Introduction
The World is at a Dangerous Crossroads.
Nuclear war threatens the future of humanity. We are no longer dealing with a hypothetical scenario. The threat of World War III is real.
Successive US administrations have contemplated the use of nuclear weapons directed against both nuclear as well as non-nuclear states. This article focusses on nuclear war
In 2001, The Pentagon under the presidency of George W. Bush had envisaged a new generation of bunker buster tactical nuclear weapons for use in the Middle East and Central Asia against “non-nuclear states”:
“Military officials and leaders of America’s nuclear weapon laboratories [had] urged the US to develop a new generation of precision low-yield nuclear weapons… which could be used in conventional conflicts with third-world nations.” (Federation of American Scientists, 2001, emphasis added)
As revealed by William Arkin in early 2002 prior to the release of the historic 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) , later approved by the U.S. Congress:
“The Bush administration, in a secret policy review… [had] ordered the Pentagon to draft contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, naming not only Russia and the “axis of evil” Iraq, Iran, and North Korea but also China, Libya and Syria. (See
In addition, the U.S. Defense Department has been told to prepare for the possibility that nuclear weapons may be required in some future Arab-Israeli crisis. And, it is to develop plans for using nuclear weapons to retaliate against chemical or biological attacks, as well as “surprising military developments” of an unspecified nature.
I should mention that the preemptive nuclear war doctrine formulated in the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) prevails under the Biden administration. Nuclear war against “non-nuclear states” in the Middle East is on the drawing board of the Pentagon.
We are at a dangerous crossroads: The rules and guidelines governing the use nuclear weapons have been “liberalized” (i.e. “deregulated” in relation to those prevailing during the Cold War era).
The new doctrine states that Command, Control, and Coordination (CCC) regarding the use of nuclear weapons should be “flexible”, allowing geographic combat commanders (e.g Three Star Generals) to decide if and when to use of nuclear weapons. What this signifies is that tactical nuclear weapons have were redefined in 2002 as conventional weapons:
Known in official Washington, as “Joint Publication 3-12”, the new nuclear doctrine (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations , (DJNO) (March 2005)) calls for “integrating conventional and nuclear attacks” under a unified and “integrated” Command and Control (C2).
It largely describes war planning as a management decision-making process, where military and strategic objectives are to be achieved, through a mix of instruments, with little concern for the resulting loss of human life.
Military planning focuses on “the most efficient use of force”, i.e. an optimal arrangement of different weapons systems to achieve stated military goals. In this context, nuclear and conventional weapons are considered to be “part of the tool box”, from which military commanders can pick and choose the instruments that they require in accordance with “evolving circumstances” in the “war theatre”.
Author’s note:
Having examined the various facets of US nuclear doctrine for more than 20 years, I have become increasingly aware that the danger of nuclear war is real.
In researching these issues, I have attempted to present the documented facts without drawing simple conclusions as to the potential use of nuclear weapons against non nuclear states.
It is my sincere hope that this article will contribute to an understanding of US nuclear doctrine as well as a greater awareness of the impending dangers of nuclear war.
Michel Chossudovsky, September 9, 2022
No comments:
Post a Comment