The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.Put me down as "against it."
The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.
At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States would "respond with overwhelming force" to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces or allies, and said "all options" would be available to the president.
After the medics get your hearts started again, I'll continue.
Everybody okay? Good...
A preemptive surgical airstrike is one thing, a preemptive nuclear strike is another. Precision isn't something that nuclear devices are particularly known for and the collateral damage from such a usage would be entirely unacceptable. I don't think the death of innocent millions is a reasonable outcome for the failure of the State Department or the so-called "world community" to persuade a rogue nation in to not developing these weapons.
I believe the President should put a stop to this sort of talk immediately. As a strategy, preemptive nuclear strikes at installations building weapons of mass destruction fail to punish those responsible for the decision to build them.
If your goal is to stop rogue nations from building nuclear weapons what you need to do is establish TREADSTONE and rescind all executive orders on the assassination of foreign leaders. Our enemies are not playing by these rules, why should we?
2:15 PM Update
For those of you who may be thinking that our enemy isn't targetting leaders, try again.9/13: Mark's Remarks
I must disagree with Matt on this one. Having this option on the table should give rogue nations and leaders pause. Of course, thanks to the Clinton Administration, two chief rogue nations, China and North Korea, now have nuclear weapons technology, so that will not be as much of a deterrent.
However, the option of having pre-emptive nuclear strike is a precaution, and it tells nations to be on notice, that we are no longer going to respond with potshots at Camel tents.
For someone who advocated nuking the desert and making it glass, I find it strange that Matt would come out against this one.
Ronald Reagan used the policy of pre-emptive nuclear strikes as a tool to hold off the Soviets and force them into submission.
We should have all the options on the table. To not do so tells our enemies how far they can push us and get away with. By having this option on the table, it draws a clear line.
