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 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-137 next last
To: leftwingrightwingbrokenwing
Well it appears to be nationalistic BS on both sides doesn't it? The collective idea of superiority and domination. Anyway, I thought this was about freedom and promoting democracy rather than promoting US interests, and the Chinese people are now better off than they were 15 years ago. Give it time...China will become a democracy that will stand the test of time in a couple generations. The grass roots are in..we just have to let them go

The Free Traitors have been trading with China for 40 years now. It is still a dictatorship that opressess people, murders people, forces a one-shild policy, threatens neighbors and threatens to nuke Los Angeles. Is THAT your idea of democracy?

61 posted on 05/01/2005 5:10:00 PM PDT by Paul_Denton (Get the UN out of the US and US out of the UN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy


What is a "negative security assurance"?

I was curious as well.....

http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/issues.html#NSA

Negative Security Assurances

A Negative Security Assurance (NSA), is a promise by the Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) made to the Non-Nuclear Weapon States (NNWS) never to attack them with nuclear weapons. Many NNWS believe that these assurances should be codified in an unconditional, legally binding instrument.

Historically, NSAs were implicit in the NPT bargain. In 1995, the Security Council passed resolution 985 on NSAs. But since the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, wherein the United States made it official policy to retaliate a biological or chemical attack with nuclear weapons, many NNWS and NGOs believe that a legal instrument codifying NSAs is long overdue. In addition, codified NSAs could also serve as an incentive for the last remaining hold-out countries (DPRK, Israel, India, Pakistan) to join the NPT.

The Secretary-General's High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change also voiced tepid support for NSAs (as well as Positive Security Assurances) without calling for codification of these assurances. The panel recommended that: "The nuclear-weapon States...should reaffirm their previous commitments not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States. (120)

For a more in-depth historical look at security assurances, see an NTI Issue Brief by CNS' Jean duPreez.

The New Agenda Coalition tabled a working paper on the issue at the 2002 PrepCom.

Iran also tabled a working paper on NSAs at the 2002 PrepCom.

At the 2004 PrepCom, NNWS were pushing hard for a subsidiary body on NSAs at the 2005 Review Conference. Read the Cluster 1 Statements on Negative Security Assurances.

In preparation for the 2004 PrepCom, Reaching Critical Will delivered a presentation to various governmental representatives on "Contextualizing the NPT", in which NSAs were a featured topic of discussion. Click here to download the PowerPoint presentation.

You can also read reports on NSAs in the First Committee Monitor, or check out BASIC's newest contribution on the topic on their website.

Return to top

(the explanation above is full of hotlinks....link above)


62 posted on 05/01/2005 5:15:25 PM PDT by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

" I can't believe even the Rhino Bush SR would sign something like that. "

You mean RINO?


63 posted on 05/01/2005 5:22:26 PM PDT by Rebelbase (The Republican Party is the France of politics--Lazamataz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: meatloaf; Paul_Denton

good point meatloaf...

"The Free Traitors have been trading with China for 40 years now. It is still a dictatorship that opressess people, murders people, forces a one-shild policy, threatens neighbors and threatens to nuke Los Angeles. Is THAT your idea of democracy?"

I suppose your are a protectionist...how very NeoCon..most people don't know that NeoCons stem from the Trotskyites...anyway as was mentioned before, why would China kill the golden goose? It's non-sensical from their standpoint...however through free trade...and the spread of information and ideas with that...communism's grip in China is sliding and will eventually fall...it will happen.


64 posted on 05/01/2005 5:24:25 PM PDT by leftwingrightwingbrokenwing (vitriolic libertarian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

Comment #65 Removed by Moderator

To: leftwingrightwingbrokenwing
If "protectionist" means not giving the store away, most of us here are that.

Neocons? How very 'liberal' of you. Most people don't know that your brand of "protectionism' toward dictators stem from DU.

66 posted on 05/01/2005 5:29:55 PM PDT by monkeywrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: leftwingrightwingbrokenwing

If it takes being protectionist to stop the PRC's military machine from growing then so be it.


67 posted on 05/01/2005 5:44:47 PM PDT by Paul_Denton (Get the UN out of the US and US out of the UN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late

the saudi pigs need to be afraid too for spreading Wahabbism!!!!


68 posted on 05/01/2005 5:44:57 PM PDT by Luigi Vasellini ("Its for my brother he's got a nose like a vacuum cleaner" My favorite Roger Clinton quote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Jambe

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.
---

Glad to hear this. Then this article is incredibly misleading and should issue a corrrection.


69 posted on 05/01/2005 5:47:15 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/foundingoftheunitedstates.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

well DUUUUuuuuhhhh~! maybe the author would like us NOT to consider things in advance...


70 posted on 05/01/2005 5:55:22 PM PDT by Mr. K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Please do not act as if I have never studied the Constitution.

Absolutely zero that you have posted in any way disagrees with what I posted.

Having the absolute authority as CIC has nothing to do in with declaring war, or with using the military as he sees fit.

It is your view that is twisted.

Why not enlighten us all with your rendition of the last war that congress declared?


71 posted on 05/01/2005 5:56:13 PM PDT by bill1952 ("All that we do is done with an eye towards something else.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: risk
Your correct. MAD won't work. MAD would be even more dangerous with IRAN then it was during the Cold War. The Soviets had an established government that operated the majority of the time in the open. When they supported a communist revolution in some country they publicized it. IRAN does most of their foreign policy through shady networks and third parties. Which they do not have total control of which is the problem.
72 posted on 05/01/2005 5:57:20 PM PDT by rip033
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Physically, but not legally.

Also incorrect.


73 posted on 05/01/2005 5:58:26 PM PDT by bill1952 ("All that we do is done with an eye towards something else.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Again, you confuse the definition of "War" with being CIC.

The president is valid, legal, and entirely within the framework of the Constitution.

Congress can pay or not.
That's it, and that's what you elect when you elect a president. Commander in Chief.


74 posted on 05/01/2005 6:01:50 PM PDT by bill1952 ("All that we do is done with an eye towards something else.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Paul_Denton

"If it takes being protectionist to stop the PRC's military machine from growing then so be it."

You have to face that the paradigm in this world is shifting as information sharing becomes faster and faster and the world comes closer together...we are all becoming one...national soverignity will give way to individual soverignity as the most important thing to preserve. You seem very fixated on the macro outlook when the world is evolving to the micro outlook. National interests don't mean anything anymore.


75 posted on 05/01/2005 6:10:23 PM PDT by leftwingrightwingbrokenwing (vitriolic libertarian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: rip033
MAD would be even more dangerous with IRAN then it was during the Cold War.

Especially for our Israeli allies. We really don't want to leave them twisting in the mullah nuclear breeze. If we stand by and watch them be blackmailed, we'll be asking for it ourselves.

76 posted on 05/01/2005 6:12:12 PM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

Besides which, North Korea is a humanitarian crisis in the making. Once the Ill one is deposed, the region will need to be ready to help his afflicted millions. Then, like Iraq, expect jubilant elections.

But first things first - have to get rid of the dictator.


77 posted on 05/01/2005 6:19:44 PM PDT by P.O.E.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

Besides which, North Korea is a humanitarian crisis in the making. Once the Ill one is deposed, the region will need to be ready to help his afflicted millions. Then, like Iraq, expect jubilant elections.

But first things first - have to get rid of the dictator.


78 posted on 05/01/2005 6:19:48 PM PDT by P.O.E.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bill1952
Please do not act as if I have never studied the Constitution.

Then don't write as if acting without Congressional authority has no consequences. BTW, I doubt you've read Farrand's Records, without which, you don't know as much as you think you do about what the document means.

Why not enlighten us all with your rendition of the last war that congress declared?

That would be World War II. There has not been a declared war since the founding of the United Nations.

Just because the government of the United States has been operating illegally for a long time does not mean that such is legitimate behavior, much less moral or politically wise. To so believe gives legitimacy to a "living Constitution," under which the government executes everything from land grabs to anchor babies (specifically forbidden by the original intent of the 14th Amendment).

79 posted on 05/01/2005 6:21:27 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are REALLY stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: CindyDawg

That's what I'm thinking.


80 posted on 05/01/2005 6:34:28 PM PDT by CyberAnt (President Bush: "America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 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