exist if we had had a moon base all along)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: sushiman
We have no option at all but to respond with nuclear if there is an attack on Japan or South Korea. No option what so ever.

Look y'all earlier this week it came out that North Korea was planning a nuclear test. Bush told the Chinese to put a cork in it. This is just a continuation of that. Putting NK on notice that if you dare put a nuke on a missile we will take out that missile and take out all of your ability to do anything that remotely resembles making a nuke bomb of any kind.

This is just one step towards shutting NK ability to do anything but play with themselves down.

51 posted on 05/01/2005 3:41:37 PM PDT by Flint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Flint

Sure we could bomb Yongbyon , but that would not destroy Pyongyang's entire capacity for producing nuclear weapons .
They might retaliate with a smuggled nuke against American facilities , Japan , or maybe even against the U.S. mainland ! And we must not forget that N.K. has a million man army just waiting to pounce on the South . These are deterrents to be sure . We've got to arm Japan , and soon . Then they have to begin arming themselves with our help .


52 posted on 05/01/2005 3:54:55 PM PDT by sushiman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

I like this move!


53 posted on 05/01/2005 4:04:25 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (This tagline no longer operative....floated away in the flood of 2005 ,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Suggest a close reread of story:

"The U.S. military plans to allow regional combatant commanders to request the president for approval to carry out preemptive nuclear strikes."

The operative word here is "request".... and it is meaningless.

Regional commanders, in fact any commander, in reality any Spec-4 on guard duty at the PX could request the Prez to launch.

The story here is that the regional commanders do not have to go through the JCS to get presidential launch authority.

In reality, this is nothing new. SSBN captains always has independent launch authority under certain circumstances. Those were well regulated, but under some VERY special circumstances, an 0-6 and his officers could launch.
54 posted on 05/01/2005 4:18:08 PM PDT by MindBender26 (Having my own CAR-15 meant never having to say I was sorry......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

I hope the fat little bastard with the tall hair -- is close to a toilet when he learns of this....

On second thought --- I don't

Semper Fi


55 posted on 05/01/2005 4:19:16 PM PDT by river rat (You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

BTTT!


56 posted on 05/01/2005 4:24:18 PM PDT by davidosborne (www.davidosborne.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: demlosers

I think the key word there was strategic compared to tactical.


57 posted on 05/01/2005 4:35:19 PM PDT by eastforker (Under Cover FReeper going dark(too much 24))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: leftwingrightwingbrokenwing

I'm not concerned about the nutcase nuking anyone. I'm concerned about him selling a nuclear device for the hard cash to pay for the pop culture. I don't think he's going to be picky about who he sells the nuke.


58 posted on 05/01/2005 4:39:37 PM PDT by meatloaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
The operative word here is "request".... and it is meaningless.

I understood that, and spoke of it as a politically stupid thing to allow it to become a public matter and is thus unlikely to have happened as the reporter intimates. Such saber-rattling is at odds with the "speak softly and carry a big stick" model and creates sufficient noise that it might hamper the President from taking necessary action. I just can't envision that it happened this way. More likely is that the commanders stated that they would be unable to guarantee CONUS safety without that latitude and the Kyodo reporter spun it to effect.

Regional commanders, in fact any commander, in reality any Spec-4 on guard duty at the PX could request the Prez to launch.

And after being disregarded would get a reprimand from their CO for not following the chain of command. As such, the comment bears little similarity to this situation.

The story here is that the regional commanders do not have to go through the JCS to get presidential launch authority.

I still would be more comfortable with more eyes upon such a decision. There is excellent reason for the principle of Congressional declaration: too often we have entered conflict without the full support of the people. Vietnam proved that costly. Kosovo should have.

In reality, this is nothing new. SSBN captains always has independent launch authority under certain circumstances. Those were well regulated, but under some VERY special circumstances, an 0-6 and his officers could launch.

I was aware of that as well, given the standing orders. I would prefer a Congressional pre-authorization should the situation warrant issuance. There was ample time for such discussion as the potential conflict with the Soviet Union developed. Although we are not in the same situation with Korea, there is enough time for such if Congress gets to it soon.

59 posted on 05/01/2005 4:59:10 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are REALLY stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: leftwingrightwingbrokenwing

The only thing free trade with enemy nations does is strengthen them and their opression. Look at China, our greatest enemy right now.


60 posted on 05/01/2005 5:04:56 PM PDT by Paul_Denton (Get the UN out of the US and US out of the UN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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