"A new draft US defense paper calls for preventive nuclear strikes against state and non-state adversaries in order to deter them from using weapons of mass destruction and urges US troops to "prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively."
Friends,
This is very frightening news. It seems the U.S. warmongers want to put in place a policy of “if we can’t beat them, burn them.” I hope we will not allow this. Jamie
Pentagon Asks Theatre Commanders For Nuclear 'Hit-List'
By: AFP, Yahoo News on: 12.09.2005 [14:08 ] (978 reads)
A new draft US defense paper calls for preventive nuclear strikes against state and non-state adversaries in order to deter them from using weapons of mass destruction and urges US troops to "prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively." The doctrine also gives the Pentagon the green light to deploy nuclear weapons to parts of the world where their future use is considered the most likely and urges troops to constantly train for nuclear warfare.
(4325 bytes)
Draft US defense paper outlines preventive nuclear strikes
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A new draft US defense paper calls for preventive nuclear strikes against state and non-state adversaries in order to deter them from using weapons of mass destruction and urges US troops to "prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively."
The document, titled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" and dated March 15, was put together by the Pentagon's Joint Staff in at attempt to adapt current procedures to the fast-changing world after the September 11, 2001, attacks, said a defense official.
But the official, who spoke to AFP late Saturday on condition of anonymity, said it has not yet been signed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and thus has not been made official policy.
"It's in the process of being considered," the official said.
A copy of the draft obtained by AFP urges US theater force commanders operating around the world to prepare specific plans for using nuclear weapons in their regions — and outlines scenarios, under which it would be justified to seek presidential approval for a nuclear strike.
They include an adversary using or planning to use weapons of mass destruction against US or allied forces as well as civilian populations.
Preventive nuclear strikes could also be employed to destroy a biological weapons arsenal belonging to an enemy, if there is no possibility to take it out with conventional weapons and it is determined the enemy is poised for a biological attack, according to the draft.
They could also be seen as justified to destroy deep, hardened bunkers containing enemy chemical or biological weapons or the command and control infrastructure required to execute a chemical, biological or nuclear attack.
However, a number of scenarios allow nuclear strikes without enemy weapons of mass destruction in the equation.
They could be used, for instance, to counter potentially overwhelming conventional adversaries, to secure a rapid end of a war on US terms, or simply "to ensure success of US and multinational operations," the document indicates.
In the context of the US-led "war on terror", the draft explicitly warns that any attempt by a hostile power to hand over weapons of mass destruction to militant groups to enable them to strike a devastating blow against the United States will likely trigger a US nuclear response against the culprit.
Regional US commanders may request presidential approval to go nuclear "to respond to adversary-supplied WMD use by surrogates against US and multinational forces or civilian populations," the draft says.
The doctrine also gives the Pentagon the green light to deploy nuclear weapons to parts of the world where their future use is considered the most likely and urges troops to constantly train for nuclear warfare.
"To maximize deterrence of WMD use, it is essential US forces prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively and that US forces are determined to employ nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use," the document states.
The doctrine surfaced after the US Congress moved over the past several months to revive a controversial weapons research program aimed at enabling the US military to conduct precision nuclear strikes against hardened underground facilities.
In separate measures, both the Senate and the House of Representatives approved four million dollars for fiscal 2006 to study the feasibility of the so-called Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, also known as the "bunker-buster" bomb, a program that was interrupted last year under intense international and domestic criticism.
Moreover, under the 2002 Moscow Treaty, the United States will be able to retain up to 2,200 operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads all the way through 2012.
The doctrine reminds that while first use of nuclear weapons may draw condemnation, "no customary or conventional international law prohibits nations from employing nuclear weapons in armed conflict."
link
Related article
US: Another step for Global War, Floating Missile Defense Radar Completed
Please share widely.
Comments
Hide the following 4 comments
Where Blair is going
13.09.2005 20:49
1) Blair PROMISED the use of nuclear weapons against Iraq, if Iraq had DEFENDED itself against the British and US invaders using chemical weapons. Amusingly, it was Winston Churchill (a figure whose recent popularity seemingly exploded when Blair had his goons at the BBC create a major propaganda campaign for him) who had created massive stocks of weaponised ANTHRAX to lay waste to Europe.
2) At least one nuclear weapon WAS used in Iraq (and knowing this, one can conclude that many have been used since WW2). However, the Iraq weapon was NOT of the type that the general public is made to exclusively focus on, but a modern low heat, high radiation yield battlefield weapon, with a non-explosive core (to allow the majority of the radiactive material to be easily removed afterwards). This weapon was used to exterminate the large concentration of Iraqi troops at the main airfield near Baghdad. The use of this weapon should surprise NO-ONE. Weapons are built to be used, and if a particular weapon can be used (meeting political and military objectives) it WILL be used.
3) Chemical weapons have seen MASSIVE use across Iraq. This includes both semi-illegal (tear gas, etc) and totally illegal (napalm and various poison gases) munitions. Indeed, and again it should come as no surprise, UK, US, German and Israeli weapons companies have tested many of their new chemical weapons systems in live tests across Iraq. Tal Afar is only the latest target for these weapons and is, of course, the reason why Blair's goons are flooding Indymedia with the Jeremy Clarkson DISTRACTION PROPAGANDA at this moment.
4) The PNAC stated an intent as clearly as Mein Kampf. What many here, and on other sites that apparently oppose Blair, do not focus on is this: The whole POINT of the PNAC project is to prepare for war with China, just as the whole point of Hitler's plan was to prepare for War with Russia!!! China, as with the USSR before, is engaged in a desperate race against time. During this period, the USA will apparently provide every support to China. However, what so very few bother to learn is the fact that Hitler also provided raw materials, and technology to the USSR, in order to keep the alliance until he felt ready to attack. So, SORRY GUYS, those of you that think the support that China receives from the West is proof that we will not war against them could not be more wrong.
5) If war with China is the real plan, then the intent to mass exterminate Muslims parallels Hitlers thinking exactly, which is that the plebs need a cause that they can rally behind. Hitler used jews to work up a blood lust, and to provide a phoney excuse for initial military action. Blair uses muslims to work up a blood lust, and to provide a phoney excuse for initial military action.
Let me ask you a question- how often has Blair failed in his game. He took the States from their mortal fear of ANY military loss (consider that sick propaganda piece BLACKHAWK DOWN - a few dead soldiers, and the WHOLE of the US was sobbing in its soup), to a willingness to engage in full blown ground combat, via the mis-step of Kosovo (where the US, for the LAST time, point blank refused to fight on the ground). He took Russia, traumatised by memories of Afghanistan, back into another major ground war in Chechnya (this war was WHOLLY made possible by Blair's actions, from the creation of the apartment bombing plan, to the total management of pro-Russian propaganda in the UK press, and the elimination of ANY EU action against Russia over its war crimes). In this context, one can see that Blair has a sarcastic sense of humour, when he allowed one of Putin's goons to take control of a major UK football team!!! Organised team sports, jingoism, and warfare make such HAPPY bedfellows.
Blair has a virtual dictatorship in the UK, and will soon have an actual dictatorship (via emergency powers granted after the next 911 or nuking of Iran). This despite the fact that Blair's actual support in the country is 20% and falling (just think about that). Every major institution in the UK is under direct control of Blair's goons, including all the major unions, the CoE (no surprise there), ALL mass-media outlets, and ALL mainstream non-governmental agencies. The rights of those that oppose Blair have almost been eliminated under the excuse that the ONLY acceptable opposition in the UK is carried out by the above mentioned, Blair controlled bodies, and that ANYONE working outside those bodies is a troublemaker, criminal, or traitor, and deserves NO protection or rights under the law.
What saddens me most about the British is their racist claim that a Hitler or Ghengis Khan could not arise in these isles. In reality, we have been BEST placed for a whole series of reasons to produce a world beating monster, and no-one should be shocked that we finally have. As with so many previous times in Earth's history, it does not matter that Blair's main troops or weapons are not from his originating people. What matters is that it is Blair's hand on the lever that is moving the mountain of history. Bush's insane nuclear policy is actually Blair's insane nuclear policy, and the finger that, in actuality, will push the RED BUTTON again and again and again, will be Blair's.
Welcome to your future, or should I say welcome to your lack of a future!!!
twilight
airport nuke attack
14.09.2005 07:26
I have heard this before but have never seen the source of information. Please provide link
to sources of this attack.
n
Pah!
14.09.2005 08:27
C Man
Terrifying Prospect
15.09.2005 09:29
Therefore, it legalises the genocide of anyone and everyone deemed a 'threat' by Bush, Blair or Sharon. It's quite simply criminally insane.
And let me guess, the British electorate are going to do/say nothing? That will make us complicit in the mass-murder of innocent people, by horrific means, while leaving a radioactive legacy for future generations.
Congratulations