30/09/2005 - "Even
in an unclassified world this is not the kind
of thing you want flying around the Internet,"
says Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita. He
was talking about a document, yanked from
a Pentagon website on September 19th, which
outlines US nuclear warfighting plans, including
the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons and
the use of nukes in conventional war.
Comments to the document by the various military
branches reveal squabbling about who gets
to run a nuclear war, a disagreement about
the legality of pre-emptive warfighting strategies,
and a discussion of the etiquette of alerting
allied troops that a nuclear attack is coming
their way.
This is exactly the kind of information which
we believe ought to be flying around the internet;
these guys really shouldn't be left alone
to talk about this stuff behind closed doors.
So we took our copy and uploaded it here at
www.greenpeace.org. You can help ensure it
flies around the internet some more by sending
this article to a friend.
Nuclear war: it's not just for breakfast anymore
The document is a rare unpolished look at
how the Cold War doctrine of nuclear first
strike - previously spun as "deterrence"
- has taken on a new dimension.
It reveals that the threshold for actually
using nuclear weapons has been lowered dramatically.
And it outs the untruth of George Bush claiming
that the US is reducing the importance of
its nuclear arsenal.
For instance, the document condones pre-emptive
nuclear strikes against nations (even those
without nuclear weapons) which the US government
thinks might use chemical or biological weapons
against US forces or allies. The document
also condones the use of nuclear weapons as
just another item in the warfighting toolbox,
and underscores the importance of US troops
being able to continue functioning in a highly
irradiated battle zone.
The document has excellent, practical advice
on how to deal with situations like a nuclear
foe who might retaliate with nuclear weapons:
"Executing a nuclear option, or even
a portion of an option, should send a clear
signal of United States' resolve. Hence, options
must be selected very carefully and deliberately
so that the attack can help ensure the adversary
recognizes the "signal" and should
therefore not assume the United States has
escalated to general nuclear war, although
that perception cannot be guaranteed."
It's comforting to know that the Pentagon
recognises that nuclear weapons are very,
very bad at conveying nuanced messages. Perhaps
if they accompanied the attack with a thoughtful
card, that would help make their meaning clear?
Fission vision sparks division
However, editing notes show internal disagreement
amongst US military commanders. The disputes
are over the document's enthusiasm for using
nuclear weapons in attacks on infrastructure
which would inevitably lead to massive civilian
casualties. Some commanders expressed extreme
doubts over both the legality of the new nuclear
doctrine, and that the threats used to justify
this new doctrine actually exist.
Fortunately, the document isn't final until
that paragon of military restraint, Donald
Rumsfeld, says it makes sense to him. Unfortunately,
Rummy delegates this kind of policy-making
to his alter-ego, Dr. Strangelove.
The US strategic command, STRATCOM, which
directs nuclear warfighting commented "Many
operational law attorneys do not believe "countervalue"
targeting is a lawful justification for employment
of force, much less nuclear force. Countervalue
philosophy makes no distinction between purely
civilian activities and military-related activities
and could be used to justify deliberate attacks
on civilians and non-military portions of
a nation's economy... For example, under the
countervalue target philosophy, the attack
on the World Trade Centre Towers on 9/11 could
be justified."
Since it's not illegal, it must be ok
In a chilling finale, "Doctrine for Joint
Nuclear Operations" concludes that "no
customary or conventional international law
prohibits nations from employing nuclear weapons
in armed conflict."
Greenpeace disarmament campaigner William
Peden said, "This document should send
a shiver down the spine of everyone. It shows
that the highest levels of the Pentagon have
undergone a major shift in thinking and now
view nuclear weapons no longer as a weapon
of last resort but a weapon that can and should
be used."
"This means a US military machine prepared
to use nuclear weapons first, against non-nuclear
countries and non-military-related, civilian
targets."
