Preemptive Nuclear Strike?

[China]

New Pentagon draft spells out preemptive nuclear strikes

WASHINGTON The U-S is considering rewriting its nuclear doctrine for the age of terrorism.

A Pentagon planning document spells out America's willingness to use nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike if terrorists threaten the U-S or its allies with weapons of mass destruction.

President Bush stated such a policy three years ago, and a draft of it is on the Pentagon's Web site.

The draft says weapons of mass destruction are proliferating, increasing the possibility they might be used by even a non-state group. And it notes that could happen on purpose or through miscalculation.

In such situations, the draft says deterrence might fail and the U-S would have to be prepared to use nuclear weapons if necessary.

The draft notes that any such attack would require "explicit orders from the president."

[wskin44]

Let's not tell Nelms about this.

[dfitzo53]

Is that really the best way of dealing with this? Don't we have more precise weapons available at our disposal? I don't know, I'm just asking...

[Johnny Punani2]

It's Brunell's fault...

[Kilmer17]

Havent we ALWAYS maintained that possibility?

[Spaceman Spiff]

It's Brunell's fault...

No, RAMSEYS! :nana:

[China]

Havent we ALWAYS maintained that possibility?

I would think so, but in todays PC climate Americans don't wan't to be seen as a "bully" so this may come as a shock to some people. They want to be reactive rather than proactive.

That being said, I can only think that there would have to be a very high known threat to the US (e.g., positive evidence that Bin Laden/Al Qaeda has a nuke and plans to use it on the US) for us to take such action.

[Destino]

Let's be honest, if the President decided that a nuke was needed it would be used. The debate would take place after the fact. Be it written or not.

[TheREALJBird]

Havent we ALWAYS maintained that possibility?

ZING!!! man it's been too long since it's been said :laugh:

[wskin44]

Actually I believe that official U.S. policy is that we only go nuclear if we are hit with nuclear weapons first. It was adopted and made public back in the cold war days with Russia to try to get them to chill. I believe it is more of a Presidential Directive, rather than anything approved by Congress. It is a pretty sensitive thing still with the Russians and Chinese, and would ruffle some foreign feathers to change it.

[chomerics]

Havent we ALWAYS maintained that possibility?

I don't think so, I was always under the understanding that our nuclear arsenal was for deterence of mutually assured distruction. In other words, by the mere fact that the USSR and the US had an arsenal, it guarenteed that neither would attack first.

Now, if they are even THINKING about re-writing the books for "pre-emptive" nuclear strikes, the president would have a coup on his hands. I can not think for the life of me that the generals in charge would agree with this mentality, and I would like to think they would have the stones to speak out on it. I also think that there is a lot of resentment on the president's actions concerning their use over the past few years, and the leaders are a wee bit ticked off at him. It's all conjecture, but I can't ever forsee this happening.

[codeorama]

I can't see our country launching a pre-emptive nuclear attack.

[Kilmer17]

I can't see our country launching a pre-emptive nuclear attack.

You mean-

I cant see our country launching a pre-emptive nuclear attack AGAIN.

[codeorama]

You mean-

I cant see our country launching a pre-emptive nuclear attack AGAIN.

Actually, that's my point. I should have clarified that, but since we are the only country to use nukes against another, doing it again wouldn't be too cool. I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were totally justified, however, I doubt they would have done it if they understood the longterm ramifications.

[Kilmer17]

I think that every Pres (save maybe Carter) since WW2 would have turned the key pre-emptively if they felt it was necessary.

[Destino]

You mean-

I cant see our country launching a pre-emptive nuclear attack AGAIN.

Was the first time really "pre-emptive"? We were the only nation that had them, so waiting to be nuked wasn't even on the table. Also we were in the middle of a long war into which we came after being attacked.

I'd argue that using a weapon after being attacked is never pre-emptive. We upped the stakes to be sure but there is nothing pre-emptive about using a nuke in 1945 in a war that started, for us at least, in 1941.

[zoony]

I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were totally justified, however, I doubt they would have done it if they understood the longterm ramifications.

I can think of 250,000 WW II vets (not to mention their families) who were gearing up for an invasion of the mainland that would vehemently disagree with you.

[codeorama]

I can think of 250,000 WW II vets (not to mention their families) who were gearing up for an invasion of the mainland that would vehemently disagree with you.

Re read my post.

[Kilmer17]

I guess so Des, but it's an easy out just to change the definition of pre-emptive.

Is it pre-emptive to launch while the enemy is entering the launch codes themselves?

Is it pre-emptive to nuke Iran if we know they've got a bomb 99% finished?

I dont know the answer at all. But I do know that we'll launch if the Pres. thinks it's necessary (any Pres). He wont need some form to make it legal.

[zoony]

Re read my post.

you said I doubt they (US?) would have done it if they understood the the longterm ramifications.

what am I missing?

[codeorama]

I think that every Pres (save maybe Carter) since WW2 would have turned the key pre-emptively if they felt it was necessary.

I believe that as well, but in this day and time, I don't see any other country, except China or Russia, as any type of real threat to us and neither of those countries are going to start a nuclear war with us.

We are talking about terrorists who don't have a country.

[codeorama]

you said I doubt they (US?) would have done it if they understood the the longterm ramifications.

what am I missing?

I said that I have no problem with the bombing, I agree with it. But I think the President may not have done it if he had known the longterm effects.. I'm not saying it shouldn't have been done, I'm just saying that I think the effects were more then what they thought they would be and it's something that is still held over our head to this day.

Not saying I disagree with the decision at all.

[Destino]

I guess so Des, but it's an easy out just to change the definition of pre-emptive.

Is it pre-emptive to launch while the enemy is entering the launch codes themselves?

Is it pre-emptive to nuke Iran if we know they've got a bomb 99% finished?

I dont know the answer at all. But I do know that we'll launch if the Pres. thinks it's necessary (any Pres). He wont need some form to make it legal.

Pre-emptive is, in my view anyway, is an act of war executed with the intent of eliminating a threat that doesn't exist at the moment but may come into existence at a future date.

[zoony]

I said that I have no problem with the bombing, I agree with it. But I think the President may not have done it if he had known the longterm effects.. I'm not saying it shouldn't have been done, I'm just saying that I think the effects were more then what they thought they would be and it's something that is still held over our head to this day.

Not saying I disagree with the decision at all.

I read Truman's memoirs and I would have to disagree. ("where the buck stops", iirc, good book)

And I've been to nagasaki on several occasions, and I can assure you there are no longterm effects other than a museum, a statue pointing to the sky, and certain remains i.e. an old Catholic Church that have been left on purpose. oh yah there is a movie that they show you at the end of the museum tour.

Frankly, I think most WWII vets would be pretty fired up to hear someone imply that a certain minority fringe who hold this over our head are more important than the lives that were saved.

I know this was not your intention, though.

[chomerics]

I think that every Pres (save maybe Carter) since WW2 would have turned the key pre-emptively if they felt it was necessary.

You can't be serious, when "would it be necessary" to insure the distruction of your country?