U.S. Works Up Plan For Using Nuclear Arms
Posted 15 February 2003 - 03:01 PM
Military: Administration, in a secret report, calls for a strategy against at least seven nations: CHINA, RUSSIA, IRAQ, IRAN,
NORTH KOREA, LIBYA and SYRIA.
By PAUL RICHTER Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration has directed the military to prepare contingency plans to use NUCLEAR WEAPONS against at least seven countries and to build SMALLER NUCLEAR WEAPONS for use in certain battlefield situations, according to a classified Pentagon report obtained by the LOS ANGELES TIMES.
The secret report, which was provided to CONGRESS on JAN. 8, says the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use NUCLEAR WEAPONS against CHINA, RUSSIA, IRAQ, NORTH KOREA, IRAN, LIBYA and SYRIA. It says the weapons could be used in three types of situations: against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL or CHEMICAL WEAPONS; or " IN THE EVENT OF SURPRISING MILITARY DEVELOPMENTS. "
A copy of the report was obtained by defense analyst and Times contributor William ARKIN.
on the contenents appears in Sunday's editions.
Officials have long acknowledge that they had detailed NUCLEAR PLANS for attack on RUSSIA.
However, this "NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW" apparently marks the first time that an official list of potential target countries has come to light, analyst said. Some predicted the disclousure would set off strong reactions from governements of the target countries.
"THIS IS DYNAMITE," said Joseph CIRINCIONE, a Nuclear Arms Expert at the CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT for INTERNATIONAL PEACE in WASHINGTON. " I can imagine what these countries are going to be saying at the U.N." Arms control Advocates said the report's diretives on development of SMALLER NUCLEAR WEAPONS could signal that the Bush administration is more willing to overlook a long-standing taboo against the use of NUCLEAR WEAPONS except as a last resort. They warned that such moves could dangerously destabilize the world by encouraging other countries to belive that they, too, should develop weapons.
"They're trying desperately to find new uses for NUCLEAR WEAPONS, when their uses shoud be limited to deterrence, "said Jhon ISAACS, President of the Council for a Livable World". "This is very, very dangerous talk...DR: STRANGELOVE is clearly still alive in the Pentagon."
But some conservative analyst insisted that the Pentagon must prepare for all possible contingencies, especially now, when dozens of countries, and some terrorist groups, are engaged in secret weapon development programs.
They argued that SMALLER WEAPONS have an important deterrent role because many aggressors might not belive that U.S. FORCES would use MULTI-KILOTON WEAPONS that would wreak devastation on surronding territory and friendly populations.
"We need to have a credible deterrence against Regimes involved in International Terrorism and Development of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)," said Jack SPENCER, a defense analyst at the Conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. He said the contents of the report did not surprise him and represent "The right way to develop a NUCLEAR POSTURE for a POST-COLD WAR WORLD."
A spokesman for the Pentagon, Richard MCGRAW, declined to comment because the document is classified.
Congress requested the reassessment of the U.S. NUCLEAR POSTURE in September 2000. The last such review was conducted in 1994 by the CLINTON administration. The New Report, signed by Secretary of Defense Donald H. RUMSFELD, is now being used by the U.S. STRATEGIC COMMAND to prepare a NUCLEAR WAR PLAN.
BUSH administration officials have publicly provided only sketchy details of the NUCLEAR REVIEW. They have publicly emphasized the parts of the policy suggesting that the administration wants to reduce reliance on NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
Since the CLINTON administration's review is also classified, no specific contrast can be drawn. However, analyst portrayed this report as representing a break with the earlier policy.
U.S. policymakers have generally indicated that the United States would not use NUCLEAR WEAPONS against NON-NUCLEAR states unless they were allied with NUCLEAR POWERS. They have left some ambiguity about whether the United States would use NUCLEAR WEAPONS in retaliation after strikes with CHEMICAL or NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
The Report says the Pentagon should be prepared to use NUCLEAR WEAPONS in an ARAB-ISRAELI conflict, in a war between CHINA and TAIWAN, or also in an attack from NORTH KOREA on the SOUTH. They might also become necessary in an attack by IRAQ on ISRAEL or another NEIGHBOR, it said.
The report says RUSSIA is no longer officially an "ENEMY". Yet it acknowledges that the huge Russian arsenal, which includes about 6,000 deployed WARHEADS and perhaps 10,000 SMALLER "THEATER" NUCLEAR WEAPONS, remains of concern.
Pentagon officials have said publicly that they were studying the need to develop THEATHER NUCLEAR WEAPONS, designed for use against specific targets on a battlefield, but had not committed themselves to the course.
Officials have often spoken of the advantage of using NUCLEAR WEAPONS to destroy the deep tunnel and cave complexes that many Regimes have been building, especially since the Persian Gulf War of 1991. NUCLEAR WEAPONS give off powerful shock waves that can crush structures deep in the Earth, they point out.
Officials argue that large NUCLEAR ARMS have so many destructive side effects, from blast to heat and radiation, that they become "SELF-DETERRING". They contend the Pentagon needs "FULL SPECTRUM DETERRENCE"--that is, a full range of weapons that potential enemies believe might be used against them.
The Pentagon was actively involved in planning for use of TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS as recently as the 1970s. But it has moved away from them in the last two decades.
Analysts said the Report's reference to "SURPRISING MILITARY DEVELOPMENTS" referred to the Pentagon's fears that a ROUGE REGIME or TERRORIST GROUP might suddenly unleash a wholly unknown weapon that was difficult to counter with the conventional U.S. ARSENAL.
The administration has proposed cutting the offensive NUCLEAR ARSENAL by two-thirds, to between 1,700 and 2,200 missiles, within 10 years. Officials have also said they want to use precision guided conventional minitions in some missions that might have previously been accomplished with NUCLEAR ARMS.
But critics said the Report contradicts suggestions the BUSH administration wants to cut the NUCLEAR ROLE.
"THIS CLEARLY MAKES NUCLEAR WEAPONS A TOOL FOR FIGHTING A WAR, RATHER THAN DETERRING THEM," said CIRINCIONE.
March 9 2002 LATIMES.COM
Posted 15 February 2003 - 03:07 PM
SECRET PLAN OUTLINE THE UNTHINKABLE
-"A Secret Policy Review of the Nation's NUCLEAR POLICY Puts Forth Chilling New Contingiencies for NUCLEAR WAR."-
By WILLIAM M. ARKIN
WASHINGTON -- The BUSH administration, in a scret policy review completed early this year, has ordered the Pentagon to draft contingiency 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.
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's to develop plans for using NUCLEAR WEAPONS to retaliate against CHEMICAL or BIOLOGICAL attacks, as well as "SURPRISING MILITARY DEVELOPMENTS" of an unspecified nature.
These and a host of other directives, including calls for developing BUNKER-BUSTING MINI-NUKES and NUCLEAR WEAPONS that reduce collateral damage, are contained in a still-classified document called the NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW (NPR), which was delivered to Congress on JAN. 8.
Like all such documents since the dawning of the ATOMIC AGE more than a half-century ago, this NPR offers a chilling glimpse into the WORLD OF NUCLEAR WAR-PLANNERS: With a STRANGELOVIAN GENIUS, they cover every conceivable circumstance in which a President might to USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS-- planning in great detail for a war they hope never to wage.
In this TOP-SECRET domain, there has always been an inconsistency between AMERICA'S DIPLOMATIC OBJECTIVES OF REDUCING NUCLEAR ARSENALS AMD PREVENTING THE PROLIFERATION OF WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WMD), on the one hand, and the military imperative to prepare for the unthinkable, on the other.
Nevertheless, Bush administration plan reverses an almost two-decde-long trend of relegating NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO THE CATEGORY OF LAST RESORT. It also redefines NUCLEAR requirements in hurried post-Sept. 11 terms.
In these and other ways, the still-secret document offers insights into the evolving views of NUCLEAR STRATEGISTS in Secretary Donald H. RUMSFED'S DEFENSE DEPARTMENT.
While downgrading the threat from RUSSIA and publicly emphasizing their commitment to reducing the number of LONG-RANGE NUCLEAR-WEAPONS, Defense Department Strategists promote Tactical and socalled "ADAPTIVE" NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES to deal with contigencies where LARGE NUCLEAR ARSENALS ARE NOT DEMANDED.
They seek a host of a new weapons and support systems, including conventional military and cyber warfare capabilities integrated with NUCLEAR WARFARE. The end product is now-familiar post-Afghanistan model--with NUCLEAR CAPABILITY ADDED. It combines precision weapons, long-range strikes, and special and covert operations.
But the NPR's call for development of NUCLEAR WEAPONS that "reduce"-"COLLATERAL DAMAGE" myopically ignores the political, moral and military implications--short-term and long--of crossing the NUCLEAR threshold.
Under what circumstances might NUCLEAR WEAPONS BE USED under the new posture? The NPR says they "COULD BE EMPLOYED AGAINST TARGETS ABLE TO WITHSTAND NONNUCLEAR ATTACK," or in retaliation for the use of NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL, or CHEMICAL WEAPONS, or "IN THE EVENT OF SURPRISING MILITARY DEVELOPMENTS".
Planning NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITIES, it says involves the recognition of "IMMEDIATE, POTENTIAL OR UNEXPECTED" contingiencies. NORTH KOREA, IRAQ, IRAN, SYRIA and LIBYA are named as "COUNTRIES THAT COULD BE INVOLVED" in all three kinds of threat. "ALL HAVE LONG-STANDING HOSTILITY TOWARDS THE UNITED STATES AND ITS SECURITY PARTNERS. ALL SPONSOR OR HARBOR TERRORISTS, AND HAVE ACTIVE WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) AND MISSILE PROGRAMS."
CHINA, because of its NUCLEAR FORCES and "DEVELOPING STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES," is listed as " A COUNTRY THAT COULD BE INVOLVED IN AN IMMEDIATE OR POTENTIAL CONTINGENCY." Specifically, the NPR lists a military confrontation over the status of TAIWAN as one of the scenarios that could lead WASHINGTON to use NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
Other listed scenarios for NUCLEAR CONFLICT are NORTH KOREAN attack ob SOUTH KOREA and an IRAQI assault on ISRAEL or its NEIGHBORS.
The second important insight the NPR offers into Pentagon thinking about NUCLEAR POLICY is the extent to which the Bush administration's strategic planners were shaken by last September's Terrorist Attack on the WORLD TRADE CENTER and the PENTAGON. Though Congress directed the new administration " TO CONDUCT A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF U.S. NUCLEAR FORCES " before the event of Sept. 11, the final study is striking for its single-minded reaction to those tragedies.
Heretofore, NUCLEAR STRATEGY tended to exist as something apart from the ordinary chalenges of foreign policy and military affairs. NUCLEAR WEAPONS were not just the option of LAST RESORT, they were the option reserved for times when National Survival hung in the Balance--a doomsday confrontation with the SOVIET UNION, for instance.
Now, NUCLEAR STRATEGY seems to be viewed through the prism of Sept. 11. For one thing, the Bush administration's faith in OLD-FASHIONED DETERRENCE IS GONE. It no longer takes a SUPERPOWER to pose a dire threat to Americans.
"THE TERRORIST WHO STRUCK US ON SEPT. 11th WERE CLEARLY NOT DETERRED BY DOING SO FROM THE MASSIVE U.S. NUCLEAR ARSENAL," Rumsfeld told an audience at the National Defense University in late January.
Similarly, U.S. Undersecretary of State John R. BOLTON said in a recent interview, " WE WOULD DO WHATEVER IS NECESSARY TO DEFEND AMERICA'S INNOCENT CIVILIAN POPULATION.....THE IDEA THAT FINE THEORIES OF DETERRENCE WORK AGAINST EVERYBODY....HAS JUST BEEN DISPROVEN BY SPT. 11. "
Moreover, while insisting they would go NUCLEAR only if other options seemed inadequate, Officials are looking for NUCLEAR WEAPONS that could play a role in the kinds of challenges the United States faces with AL QAEDA.
Accordingly, the NPR calls for new emphasis on developing such things as NUCLEAR BUNKER-BUSTERS and SURGICAL "WARHEADS THAT REDUCE COLLATERAL DAMAGE," (LOL-ROFLMAO) as well as weapons tht could be used against smaller, more circumscibed targets--" possible modifications to existing weapons to provide additionally yield flexibility," in the jargon-rich language of the review.
It also propose to train U.S. Special Forces Operators to play the same intelligence gathering and targeting roles for NUCLEAR WEAPONS that they now play for conventional weapons strikes in Afghanistan. And CYBER-WARFARE and other nonnuclear militaru capabilities would be integrated into NUCLEAR-STRIKE FORCES to make them more all-encompassing.
As for RUSSIA, once the primary reason for having a U.S. NUCLEAR STRATEGY, the review says that while MOSCOW'S NUCLEAR PROGRAMS remain cause for concern, "IDEOLOGICAL SOURCE OF CONFLICT" have been eliminated, rendering a NUCLEAR CONTINGENCY involving RUSSIA "PLAUSIBLE" but " NOT EXPECTED. "
" In the event that U.S. relations with RUSSIA significantly worsen in the future, " the review says, " the U.S. may need to revise its NUCLEAR FORCE levels and posture."
When completion of the NPR was publicly announced in January, Pentagon briefers deflected questions about most of the specifics, saying the information was classified. Officials did stress that, consistent with a Bush campaign pledge, the plan called for reducing the current 6,000 LONG-RAMGE NUCLEAR WEAPONS to one-third that number over tha next decade. Rumsfeld, who approved the review late last year, said the administratiion was seeking " A NEW APPROACH TO STRATEGIC DETERRENCE," to include Missile Defenses and improvements in nonnuclear capabilities.
Also, RUSSIA would no longer be officially defined as " an enemy."
Beyond that, almost no details were revealed.
The classified text, however, is shot through with worldview transformed by Sept. 11. The NPR coins the phrase "NEW TRIAD," which it describes as comprising the "OFFENSIVE STRIKE LEG." (our Nuclear and Conventional Forces) plus "ACTIVE AND PASSIVE DEFENSES" (our Anti-Missile Systems and Other Defenses) and " A RESPONSIVE DEFENSE INFRASTRUCTURE" ( our ability to develop and produce NUCLEAR WEAPONS and Resume Nuclear Testing). Previously, the NUCLEAR "TRIAD" was the Bombers, Long-Range Land-Based Missiles and Submarine-Launched Missiles that formed the three legs of America's Strategic Arsenal.
The review emphasizes the integration of " New MomMuclear Strategic Capabilities" into NUCLEAR-WAR PLANS. " New Capabilities must be developed to defeat emerging threats such as hard and deeply-buried targets (HDBT), to find and attack moble amd relocatable targets, to defeat CHEMICAL and BIOLOGICAL agents, and to improve accurancy amd limit COLLATERAL DAMAGE," (LOL-ROFLMAO) the review says.
It calls for " A NEW STRIKE SYSTEM " using four converted Trident Submarines, an Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle and a new Air-Launched Cruise Missile as Potential New Weapons. (LOL-ROFLMAO)
Beyond New NUCLEAR WEAPONS, the review proposes establishing what it calls an "AGENT DEFEAT" program, which defense officials say includes a " BOUTIQUE " approach to finding new ways of destroying deadly CHEMICAL or BIOLOGICAL WARFARE AGENTS, as well as penetrating enemy facilities that are otherwise difficult to attack. This includes, according to the document, "THERMAL, CHEMICAL or RADIOLOGICAL NEUTRALIZATION of CHEMICAL/BIOLOGICAL MATERIALS in production or storage facilities."
Bush administration officials stress that the development and integration of Nonnuclear capabilities into the NUCLEAR FORCE is what permits reductions in traditional Long-Range Weaponry. But the blueprint laid down in the review would expand the breadth and flexibility of U.S. NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES.
March 10 2002 LATIMES.COM -continue-
Posted 15 February 2003 - 03:09 PM
The review calls for research to begin next month on fitting an existing Nuclear Warhead into a new 5,000-pounds "Earth penetrating" munition.
Given the advances in electronics and information technologies in the past decade, it's not surprising that the NPR also stresses improved satellites and intelligence, communications, and more robust high-bandwidth decision-making systems.
Particularly noticeable is the directive to improve U.S. capabilities in the field of "Information Operation," or CYBER-WARFARE. The intelligence community "lacks adequate data on most adversary computer local area networks and other command and control systems," the review observes. It calls for improvements in the ability to "exploit" enemy computer networks, and the integration of the Cyber-Warfare into overall Nuclear War Database " to enable more effective targetting, weaponeering, and combat assessment essential to the NEW TRIAD."
In recent months, when Bush administration officials talked about the implication of Sept. 11 for Long-Term Military Policy, they have often focused on "HOMELAND DEFENSE" and the need for an ANTI-MISSIE SHIELD. In truth, what has evolved since last year's terror attack is an INTEGRATED, SIGNFICANTLY EXPANDED PLANNING DOCTRINE FOR NUCLEAR WARS.
WILLIAM M. ARKIN is a senior fellow at the JOHN HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL STUDIES in WASHINGTON and an ADJUNCT PROFESSOR at the U.S. AIR FORCE SCHOOL OF ADVANCED AIRPOWER STUDIES. He is also a consultant to a number of nongovernmental organizations and a Regolar Contributor to the BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS. Officials are looking for Nuclear Weapons that could help against a foe like AL QAEDA.
LOL and ROFLMAO
Posted 15 February 2003 - 03:20 PM
Radiological Weapons (RW) are basically a nuclear-weapon variant designed to kill through radiation only (as opposed to blast or shock). No such weapons are believed to exist at the present time, although recent reports indicate that UN inspectors uncovered evidence that Iraq was working on radiological weapons prior to the Gulf War.
The radioactive materials for radiological weapons could be fission products, plutonium and other actinides from civilian nuclear reactors, or artificially produced radioactive nuclides. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has outlined several scenarios for radiological warfare. Offensively, radiological weapons could be used to force mass evacuations, create economic chaos, or occupy territory, avoiding the infrastructure damage that would be created with a nuclear explosive. Defensively, radiological weapons might be used to deny an enemy territory through contamination thereby making it impassable.
The effects of radiological weapons are essentially similar to the residual radioactive effects of nuclear weapons. RW may cause widespread contamination over a large area and inflict large numbers of fatalities and serious casualties. The long-term radiation effects of RW may also lead to massive burdens on medical facilities and pose serious social and economic long-term recovery difficulties.
WMD METHODS OF DELIVERY
Radiological weapons could be fabricated for delivery by ballistic or cruise missiles or aircraft-delivered bomb. A weapon containing plutonium could be released in aerosol form. SIPRI states that radiological weapons might consist of bombs or shells packed with radioactive materials and delivered by means of ordinary (non-nuclear) explosives. In addition, radioactive materials could also be delivered in liquid or solid aerosol form by aerial spraying for an aircraft of UAV.
Potential targets for radiological weapons include population centres, where RW may cause mass casualties over both the short and long term and force large-scale evacuation. Radioactive substances could also be used to contaminate the water supplies of an adversary. Nuclear reactors could be attacked with the intent of causing a radiological incident.
The effects of radiological weapons may pose long-term contamination hazards to the country using them and/or its neighbours. The use of RW may also provoke nuclear retaliation against the user.
Posted 17 May 2005 - 06:27 PM
Un tale tipo di attacco potrebbe essere l'ultima ratio di un invasione in corso contro potenze minori.
La cosa ancora piu' strana e' che nessuno abbia pensato di fornire una difesa antimissile credibile ai paesi produttori di petrolio.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users