Pre-emptive nuclear strikes - WTF?

[rjung]

From the Washington Post:

Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan
Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons

The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

… The first example for potential nuclear weapon use listed in the draft is against an enemy that is using “or intending to use WMD” against U.S. or allied, multinational military forces or civilian populations.

… To deter the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, the Pentagon paper says preparations must be made to use nuclear weapons and show determination to use them “if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use.”

The draft says that to deter a potential adversary from using such weapons, that adversary’s leadership must “believe the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective.”

Is it me, or is this spooky as hell? What is there to prevent someone from suspecting that Country X might have WMDs, and call in a pre-emptive nuke on flimsy evidence? It’s certainly not as if the current Administration has a stellar track record for using dodgy (or nonexistent) evidence to locate WMD stockpiles. And wouldn’t such a policy simply spur all the non-American nutjobs in the world to scramble faster to get WMDs and launch a pre-pre-emptive strike of their own? “Crazy George is gonna take me out anyway, I might as well get in some licks first!”

I mean, really, WTF?

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

Phtt! :rolleyes:

As if!

The only thing they’ve done is state what they were always secretly willing to do anyways.

This could act as a MAD deterrence.

[Mr.Moto]

Our policy has been that an attack on us be any weapon of mass destruction can be retaliated against using our nuclear arsenal.

With this in mind, this plan isn’t a radical departure from U.S. policy for decades.

[Sage_Rat]

The chief argument for seems to be the text quoted in the article:

The draft says that to deter a potential adversary from using such weapons, that adversary’s leadership must “believe the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective.” The draft also notes that U.S. policy in the past has “repeatedly rejected calls for adoption of ‘no first use’ policy of nuclear weapons since this policy could undermine deterrence.”

Given the current politics and state of affairs of nations potentially or definitely researching nuclear weapons, I can’t say that I would consider right now a good time to pull such a document out of your ass to wave about.

Of course, I have never been convinced that North Korea is anything but a couple of Chinese high-ups’ subordinate, brought out every once in a while to keep the US at bay. But even if not, I still don’t think that the timing can do anything except make a bunch of piddling potential threat nations think that we’re actually responding to them as a real threat. That just eggs them on.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Mr. Moto

With this in mind, this plan isn’t a radical departure from U.S. policy for decades.

It sort of is, though, because US policy has traditionally said that any use of nuclear weapons will be reactive, not proactive. The new policy allows first-strike.

[John_Mace]

@Captain Amazing

It sort of is, though, because US policy has traditionally said that any use of nuclear weapons will be reactive, not proactive.

Are you sure? Can we see a cite for that? If you go to the PDF in the linked article, it’s clear that our policy has been to be vauge about what our policy is.

[Sage_Rat]

@John Mace

Can we see a cite for that?

I still don’t think that Cold War policy would have been to nuke any stockpile we happened to see. I can imagine us having fired proactively if we thought things were going to escalate imminently–but such proactivism would be more an issue of the demands of the situation and not official SOP. Nuking the USSR’s stockpiles just doesn’t strike me as prudent.

But that is entirely a, from the hip, guess.

[Squink]

Rumsfeld discusses Saddam’s WMD’s:

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, weapons of mass destruction. Key goal of the military campaign is finding those weapons of mass destruction. None have been found yet. There was a raid on the Answar Al-Islam Camp up in the north last night. A lot of people expected to find ricin there. None was found. How big of a problem is that? And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think – let me take that, both pieces – the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Preemptive nuclear strikes would have provided a convenient cover story for the absence of the alleged weapons. Do we really want the government to have that option? I think not.

[Revtim]

@Squink

Rumsfeld discusses Saddam’s WMD’s: Preemptive nuclear strikes would have provided a convenient cover story for the absence of the alleged weapons. Do we really want the government to have that option? I think not.

No kidding. “We swear they were there, all traces of them must have been completely destroyed in the nuclear blast. Mission accomplished.”

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Captain Amazing

It sort of is, though, because US policy has traditionally said that any use of nuclear weapons will be reactive, not proactive.

That is not correct. With the accuracy of ICBMs nowadays it has long been thought (though never confirmed as the SIOP is a big time secret) that one of their uses would be to eliminate the ability of the enemy to fire a crippling strike by destroying their nukes on the ground. That is why we have invested so much into submarines and the Russians (nee Soviet Union) put so much into mobile missiles and dense-pack fields. In other words, we don’t know what will happen and we have planned accordingly, thus maintaining the equilibrium of MAD.

[XT]

Despite the potential deterrent of this, I have to agree with Sage Rat…this doesn’t seem like the optimal time to be fucking with this. Even if our policy in the past with reguards to this was vague, maybe thats not such a bad thing. Implicitely stating that we will use first strike if we feel we must…I don’t know guys. I think that such a change (or re-definition) of our policy to date should perhaps have waited for a more auspicious time…and maybe for a new administation without all the baggage of this one.

-XT

[Bryan_Ekers]

Won’t someone please think of the bodily fluids?!

[Squink]

The Russians have a point:

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov warned the United States on Tuesday against any change of its defense doctrine to allow pre-emptive use of atomic weapons, saying it would prompt others to seek nuclear arms.
…
“Lowering the threshold for use of atomic weapons is in itself dangerous,” Ivanov told a news conference ahead of a
NATO defense ministers meeting in Berlin.

“Such plans do not limit, but in fact promote efforts by others to develop (nuclear weapons),” said Ivanov, who was speaking through an interpreter.

He said he hoped U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would inform him if such a change to the U.S. military doctrine were planned.

So do the Pakistanis:

Ruling PML secretary general Mushahid Hussain Syed has said US- India accord on nuclear cooperation is not only a violation of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) but also a sheer breach of US laws.

“Even Congress is concerned over US- India nuclear cooperation accord. Talks are underway on this count as it is a sheer violation of NPT and US laws. US will have to change 1970 act ahead of this accord”

For as often as the administration has claimed to be anti-proliferation, their actions seem stunningly pro-proliferation.

[clairobscur]

@Mr. Moto

Our policy has been that an attack on us be any weapon of mass destruction can be retaliated against using our nuclear arsenal.

With this in mind, this plan isn’t a radical departure from U.S. policy for decades.

In the same way that shooting at someone that you suspect is going to attack you isn’t a radical departure from the usual rules about self-defense?

[Avenger]

The draft also notes that U.S. policy in the past has “repeatedly rejected calls for adoption of ‘no first use’ policy of nuclear weapons since this policy could undermine deterrence.”

Err, it would harm deterrence if an adversary didn’t believe that we would nuke them before they fired the weapons that our weapons were supposed to be deterring them from firing. As always with MAD theory, the logic is unanswerable…

[Little_Nemo]

What happens if the United States determines that Iran is planning on using WMD’s and decides to pre-empt the attack by a nuclear strike. Then minutes before the American missiles are launched, the Chinese invoke the Bush Doctrine and announce they are launching a pre-emptive nuclear attack against the United States because it was planning on using WMD’s. Do the Russians then get to launch a pre-emptive attack against the Chinese? Do the French get to pre-emptively strike Russia? Do the British take out the French?

[Sage_Rat]

@Little Nemo

What happens if the United States determines that Iran is planning on using WMD’s and decides to pre-empt the attack by a nuclear strike. Then minutes before the American missiles are launched, the Chinese invoke the Bush Doctrine and announce they are launching a pre-emptive nuclear attack against the United States because it was planning on using WMD’s. Do the Russians then get to launch a pre-emptive attack against the Chinese? Do the French get to pre-emptively strike Russia? Do the British take out the French?

That’s like saying that a minor, local terrorist group whacking the prince of some minor country could start a global war. Pffff.

[AFAIKnow]

@Little Nemo

What happens if the United States determines that Iran is planning on using WMD’s and decides to pre-empt the attack by a nuclear strike. Then minutes before the American missiles are launched, the Chinese invoke the Bush Doctrine and announce they are launching a pre-emptive nuclear attack against the United States because it was planning on using WMD’s. Do the Russians then get to launch a pre-emptive attack against the Chinese? Do the French get to pre-emptively strike Russia? Do the British take out the French?

If you honestly think US policy allows or disallows those countries from using their nukes, you need help.

[Marley23]

@Squink's article

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov warned the United States on Tuesday against any change of its defense doctrine to allow pre-emptive use of atomic weapons, saying it would prompt others to seek nuclear arms.

Too late: our policies already do that.

Pre-emptive war in itself makes sense - if you really knew someone was going to attack you, you can’t wait - but given the way the idea was abused, I can’t imagine trusting a leader to actually employ it.

[Little_Nemo]

If you honestly think US policy allows or disallows those countries from using their nukes, you need help.

So basically as long as our policies are no worse than those of Iran or North Korea, you’re okay with it?