The U.S. government has revealed for the first time that a pre-emptive nuclear strike could be used against terrorists who threatened America with weapons of mass destruction. The discussion paper was accidentally posted at a Pentagon Website over the weekend, but has since been removed. The complete .pdf file can be downloaded here.

Washington Times:

A Pentagon planning document being updated to reflect the doctrine of pre-emption declared by President Bush in 2002 envisions the use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies.

International reaction toward the country or nonstate entity that first employs weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is an important political consideration....Nevertheless, while the belligerent that initiates nuclear warfare may find itself the target of world condemnation, no customary or conventional international law prohibits nations from employing nuclear weapons in armed conflict.

The document uses this figure to show the mix of nuclear and non-nuclear weapons that could be used in a premptive strike.

Throughout the document, the notion of deterrance is discussed. We have discussed targetting Mecca as a nuclear deterrance extensively here, here, and here. The document addresses whether or not non-state actors (ie, terrorists) are actually capable of being deterred:

Deterrence assumes an opposing actorÂ’s leadership proceeds according to the logic of self-interest, although this self-interest is viewed from differing cultural perspectives and the dictates of given situations. This will be particularly difficult with nonstate actors who employ or attempt to gain use of WMD. Here deterrence may be directed at states that support their efforts as well as the terrorist organization itself. However, the continuing proliferation of WMD along with the means to deliver them increases the probability that someday a state/nonstate actor nation/terrorist may, through miscalculation or by deliberate choice, use those weapons. In such cases, deterrence, even based on the threat of massive destruction, may fail and the United States must be prepared to use nuclear weapons if necessary. A major challenge of deterrence is therefore to cnvincingly convey both will and capability to the opposing actor.

The above image seems to address all of the major issues involved with deterring terrorists from using WMD against the US. Perhaps the greatest miscalculation that terrorists make is that the use of a WMD against the U.S. would lead to a failure of our resolve. For instance, al Qaeda took fleeing Somalia as a sign of weakness. Our tepid responses to the U.S.S. Cole incident and the embassy bombings in Africa also sent the same signal.

Terrorist networks closely monitor U.S. public opinion on the war in Iraq. Loss of support for that war sends a signal to them that the U.S. is not willing to suffer many casualties before giving up. Thus, in the eyes of the terrorists, the U.S. is weak. If we actually were to leave Iraq, now, then that signal would be greatly amplified. Thus, resolution in Iraq might also be a deterrent to our enemies using WMD against us.

The document continues with discussion of the possibility of terrorists using WMD:

There are numerous nonstate organizations (terrorist, criminal) and about thirty nations with WMD 9 programs, including many rogue [strike is in original] regional states. Further, the possible use of WMD by nonstate actors either independently or as sponsored by an adversarial state, remain a significant proliferation concern.

1) Future adversaries may conclude they cannot defeat US military forces and thus, if they choose war, may reason their only chance of victory is through WMD use.

In discussing when nuclear weapons might be employed, at least one example is given involving terrorists:

To respond to adversary-supplied WMD use by surrogates against US and multinational forces or civilian populations.

There is much more in the document. I encourage you to read it and leave your comments.

Posted by: Rusty at 12:58 PM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 838 words, total size 7 kb.

1 "Oh Sayeed! Look! The sky is so bright tonight. Ohhh shabash what a sight!....oh....my skin is itchy....and burning.... Sayeed what is that smell....why are your robes on fire?"

Posted by: Filthy Allah at September 12, 2005 01:27 PM (5ceWd)

2 Let's see, we should start with Damascus, Riyad, Teheran, Baghdad, and Islamabad, just to get their attention, then move on to second-tier cities and work our way down. Oh, and Detroit, can't forget that one!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 12, 2005 02:13 PM (0yYS2)

3 The document decribes Iran and North Korea to the letter if read correctly. They left quite a bit open for individual interpretation. Plus, it's always been the US's prerogative to bust a cap in their enemy's ass without a vote or even the general consensus of the American public. I personally think it's beautiful. Kind of brings a tear to my eye. Been nice knowing ya fellas!

Posted by: elliott at September 12, 2005 02:15 PM (XlQVK)

4 I am assuming the mullahs in Iran got their copy by FedEx.

Posted by: From the Swamp at September 12, 2005 02:20 PM (7evkT)

5 HA! About time - like we hadn't thought that already. Cindy

Posted by: firstbrokenangel at September 12, 2005 02:52 PM (jHRvj)

6 Actually I got a hold of this document two days ago, and I would have blogged it, but I fell asleep reading it! I don't know how you all stayed awake to read the whole thing. Maybe you didn't. Anyway, the response from al-Qaeda seems to be to threaten a chemical attack. They're definitely testing U.S. resolve now.

Posted by: IO ERROR at September 12, 2005 02:54 PM (48Hov)

7 This is not anything new. While this may be the first time the actual discussion paper has been seen, it has always been the discreet policy of the US that any means necessary will be used to stop a WMD attack, or to respond to such an attack. Of course, the shitheads on the left will try to spin this as some new dangerous policy that has the World on the brink of nuclear war. Their allies in the MSM will aid the lefties by giving them publicity. THIS IS WHAT EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW! The greatest danger to world peace and civiliztion as we know it is Islam. If you are a moderate Muslim now is the time for you to speak up, as it soon will be too late. Islam has to be remade, or it will surely take all of us back into the dark ages. The amount of suffering and death and disease is too staggering to comtemplate. The fate of mankind hangs in the balance. I mean no hate or disrespect, but you Muslims need to look inward and see if this is what you want. A world without any modern conveniences, medicines, air travel, electricity, automobiles, computers, and just about everything else you can think of. The city of Rome was not destroyed by barbarians until the aquaducts that brought water into Rome was destroyed. No one knew how to rebuild them, and the population melted away from 1.5 million to about 10 thousand.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 12, 2005 02:56 PM (q9AWQ)

8 IO, Rusty thinks this kind of stuff is sexy. Thankfully. Nukes should be on the table, given the fact that these folks - Islamofascists - haven't backed off in rhetoric one iota since we returned the favor of declaring war. I'm glad the powers-that-be have let their "slip" show. Having nukes on the table should and hopefully will make the necessity to use them a bit more remote, which is a good thing. Since people on the left want to "retro"-fit this war, maybe it's time we agree. Let's just aim for WWII rather than Vietnam.

Posted by: tee bee at September 12, 2005 03:51 PM (q1JHF)

9 Mark my words: This will be the decision that eventually starts WWIII. The first ever serious attempt to justify using weapons of mass destruction as an instant retaliation, can't be a good thing for anyone, except a trivial joy for bitter people suffering from a deadly illness. If a WMD is used, it is suddenly ok for everyone to use two or three. You saw what happened with nuclear testing. Everyone figured 'Hell, if they got one we need to get one too and let 'em know we got it.' and now even countries with people who seriously believe in reincarnation got them. Domino-effect... Don't you go knocking down the first block.

Posted by: A Finn at September 12, 2005 04:01 PM (eFE81)

10 Hey Finn, This might be a surprise, but we've always had a 1st strike policy with the Soviets, even though their official policy was that they would never conduct a 1st strike on us. Even though we maintained a 1st strike policy thoughout the cold war, we never did. The point is that this really isn't anything new. Pre-emptive is just another catch phrase for 1st strike. The only real difference is that in the past, we have targeted nations, now we are willing to target groups. However I severely question any politicians willingness to ok the use of Nukes. I don't think that even GW has balls that are bigger than Harry Trumans.

Posted by: Sgt Beavis at September 12, 2005 04:10 PM (XCqS+)

11 Sgt Beavis is dead on. The idea behind having a pre-emptive first strike policy is that this will deter the actual use of those weapons.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at September 12, 2005 04:29 PM (JQjhA)

12 Mr. A Finn, Can't you read? This is not anything new. You are sounding like one of the dumn asses from the Left. This has always been the policy of the US.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 12, 2005 04:29 PM (q9AWQ)

13 And by the way, Mr. A Finn, World War III was started on September 11, 2001. By the very people you seem to want to protect.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 12, 2005 04:33 PM (q9AWQ)

14 I think Finn's argument is wrong, but within the bounds of discourse. His is a strategic argument, that the strategy is ill suited to the ends of winning. He might be wrong, but he's not trying to protect our enemies.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at September 12, 2005 05:55 PM (JQjhA)

15 A nazi ally in the Second World War, a Soviet patsy ever since... and a Finn thinks he has the right to criticize.

Posted by: DaveP. at September 12, 2005 06:21 PM (6iy97)

16 The First Strike policy is nothing new. The fact is, if we had to use nukes (first strike or not) we would use them. I would say this was slipped out as a warning to states like Iran and North Korea of the consequinces of giving Nuclear, Biological, Chemical or Radiological weapons to groups like Al Queda. Personally I am glad this was slipped out. With North Korea and Iran resuming their nuclear activities and the obvious fact that AL Queda would love to get its hands on WMDs. Overwhelming force is the only thing that the Koranimals understand.

Posted by: Alex at September 12, 2005 06:54 PM (7wMwj)

17 I wonder if it really "slipped out"? It seems to me kinda like a gunfighter casually pulling his coat back to show his Colt Peacemaker.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 12, 2005 07:13 PM (0yYS2)

18 Jesusland, you are wrong World War III was declared the day those crazy Iranians stormed the embassy and the hostage crisis began...

Posted by: Henry at September 12, 2005 07:47 PM (NdKxH)

19 If they decide to huke the terrorists could we get SEAN PENN to do the DR STRANGELOVE rotine? just like what SLIM PICKEN DID ride it al the way down you greenhorn BLA-WHOOM

Posted by: sandpiper at September 12, 2005 08:15 PM (AFJdY)

20 Last words of the Arab Man On The Street: "ABDUL WHAT'S THAT FLA -- ............"

Posted by: Macker at September 12, 2005 09:33 PM (2GH66)

21 The first ever serious attempt to actually justify using WMDs... No-one justified anything during the Cold War, that was an inevitable 'shit happens' situation of 'if they might, we will, screw the consequences'. A justification makes it ok to use 'em, so there's nothing but the (0,1*lightspeed/lenght of electric wire between launch codes and missiles) slowing down using it. In the Cold War it was at least a moral issue, with the hippies and uncertainty and everything.

Posted by: A Finn at September 13, 2005 04:21 AM (cWMi4)

22 Oh yeah, and DaveP., make two picks: 1. a) An ally all the way from pre-Christian times all the way to this day, with only a few minor clashes which can be blamed on another country b) An enemy all the way from pre-Christian times, 2-10 wars with it every century, one of those just a year ago, in absolute chaos and with a piece of paper that justifies taking you over 2. a) A previously isolated country that has suddenly taken interrest in world politics after destroying the ally from pre-Christian times twice. Keeps shoving itself in your face, practically begging for recognition and attention, makes demands, tries to brainwash your people with a media overflow, gets in a coalition to stop you from getting into international organisations, openly states that your continent will be a nuke landing site once a war starts. b) A previously hostile country now clearly learnt it's lesson, not making any demands after the big war is over, offers shelter from the other one in exchange for immunity in world politics. Doesn't try to make you do anything, doesn't meddle in internal affairs, doesn't even mind the fact that their leader party is illegal in your country and that your country makes twice more money from the trade between countries, as long you just act as a negotiator between your continent and them.

Posted by: A Finn at September 13, 2005 04:40 AM (cWMi4)

23 The mind boggles! Rusty, are you really a professor or just a propaganda merchant for the more hawkish members of the Republican Party. We need to be told!

Posted by: conor at September 13, 2005 06:55 AM (4PPsx)

24 Screw nucular bushipig plans

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at September 13, 2005 08:29 AM (VhNDM)

25 DSM, don't think you should be the one to say that, since those things might be dropping right next door to your house, if you're in Korea like someone said you are.

Posted by: A Finn at September 13, 2005 01:35 PM (lGolT)

26 Seriously, who thinks the US would ever nuke anyone ever again? Nuking isn't exactly a precise thing.... you can't take out a warehouse without taking out the city that contains it along with all the innocent people living in that city. No one here is crazy enough to do that, except maybe me, which is why I don't run for president. Hell, to be honest, I miss the days when we used to level cities. It's a hell of a lot easier to fight house to house when the highest rooftop is six inches off the ground. I just don't think we'd do that again.

Posted by: Slice at September 13, 2005 03:00 PM (ZSDaZ)

27 If the majority of the people gets absolutely furious about something, then using nukes becomes a likely option, but that would take a foreign invasion or a series of smaller things like extreme weather combined with terrorist attack and death of government members, with others gloating about all of 'em. So it will take a while unless someone of Arab lineage shoots Bush in New Orleans.

Posted by: A Finn at September 14, 2005 02:35 AM (cWMi4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment