Preemptive Nuclear Attack: What Are the Implications?

[russ_watters]

I could see deterrence with respect to Russia or China or some other state with territory (and perhaps people), but terrorists know no borders and are not entirely rational. So I don't see this as a deterrent, but more as another belligerent statement to the world.

You're right, if the policy is just about terrorism, terrorists won't necessarily be deterred by it. But at the very least, the policy is partially aimed at countries like Iran and North Korea.

As we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq, with a large amount of collateral damage, that being thousands of innocents killed by errant artillery, bombs and mislead fire, the Bush administration doesn't seem too interested in protecting the innocent.

Define "large". The collateral damage from those two wars was about the lowest its ever been in the history of warfare for those types of conflicts.

I'm a bit confused as to the first link's statement that nukes, in "one scenario", might be used against WMD arsenals that are about to be use against the US, and, " Another is where nuclear weapons could be used against biological weapons that an enemy was close to using...". Is this not the same scenario?

Just a general fyi, since the US doesn't use chemical or biological weapons, as a matter of policy, all 3 types of wmd are treated the same and the response to all 3 is nuclear weapons.

Will we actually allow commanders to request and carry nuclear weapons? Would we argue that they carry them as a scare tactic? Will we use them, as a "scare tactic?"

Certian units may carry nuclear weapons, but local commanders do not have the ability to arm the weapons. The fear you are expressing is a common one, but unwarranted. Quite simply, the use of nuclear weapons does not work the way you fear that it could.

 

[loseyourname]

No, it is not ever right to use them.

The only time that you can use them (even though it is "wrong") is in retaliation for a strike by the enemy. The reason you can use them at this point is because you are "in the right" globally speaking.

Even under my hypothetical scenario, where we had reason beyond reasonable doubt to believe (say, a direct threat had been made and satellites showed they were fueling) that a nuclear device was about to be fired on a city of millions of people and hundreds of billions of dollars worth of infrastructure, you don't think it would be better to fire first? Would you wait for Tokyo to be competely destroyed and then fire back?

 

[pattylou]

This policy is targetting entities that only have a small cache of weapons that can all be destroyed in one strike.

I thought one criticism of our policy is precisely that it has de-centralized terror networks, thus the chances of taking out an entire cache in one strike seems unlikely to me. ?

 

[cronxeh]

considering the military's reaction on 9-11-05 I would say they won't only wait for Tokyo to be destroyed but would actually wait for the results from the detonation site to determine whose uranium exactly it was, and then they'll have a little meeting in the war room, take a quicky poll on CNN and, after some congressional debate, they'll fire z missiles!

 

[vanesch]

In fact, aside from them owing us debts in the 1830s, and the Iraq War, we've always been on good terms with the French.

And in the last case, they simply wanted to stop you from doing something stupid :-)

 

[vanesch]

I thought one criticism of our policy is precisely that it has de-centralized terror networks, thus the chances of taking out an entire cache in one strike seems unlikely to me. ?

That's why they need VERY BIG BOMBS. In fact, the best way to get rid of terrorism is to blow up the entire planet. It is a failsafe strategy.

 

[loseyourname]

I thought one criticism of our policy is precisely that it has de-centralized terror networks, thus the chances of taking out an entire cache in one strike seems unlikely to me. ?

The idea isn't to take out the entire network or even all of their weaponry. It's to take out all of their nuclear weaponry. It's not likely that they would be able to acquire more than one or two. Now please, don't approach this just thinking of a way to argue against me. Just consider the situation I'm talking about. Either some terrorist network or rogue nation has acquired nuclear capability, perhaps taken a single silo, and is preparing to fire on a major city. Should we not take them out first? I'm not talking about anything beyond that. This strategy really wouldn't even work against anything but a potential missile attack. But even if there is only an extremely limited range of possible events in which this contingency plan might become usable, would you not, as a military commander, still want to have this contingency plan in place?

 

[edward]

The idea hopefully is just a scare tactic. Iran I presume, is the country we are trying to frighten.

OK so scare tactic is a much too simple term. Let me rephrase:

Rumsfeld wants to use the psychological advantage of threatening a nuclear pre-emptive strike to initiate a weapons of mass destruction aversion therapy in the government another country.

 

[pattylou]

I think I would feel fine with the plan if I trusted the people running the operation.

So, although as a military commander I might want to have this option available --- As a human being I think it is an unthinkable strategy. Any consideration of the ramifications of the strategy shows how flawed it is.

And, since I don't trust the motivations of our administration, I think they are particularly ill-suited to the defense of the policy, that you are offering.

 

[pattylou]

Certian units may carry nuclear weapons, but local commanders do not have the ability to arm the weapons. The fear you are expressing is a common one, but unwarranted. Quite simply, the use of nuclear weapons does not work the way you fear that it could.

Your claim is not what I read in one of the reports. The claim I read is that commanders will be able to request bunker busters and then be granted the option to use them.

 

[faust9]

Wow, we release a strategy of pre-emptive nuclear attack one day then shake our swords at Syria the next http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2005/09/12/afx2219227.html These two couldn't be related in any way could they?

 

[vanesch]

Rumsfeld wants to use the psychological advantage of threatening a nuclear pre-emptive strike to initiate a weapons of mass destruction aversion therapy in the government another country.

And an opportunity for a terrorist like OBL. If only he could now trick the US in striking, say, Iran or so, he'd achieve even better his goal of isolating the US worldwide, and get the muslim world completely to his hand.
But he doesn't even need to do so. It is sufficient that many muslims feel themselves threatened a bit more by the above threats for them to run even more massively in his arms. You would really get the impression that Rumsfeld is on OBL's payroll.

 

[Tarheel]

What everyone has lost sight of is that Gee Dub, Our President :yuck: Talks with GOD every single day, THEREFORE, the possibility of this administration making an error of any kind is ZERO.

So don't worry... The creator is on our side?

 

[edward]

We couldn't nuke anything in Syria without exposing out troops in Iraq to the fallout. The first strike scenario as I see it is aimed at Iran.

Any terrorist weapons would most likely be moved around, especially now that we have warned them ahead of time. :grumpy:

There is also a possibility that terrorists could construct various types of WMD in the basement of the house next door to me.

 

[faust9]

We couldn't nuke anything in Syria without exposing out troops in Iraq to the fallout. The first strike scenario as I see it is aimed at Iran.

Any terrorist weapons would most likely be moved around, especially now that we have warned them ahead of time. :grumpy:

There is also a possibility that terrorists could construct various types of WMD in the basement of the house next door to me.

A little fallout is good for the skin. You get a nice alpha tan... Also, my recolection of geography must be skewed because I though Syria was to the left and Iran to the north, so an attack on Iran would possibly expose our troops to fallout... In either case the type of weapon used would dictate the amount and type of fallout.

 

[pattylou]

http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2005/09/12/afx2219227.html

:yuck: :yuck:

So many quotes from the ambassador to Syria... are so stupid.

'It shouldn't be that hard, if you see young men between the ages of 18 and 28, who are coming without a return ticket, landing in Damascus airport to control that.'

This doesn't strike me as a good rule of thumb to use, if you're trying to limit recruits from coming into the country. The ambassador is being just a wee bit simplistic.

'As during the Soviet era, Soviet communism was the defining of our time, now it's terrorism and extremism that's the defining challenge of our time,' he said.

Hmmm... Seems to me some men flew some airplanes into some buildings, killed thousands of people and the world united. There were no WMD involved, no grand plan for world domination, just a high tech prank that worked and we suffered. If terrorism is growing, it doesn't seem to be in response to 9/11. 9/11 saw the world unite with the US. It seems instead, that if terrorism is indeed the defining feature of our time, that we have to hold our *response* to 9/11 responsible.

'Our patience is running out with Syria,' Khalilzad told a press conference. When asked how the US could respond, he said 'all options are on the table', including military.

'I would not like to elaborate more, they should understand what I mean,' he added.

Oh goody. This should help.

 

[pattylou]

We couldn't nuke anything in Syria without exposing out troops in Iraq to the fallout. The first strike scenario as I see it is aimed at Iran.

Don't we have troops just about, well, *everywhere?* I mean, in enough places that fallout could threaten some of them somewhere ----The idea that we wouldn't strike if our troops would be threatened by fallout seems questionable, to me.

 

[2CentsWorth]

So, although as a military commander I might want to have this option available --- As a human being I think it is an unthinkable strategy. Any consideration of the ramifications of the strategy shows how flawed it is.

Preemptive strike is a questionable policy no matter who promotes it. But I agree that this administration has already had their turn at this and they were horribly wrong--no more turns for them.

Also, my recolection of geography must be skewed because I though Syria was to the left and Iran to the north, so an attack on Iran would possibly expose our troops to fallout... In either case the type of weapon used would dictate the amount and type of fallout.

Correct.

Hey, here's an idea. What if the US worked toward normalizing relations with other countries, including Iran and maybe even N. Korea?

 

[pattylou]

Even under my hypothetical scenario, where we had reason beyond reasonable doubt to believe (say, a direct threat had been made and satellites showed they were fueling) that a nuclear device was about to be fired on a city of millions of people and hundreds of billions of dollars worth of infrastructure, you don't think it would be better to fire first? Would you wait for Tokyo to be competely destroyed and then fire back?

I don't see that eventuality playing out. Let's say we had such intelligence - the kind you describe. In that case, we would have tremendous support from all over. With that support, we may decide to strike with a nuke first, but (1) doesn't this seem a bit risky - mightn't you detonate the bomb you are targeting and cause as much damage as would have happened anyway and (2) with such broad support, other options would probably be tenable.

If there were some historical example of this scenario that people bring up in the "preemption" debate, I'd consider it. The scenario just seems incredibly far fetched. And we know that we have trigger-happy guys in charge at the moment, so they wouldn't *wait* for that kind of intelligence. They'd go in on marginal intelligence, and even beef it up (or yellow cake it up as the case may be) -- they've lost any right, in my mind, to make the sorts of claims they make about who is a threat and who isn't.

Under a different president, one I believed and trusted, I might agree with you. Such a president would not be eager to arm his troops to the teeth - he'd be more interested in increasing world peace through alliance and cooperation.

 

[kyleb]

Preemptive strike is a questionable policy no matter who promotes it. But I agree that this administration has already had their turn at this and they were horribly wrong--no more turns for them.

Preemption has it's place, but consider this:

‘You and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase immediate threat. I didn't, the president didn't. And it's become kind of folklore that that's what's happened."-Donald Rumsfeld

Not only did they do a poor job in carrying out their attack but they don't even understand what constitutes justifcation for a preemtive strike. Obviously they these some of the last people we should trust to develop more efficent means to carry out such attacks.

 

[Art]

And an opportunity for a terrorist like OBL. If only he could now trick the US in striking, say, Iran or so, he'd achieve even better his goal of isolating the US worldwide, and get the muslim world completely to his hand.
But he doesn't even need to do so. It is sufficient that many muslims feel themselves threatened a bit more by the above threats for them to run even more massively in his arms. You would really get the impression that Rumsfeld is on OBL's payroll.

The military are not looking to develop these weapons as a mere threat. They want them because the targets they envisage attacking are immune to conventional bombs and so the most economical way to meet their objectives in terms of men and materials is to use nuclear bombs. Without a doubt if congress gives the military the funding to develop these weapons once they have them they will use them.

I see two major downsides to this strategy; first America's enemies will be far more likely to initiate a nuclear strike before America can destroy their arsenals and second; be in no doubt if Bush or any future administration for that matter uses pre-emptive nuclear strikes against any country they will succeed at a stroke in uniting the entire world - Against America.

 

[Yaaks]

I don't think its necessary for America to have a pre-emptive strike policy. They have more fire power(conventional) than rest of the countries put togeather...

 

[Yaaks]

welll...tht was after the post USSR era...

 

[edward]

I don't think its necessary for America to have a pre-emptive strike policy. They have more fire power(conventional) than rest of the countries put togeather...

We also still have more nukes, more nerve gas, and more biological weapons than could ever be used because no one would be left alive to use them. At the end of the cold war the USA had enough WMD to kill the population of the world 10 times over.

 

[LURCH]

Nerve gas and biological weapons? Can you tell me where they are, or provide a link or other refference? I'm not going to go get them and release them into a convention of Amway salesman in a hotel lobby in Walla Walla on the 14^th of next month or nothin'. Nah, it ain't like that at all; I'm just...uh...curious, y'know?

 

[SOS2008]

We also still have more nukes, more nerve gas, and more biological weapons than could ever be used because no one would be left alive to use them. At the end of the cold war the USA had enough WMD to kill the population of the world 10 times over.

Sounds like a preemptive first strike is in order! ...Oh wait, you said we, meaning the U.S.

Too bad the media is reporting only about Katrina these days. No one is discussing this, or UN reforms, or whether Dubya has the audacity to attack Iran and/or Syria without officially declaring war with congressional approval (I'm certain he won't try going to the UN again). If Dubya takes military action against another country in the Middle East, why do I suspect there are still plenty of Americans who would support it?

 

[russ_watters]

Hey, here's an idea. What if the US worked toward normalizing relations with other countries, including Iran and maybe even N. Korea?

What do "normal relations" with a psychopath look like? Il is like Stalin, only crazy.

 

[SOS2008]

What do "normal relations" with a psychopath look like? Il is like Stalin, only crazy.

Perhaps, but how would you classify Saddam?

 

[loseyourname]

I don't see that eventuality playing out.

I don't either, but that's not the point. The military needs contingency plans for everything, even things that have very little probability of ever occurring. They can't afford to be caught off-guard should such a situation arise. They also don't have time to debate should such a situation arise. The debate takes place now, so that should the time come, they know exactly what to do and execute pre-packaged orders like mindless robots.

Let's say we had such intelligence - the kind you describe. In that case, we would have tremendous support from all over. With that support, we may decide to strike with a nuke first, but (1) doesn't this seem a bit risky - mightn't you detonate the bomb you are targeting and cause as much damage as would have happened anyway and (2) with such broad support, other options would probably be tenable.

1) When you're already detonating a nuclear weapon over a site, detonating another nuclear weapon at the same site would not cause any additional damage. Actually, I suppose there would be additional fallout, but it wouldn't make the blast any larger. [Note: I think this is the case, but if someone knows better, please correct me.]

2) What other option would there be? When the firing of weapons upon you is imminent, you either kill or be killed. I'm not talking about an Iraq scenario, where we have options like continued inspections, sanctions, or even assassination. I'm talking about some madman fueling up his missiles that are targeted at a major city. You're pretty much out of options at that point, which is the whole reason for this contingency plan. It's an absolute last resort.

If there were some historical example of this scenario that people bring up in the "preemption" debate, I'd consider it.

Don't you think a huge part of the reason we were so caught off-guard by 9-11 and Katrina was that nothing of that caliber had ever occurred before? We can't afford to plan only for those situations that have already played out in the past. I wouldn't be surprised if someone in the 50s seriously planned a US response to extraterrestrial invasion. We need to be prepared for anything.

Under a different president, one I believed and trusted, I might agree with you.

Sorry Patty, but I think that under a president who shows such poor leadership skills in his responses to crises, planning ahead and not having to think on the spot is even more crucial. The thought of Bush with his hand over the big red button may not be the most pleasant, but it beats the thought of Bush sitting in his office trying to figure out what to do as a nuclear strike is imminent. The less thinking he has to do in the moment, the better.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Let's say we had such intelligence - the kind you describe. In that case, we would have tremendous support from all over. With that support, we may decide to strike with a nuke first, but (1) doesn't this seem a bit risky - mightn't you detonate the bomb you are targeting and cause as much damage as would have happened anyway and (2) with such broad support, other options would probably be tenable.

1) When you're already detonating a nuclear weapon over a site, detonating another nuclear weapon at the same site would not cause any additional damage. Actually, I suppose there would be additional fallout, but it wouldn't make the blast any larger. [Note: I think this is the case, but if someone knows better, please correct me.]

As far as I understand it blowing up a nuke will not make it blow up itself. Nukes aren't triggered the same way regular bombs are. The triggering mechanism is a very precise and delicate operation that would be destroyed by an explosion not set off by it. Wiht out the triggering mechanism the radioactive material will not blow up but obvioulsy could be spread around by the explosion.
And I think that the matter of using nukes against biologicals has a lot to do with the fact that this would render them impotent (hopefully). Even as the biologicals are being set off in an area a decent sized nuclear explosion may be sufficient to destroy the biologicals before they can spread far enough to do significant damage. Using most any other form of weapon against such a target would only create more of a problem by spreading the biologicals about. So in this case nukes are a pretty good idea if such a threat is in fact eminent since there is virtually nothing else we would be able to do.

 

[loseyourname]

And I think that the matter of using nukes against biologicals has a lot to do with the fact that this would render them impotent (hopefully). Even as the biologicals are being set off in an area a decent sized nuclear explosion may be sufficient to destroy the biologicals before they can spread far enough to do significant damage. Using most any other form of weapon against such a target would only create more of a problem by spreading the biologicals about. So in this case nukes are a pretty good idea if such a threat is in fact eminent since there is virtually nothing else we would be able to do.

Now that you mention it, I think that scenario played out in several biological disaster movies that came out around the time of the big Ebola outbreaks. Some virus was threatening to spread to the entire country (or world, depending on the ambitions of the filmmaker) and the president makes the tough decision to nuke the affected region before that can happen. Of course, the hero always saves the day by coming in with an antidote right before they do this.

 

[pattylou]

Well, I got to say I'm not really convinced by the arguments pro- this policy. But for the sake of argument, if we were to accept those arguments the question of whether such a policy actually spurs proliferation hasn't been addressed, though SOS mentioned it and it's in the articles as well. Since we're talking about doing this because terrorists *might* have WMD, then it seems that basic human response is to arm yourself to face your threat. So, to any opponent to whom we are a threat, additional arming on their part would be a likely outcome.

It's just nuts, to my way of thinking.

 

[Skyhunter]

Was anyone paying attention before 9-11?

This is nothing new. They have been working on this policy since they got into office.

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/spurring_nukes.htm

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/12/07/MNG5Q3GH941.DTL

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/npr.htm

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/president-bushs-nuclear-weapons-policy-illogical-ineffective-and-dangerous.html

Will Rumsfeld sign it?

Of course he will. He wrote it.

 

[Skyhunter]

Sorry Patty, but I think that under a president who shows such poor leadership skills in his responses to crises, planning ahead and not having to think on the spot is even more crucial. The thought of Bush with his hand over the big red button may not be the most pleasant, but it beats the thought of Bush sitting in his office trying to figure out what to do as a nuclear strike is imminent. The less thinking he has to do in the moment, the better.

Bush wants to use nukes and he will. He will find a reason just like he did for Iraq.

Ask him about blowing up frogs, I am sure he will have some plausible excuse.

 

[SOS2008]

Bush wants to use nukes and he will. He will find a reason just like he did for Iraq.

Ask him about blowing up frogs, I am sure he will have some plausible excuse.

Talk about someone who is mentally unstable...

And aside from timelines, proliferation, etc., NO this is not just contingency planning. This is saber rattling, and a dangerous policy. Bush's mentality is "either the world is with me or I'll blow it up."