Draft U.S. paper allows commanders to seek preemptive nuke strikes(N. Korea/Iran)

Kyodo News ^ | 05/01/05

[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."

[Paul_Denton]

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.

For Iran we must do somthing to stop the mullahs from getting the bomb. Terrorists do not stockpile weapons. They use them.

[CyberAnt]

Okay - I hope you're right.

Otherwise .. we have a traitor in our midst!

[CyberAnt]

I thought of that too - but I do know there are a lot of Clinton leftovers at the Pentagon - and I wouldn't put anything past those people.

[traviskicks]

I think it was Clinton who signed the deal, or am I wrong? I mean this is not something Bush I would sign on.
---

i'm not sure. Post 44 claims we have Trident nukes on subs still, so the article was misleading in this respect.

[CyberAnt]

Your comment seems to be the general concensus that this may well be an "on purpose leak". If so .. that's good. My concern was that it was done by the leftovers at the Pentagon - just to undermine Bush (as usual).

[injin]

"Peace can only be held through overwhelming deterrence."

truer words were never spoken !

the real threat of such deterrence should be openly applied
to attacks by radical islamist's too .
if they nuke us they lose Mecca and Medina (for starters)

[getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL]

[CyberAnt]

Yes, I noticed that too .. it's an "official" - whatever that means.

[dominic housatonic62]

The article claims we have no nuclear CRUISE missiles at sea, which is probably true under START guidelines. It also says they are not BASED in Asia or Europe which is true. We often dock attack subs in places like Japan etc., but when our boomers are at sea their location is TOP SECRET and undisclosed to just about everyone, including the boats commander. When on patrol SSBNs dont dock at foreign ports anymore, like they used to. They are at sea for the entire cruise, barring a disaster.
But don't think for a second we don't have deterence at sea. Half of our nuclear arsenal is on board Trident(Ohio) class submarines. Each boat can carry over 200 warheads, and for now we have 18 of them, 9 based in Kings Bay, GA and the others in Bangor, WA. Soon it will be only 14, because 4 are being converted into Guided(cruise) missile subs and special forces platforms, but 14 is plenty. One Ohio sub can destroy any nation. Do a search on Trident submarine. They are the most lethal pieces of hardware on the planet, and possibly the most sophisticated.

[joemoe]

yes.

america isnt the 'great satan' it once was to the mullahs. the original hostage situation wasnt planned, but it was quickly siezed on when the ayatollah realized it was a source of great power.

now, with the majority of the young being pro-west and pro-american, the rhetoric doesnt ring like it used to... while all the anti-americanism and slogans might sting, and its clear that terrorist money came from iran, they arent going to go handing out nukes to the arabs or do anything that leads to their own demise. also, they would rather see themselves lording over the arabs, and handing out nukes to people who invaded them a couple of decades ago doesnt make any sense. they arent going to donate their own power to others.

a lot of people think the main problem with nukes in irans hands is the risk they will use them, but i dont buy this reasoning. i would suspect that once they had nukes, they would hold their aces close, and the bluster and terrorist funding would redouble.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"we are all becoming one...national soverignity will give way to individual soverignity as the most important thing to preserve."

The idea that "we all are becoming one" is taking national sovereignty and individual sovereignty away and instilling elitists who are responsible to no one.

There is not more individual sovereignty, there is less, and that is the plan of the elitists. We have been getting less free will, not more.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"Why not enlighten us all with your rendition of the last war that congress declared?" "That would be World War II." I think you missed a little something here. In WWII, we were attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor, so Congress declared war on Germany.

[BykrBayb]

I'm thinking this needs a Steely-Eyed Killers of the Deep ping. What do you think?

[Mad Mammoth]

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

Good Morning. Permit me to offer a gentle correction to the presumption that 'duck and cover' is not a valid tactic.

I was in elementary school when the Cuban Missile Crisis was going on, and we were taught the D.A.C until we had it down pat. The teacher had a photo flash unit (removable flash bulbs in those days) and would flash it unexpectedly (to simulate the flash of a nuclear explosion some miles away) and we were expected to dive out of our seats and curl up either under our desks or against the wall with our hands covering our necks, our heads tucked in tight.

Nobody in their right mind ever suggested that the D.A.C would protect us from a direct hit of a nuke, but we WERE smart enough to understand that if we were some distance away from an explosion, that the blast wave would shatter the glass windows of our classrooms, and the shards and other debris would become deadly projectiles.

Which is why we would want to be under our desks, curled up into a defensive position.

Liberal chowderheads (not you Sir) today like to chuckle it up about the "foolishness" of telling kids in those days to D.A.C. as if somebody in official Washington had the idea that you could survive a direct hit at ground zero by such tactics, but that was never the goal: the goal was to instruct students (and all citizens) that by knowing the D.A.C. maneuver, they might avoid serious injury to themselves by the time a nuclear shock wave reached them after the initial detonation.

Sorry for the rant but I feel it necessary to promote this factual information whenever there is a hint of misunderstanding and/or disinformation on this subject.

Do have a good day.

[Mad Mammoth]

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).

Perhaps this might clarify things a bit:

Carry_Okie has a fine understanding of the Constitution and all the many ramifications of this or that, and for that reason should be teaching the principles of the Constitution at some Ivy League college.

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.

The fact is, there are always some people who want to examine and debate things ad infinitum, not unlike the paper-pushing clerks in a hospital emergency room who mindlessly seek to get signatures on all those many forms, (as the patient is bleeding out) because God knows we wouldn't want any missing signatures or something "improper" (read: "illegal").

Screw the paperwork, win the damn war.

[ABG(anybody but Gore)]

Actually, a preemptive attack with nukes was always what SAC intended. If they had hard evidence that the Soviets were about to launch, the B-52s would leave their Fail-Safe points and the missiles would launch from the silos and submarines.

[bill1952]

Farrand's Records

Oh please. You write like a.. well, never mind.

I tested on the Federal Convention of 1787 at Penn State, way back in 1973.

At the age of 52 I have forgotten more about the Law and it's practice than you propably will ever know, and I doubt that you will change your opinions simply because of those whatchamacallums,,, Oh yeah, FACTS.

CINC needs no congressional authority to use the military as he sees fit. (and that is a good thing)

And that is not illegal. (and that is a good thing)

And you are wrong. (and that also is a good thing)