Pentagon Proposes Preemptive Nuclear Strikes Against WMD

[jyl]

Outside of New Orleans, things are going on.

Under this proposed new Pentagon policy, we might have dropped nuclear weapons on Iraqi cities to defend against Saddam's non-existent arsenal of WMD.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053.html

Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan
Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 11, 2005; Page A01

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.

[snip]

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.

[snip]"

[fintstone]

Great plan. But you mis-characterize it a bit to make the Pentagon seem nefarious. It does not claim the intent to bomb cities (as Hiroshima, etc....). but that is a good way to destroy biological or chemical weapons materials at their source with a very small very hot, nuclear explosion as opposed to dispersing them into the atmosphere with conventional weapons and killing millions.
Rumsfeld made a good case...that all we have are very large dirty bombs....and that it certainly makes since to study smaller cleaner ones that can be used for precision work against a WMD target.

[Matt Holcomb]

I agree with Finstone: RNEP has the potential to prevent Armageddon.

The program should be expedited, providing that demented hawk, Rumsfeld, is put in a cage until the next U.S. election.

[CamB]

Well, if it is a good idea, can we have some nuclear capabilities too? If not us, at least the Aussies - they went to war with you.

The major problem with the idea is that the US is batting zero on pre-emptive strikes on WMD, so I'd want to see some more robust analysis before anyone hit the red button.

[fintstone]

With the capability to take out WMD cleanly...would we have had to go to war to find it..or just destroy a couple of labs/bunkers? Which would you prefer?

[skipdup]

I bet N. Korea wouldn't like this idea a bit. Nor Iran.

[fintstone]

Nor Democrats.

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by CamB
Well, if it is a good idea, can we have some nuclear capabilities too? If not us, at least the Aussies - they went to war with you.

The major problem with the idea is that the US is batting zero on pre-emptive strikes on WMD, so I'd want to see some more robust analysis before anyone hit the red button.

Cam, I seem to remember that the Kiwi's refused to allow any American ship that even could be carrying any nuke devices to dock in their port.

NOW you want to have the use of one or more of these same devices to save your rear ends? Thats awful cheeky my friend!

The US will probably save your (New Zealand's) bacon if it comes down to that but in the future it would help to realize that the rest of the world is not a friendly place at times and that there are times that a nuke can be your new best friend!

JoeA

[CamB]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
Cam, I seem to remember that the Kiwi's refused to allow any American ship that even could be carrying any nuke devices to dock in their port.

Ooops, busted

We still refuse - including nuclear powered ships. Nuclear free New Zealand. It is quite nice really.

I mean, it is great that you would protect us, but on the other hand since you wouldn't ever give us the weapons ourselves I'm not sure we need to kiss ass because of it.

My genuine view on this is that your govt has made an understandable tactical move to announce to potential aggressors that it might use nukes on them. I mean, it's all PR really - you had the nukes before the announcement, and you have them now. Whether the policy gets announced or not, you could have reacted pre-emptively with nukes. It'll be interesting to see if your Congress ratifies it (I read it quickly, but it appeared that was required).

Fint - you left out the word "empty" before labs/bunkers. No WMD in Iraq.

[Joeaksa]

Cam,

Why should we give your country a nuke? NZ has not paid for it, helped develop it or done anything towards its use. For that matter why should the US protect you guys?

The reason for us to protect NZ, Aus and the rest of the "free world" is that it would be the right thing to do and we hope and feel that if we would need the help and assistance that you guys would do the same for us.

There is no need to "kiss ass" but it would be nice that NZ at least be a bit more friendly at times and realize that we better all work together these days because in the near distant future all of our lives may depend on it.

My real worry is that the Islamic threat around the world may come to a "crusades" type of war and if this happens then its not going to be over anytime soon. The sooner that people realize that if you are not Muslim, that they are taught from day one that you either join their religion or their "Bible," the Koran tells them to kill us. Seriously...

Joe A

[fintstone]

Originally posted by CamB
...
Fint - you left out the word "empty" before labs/bunkers. No WMD in Iraq.

Not by the time we actually invaded the country and reached them. If we had other methods, we could have disposed of them sooner (no one debates that they were once there). And we would not have to wonder where they are now, and if they were destroyed....or are merely in different hands...or have had to destroy most of the country to find out.

[CamB]

helped develop it

Well, Rutherford split the atom - do we get royalties now?

I am personally glad that we could (probably) rely on the US if we were attacked. You could probably rely on us if you were attacked too. Unfortunately, there is a definition problem around "attacked".

We weren't shy in 6 of the last 7 wars (I, II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq the first time and Afghanistan), and if the need was there I think we would again. In fact, I think we have the dubious honour in WWI of suffering the worst per capita death rate (amongst the Allies, in any case).

In any case, we do sorta work together - not supporting the Iraq war had trade repercussions (sp?) and that is ok. The no nukes deal is a sort of ingrained national psyche thing - although there is a 50% chance in our current election that the ruling party would reconsider the no nukes stance and (if they think it warranted) put it to a referendum, at which point it would be well and truely rejected.

[CamB]

Originally posted by fintstone
Not by the time we actually invaded the country and reached them. If we had other methods, we could have disposed of them sooner (no one debates that they were once there). And we would not have to wonder where they are now, and if they were destroyed....or are merely in different hands...or have had to destroy most of the country to find out.

Your govt's official reports state there is no evidence WMD were moved out of Iraq before the US got there.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by CamB
Your govt's official reports state there is no evidence WMD were moved out of Iraq before the US got there.

Once again, finding "no evidence" hardly means something did not happen. We know there were WMD, we have inventories (evidence). Iraq agreed it had them and weapons inspectors saw them. We do not know what happened to them afterward. They may have been destroyed, they may have been moved out of Iraq, they may still be hidden there. If we had destroyed them ourselves...it would not be maybe.

[CamB]

I would have thought dropping a nuke on them would make it impossible to tell if you destroyed thin air or WMD, so that still would have proved nothing.

Besides, your govt's report says they are presumed destroyed and there is no evidence they were moved. To have beaten that destruction it appears you would have needed to have bombed them a large number of years ago.

It might be time to stop clinging to the "the WMD were moved" line - I don't think anyone (other than Cheney) in the Admin says that any more.

[jyl]

So, the idea seems to be that US intelligence knew the exact and precise location of Saddam's WMD arsenal in March 2003. Precisely enough to target a nuclear strike?

Well, US intelligence was wrong even in the basic assessment of whether Saddam had a WMD arsenal. They said he did. Now we know he didn't, the US government's own post-invasion investigation has concluded there is no evidence of such a WMD arsenal pre-war, Colin Powell has admitted that his speech to the UN in which he laid out America's WMD evidence is a permanent blot on his record, and only those desperately in denial still pretend otherwise. No reasonable person would think US intelligence was capable of precisely locating the fictional WMD stash, given that it got even the existence of WMD wrong.

Given this poor record, I wouldn't trust the government to launch a preemptive nuclear strike on suspected WMDs. Especially when the CIA tells us "yes, we are slam-dunk certain where they are, right here in the middle of downtown Tehran."

[targa911S]

Those boys are gonna kill us ALL one of these days.

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by CamB
Your govt's official reports state there is no evidence WMD were moved out of Iraq before the US got there.

We have proof that cannot be argued with about WMD in Iraq, so this statement does not matter. The photos of the Kurds who were gassed have been passed around the world so why is there any question that there were WMD there, and probably still are until they are uncovered.

There is also very strong evidence that both WMD and billions of stolen funds were spirited into Syria and Jordan just before the war. We just have not found it yet...

Joe A

[jyl]

Well, whether Saddam had a WMD arsenal in 3/2003 (not a decade earlier when the Kurds were gassed) appears destined to be one of those "Earth: flat or round?" questions. Some will believe he did, and will never be convinced otherwise.

So let's move on to the next question.

Do you guys believe US intelligence had located that WMD arsenal so precisely that we could have (never mind "should", we're still on "could" here) destroyed them with a nuclear strike, with a very high probability of success? If you have the technical knowledge, please add what sort of weapon could be used and what the "collateral" effects would be.