nuke em all

[Guest guest]

US nuclear warplans fly around the internet

30 September 2005Print Send Illustration explaining the convergence

of nuclear and non-nuclear options for Pentagon war planning.

Enlarge Image Washington, DC, United States — " 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. "

 

 

Make sure the Pentagon's plans for nuclear war fly around the

internet

Nuclear warfighting plans concern all of us -- they shouldn't be

kept secret. Help ensure that these unclassified documents are

exposed to plenty of sunlight by sending this article to a few

friends.

 

Donate to keep us online

To maintain our independence, Greenpeace does not accept funds from

governments or corporations. We're counting on you.

 

 

I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can still do

something; and because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the

something that I can do.