Joint Chiefs Plan for Nuclear Option

[the Black Prince]

from Defence news

a new as yet un-official defence policy looking at the use of nuclear weapons in the modern world and modern warfare situations

the article suggests most of it is pretty much what you'd expect. pre-emptive use of weapons to prevent nuclear biological or chemical attack on the Us her forces and allies etc

the quotes in this paragraph though seem to be aimed very specifically at iran, and possibly North Korea, and Iran in particular should sit up and take notice

In the context of the U.S.-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 U.S. nuclear response against the culprit. Regional U.S. commanders may request presidential approval to go nuclear “to respond to adversary-supplied WMD use by surrogates against U.S. and multinational forces or civilian populations,” the draft says.

while the thoughts behind this document are clear, there are too many nuclear powers in this world to risk any form of nuclear confrontation, even on the tactical nuclear level.
at least when forces restrict themselves to a bloody, but conventional war, we don't risk starting WWIII or deliberately mass kill civilians

[Erik]

So the US plans to start a nuclear war when their intelligence indicates somebody is selling WMD's to terrorists?
That would be very dangerous.

[DarthJames]

while the thoughts behind this document are clear, there are too many nuclear powers in this world to risk any form of nuclear confrontation, even on the tactical nuclear level.
at least when forces restrict themselves to a bloody, but conventional war, we don't risk starting WWIII or deliberately mass kill civilians

That was the theory pre-1914. No World War was started by the use of WMD's.

Quite simply, if you KNOW that a briefcase nuke is about to get handed over to a terrorist group, who will then disappear until they surface with said nuke detonating in a Western country, you would do everything and anything to take them out immediately. While that may not nessecarily extend to the Nuclear option, it is important that those plans are in place.

The whole point of prepared and rehearsed plans is that the man in charge doesn't have to go straight off the cuff in a danger situation.

A major conflict is far less likely if the people involved know what they are doing, rather than having to make it up on the go.

[Erik]

T
Quite simply, if you KNOW that a briefcase nuke is about to get handed over to a terrorist group, who will then disappear until they surface with said nuke detonating in a Western country, you would do everything and anything to take them out immediately.

Yes, but you wil, realistically, never KNOW that.

But if intelligence was that good the US would also be able launch a precision strike, or special ops operation to neutralize the threat, since they would then know the exact location of the WMD.

[Marchal_LeV]

my opinion here but woudent a spec-op's mission be better for you actualy retreve the wmd instaid of thinking you incinerated it, or coudent a wako make up such a story, like selling a nuke on e-bay to start a war. Remember wwi, franz fardian was killed by a man, no one whent to his funiral for they were all planing war

[Richard the Lionheart]

I don't think the U.S. is going to drop nukes on anybody. If the US was to do such a thing then soon afterwards other countries would start using them too...long story short...we would be looking at WWIII...except it would be a nuclear world war. Nuclear weapons should never be used in pre-emptive strikes. What would the world think...do? It would completely destroy the image of the United States. It's just not right...

[mediobogdum]

This type of thinking isnt new. Mutually assured destruction has always left a bad taste in the mouth of military planners. Star Wars was an early answer to the problem but never really got off of the ground. Our current missile defense system is a continuation of the same type of countmeasures. Military planners are supposed to be exploring all options all the time. Its up to our leaders to make sure our diplomacy is effective enough that it never comes to that. I sincerely hope this is not taken seriously as an option by the actual decision makers. As far as making a nuclear strike against a nation providing nuclear arms to terrorist it seems self defeating on the face of it. If there was even a shred of evidence i believe the rest of the world would land on the offender with both feet. A nuclear response by us would only reinforce the "Evil Imperialist Satan" image when thats the last thing we need. This is a threat, nothing more.

[Kanaric]

Looks like the military just wants to VERY BADLY drop the bomb. If anything its an incentive for terrorist groups to work on such a program, afterall if the US drops THE bomb the international consequences would be dire.

GJ for the military, once again, giving terrorists a win/win situation. They have, literally, the intellegence of **** throwing apes for creating this plan.

[danzig]

I dont see what the big fuss is, the policy seems clearly aimed at a specific threat and to put the gauntlet on the table so to speak to prevent any such action from occuring. If your Iran or some other country you'd have to consider the threat in any action YOU took. I mean sheesh we've heard rumblings from some Chinese officals any 'attack on chinese terrority' (which would include airplanes, ships etc) would allow them to response with nuclear weapons with regards to Taiwan, basically saying if the US attempted to help Taiwan in a conflict China would go nuclear. Now would they actually do it? Who knows most likely just talk/bluff to leave that level of uncertainly of will they wont they...much like this policy. Of course on these boards I fully expect people to give China the benfit of the doubt but not the US.

[Kanaric]

Even suggesting to terrorists, who dont care if they die anyways, that you would nuke them no matter what country they are in is an incentive to them. They can even carry out a plan, that they may even know wont work out, just to entice the government to drop a nuke which would irreperably damage the country's face value.

IMO this is either fake, word of mouth, or a joking suggestion.

edit: And BOY would it be funny if they were wrong about the WMDs as well.

[Paul9687]

Just 2 things,

1. This is to prevent terrorist nations from supplying other terrorists (who want to be treated as if they were covered under the Geneve Convention)

2. Not all nuclear weapons are capable of destroying a city the size of New York so a US nuclear attack doesn't have to obliterate an entire civilization.




As a matter of fact I have 1 more thing to say - - - The A-bombs in WWII saved countless American soldiers from being slautered by the last stand of the Japanese trying to defend their homes after attempting to build an empire and killing thousands in the process.

[danzig]

Even suggesting to terrorists, who dont care if they die anyways, that you would nuke them no matter what country they are in is an incentive to them. They can even carry out a plan, that they may even know wont work out, just to entice the government to drop a nuke which would irreperably damage the country's face value.

It isnt AIMED at terrorists, its aimed at any country that would provide material as a proxy with no finger prints. While the average brainwashed terrorist might not care whether they live or die their leaders sure seem to. You do realize the biggest fear for US mostly is not that Iran, NK or some other country would launch a nuclear strike on US or its allies...they are states they care mostly for their ability to continue to maintain their power so it would be suicidal but the threat is giving/selling material to people who will care it alot less obvious.

[Paul9687]

"It isnt AIMED at terrorists, its aimed at any country that would provide material as a proxy with no finger prints."

You repeated what I said with fancy words.....Im a simpleton going to college.....don't be mean

[Tom Paine]

I dont see what the big fuss is, the policy seems clearly aimed at a specific threat and to put the gauntlet on the table so to speak to prevent any such action from occuring. If your Iran or some other country you'd have to consider the threat in any action YOU took. I mean sheesh we've heard rumblings from some Chinese officals any 'attack on chinese terrority' (which would include airplanes, ships etc) would allow them to response with nuclear weapons with regards to Taiwan, basically saying if the US attempted to help Taiwan in a conflict China would go nuclear. Now would they actually do it? Who knows most likely just talk/bluff to leave that level of uncertainly of will they wont they...much like this policy. Of course on these boards I fully expect people to give China the benfit of the doubt but not the US.

Both must be bluffing, for a simple reason. MAD. In the China-US case, if China fires nukes the US has mre and better, and therefore wipes CHina from the face of the planet with a lot of pushes of various buttons.
In the casew of US-rogue states, a nation's heirarchy would all have to be insane to give nuks away before having their own nuclear arsenal. And guess what a nuclear launch on that nation does? Either disperses nukes into terrorist hands, or fires them at US and her allies. MAD... wonderful thing...

[sigh]

China most definetly lacks any capability to launch a nuke into the US. No MAD possible. Bush presses a button and China becomes a big crater.

[Tom Paine]

However it doesn't need to launch a nuke into the US. There are far mor subtle ways, eg terrorists and given that smuggling certainly exists, use the Mexian border to get it across with illegal immigrants, and to a certain place then person pushes button, bye-bye NY.

[sigh]

Yes, it needs to launch a nuke into the US. If it doesn't, all of them will be toast and the leaders will be assassinated.

[Tom Paine]

Yes. The US could theoretically do that, but not before plans for nuclear spread were put into effect because al you need to do is have them on a large number of cross-bordser transports et cetera and then release them. It isn't as hard as you might think, and it is far harder to bring down a government by assassination, through sheer numbers of people needing to be killed and problems of being caught at it... a casus belli, a loss of agents, and loss of credibility worldwide.

[Justinian]

Moved to the political mudpit.

[sigh]

Yes. The US could theoretically do that, but not before plans for nuclear spread were put into effect because al you need to do is have them on a large number of cross-bordser transports et cetera and then release them.

There was a good article by some big nuclear head honcho that basically said that the prez can press a button any time and launch nukes at predetermined targets. If smuggling a nuke into the US would be possible, Mr. bin Laden would have already done it.

It isn't as hard as you might think, and it is far harder to bring down a government by assassination, through sheer numbers of people needing to be killed and problems of being caught at it... a casus belli, a loss of agents, and loss of credibility worldwide.

It's only been done a few times in history, right?