Monday, September 12, 2005

See, Kids, This is Why Pre-emption is Bad.

Well, Bush has completely gone around the bend from “damn I hate that guy” to “wow, this could possibly be the Antichrist.” Why is that, you say? Well, looks like the Administration wants to change our policy on the use of nuclear weapons. No longer will we keep these horrible weapons chained, useless, out of the hands of noble Americans who could use them to wipe countries off the face of the Earth and protect the only thing that matters: Ameri…er…FREEDOM!

That’s right, our favorite wackos now want to move to a policy of pre-emptive nuclear strike on any country that so much as looks at us funny. Gone is the idea of MAD, gone is any sort of restraint on the use of horrendous weapons of war. If there was ever any doubt that the “bunker busters” were a move to lower the bar of nuclear war (apologists love to scream otherwise), this move completely eradicates any such doubt. No need to question any longer: they want to be able to hold the world hostage, no bones about it.

Of course, there’s nothing to worry about here! We've seen how much credibility pre-emptive military actions have in Iraq. Now we can apply that same kind of thought to using weapons that can wipe out entire populations with the press of a button! This is certainly NOT self-destructive, extremely dangerous, and destabilizing for the entire world. What, are you some pinko commie?

Never mind the fact that, if anything would drive people to go out of their way to sneak a nuke into the United States, it would probably be the United States using one first.

You know, because they hate freedom and all.

So seriously, just think about this. If this policy existed five years ago, we could have nuked Iraq off the face of the planet. Think about that.

No doubt who this is aimed at – this is more chest thumping in the direction of Iran. It could easily take away Natanz and other nuclear facilities without risking aircraft.

Iran would be easy to tag as a nuclear-armed power with offensive capacity if you wait long enough. All you have to say is that some Shahab-3s were being pointed at Israel, which is almost American territory anyway.

Then the Middle East descends into a hellish maelstrom not seen since the days of the Crusades, but hell, you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, right?

Here’s the simple truth: there are other ways to prevent nuclear and biological attacks on US soil than by nuking someone. One of these ways is this thing called "diplomacy", which seems to have fallen out of style in recent years.

By the way, does this mean we have to nuke ourselves, since we have WMDs and may possibly use them?

Read this insanity at The UK Times Online:

A PRESIDENT of the United States would be able to launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes against enemies planning to use weapons of mass destruction under a revised “nuclear operations” doctrine to be signed in the next few weeks.

In a significant shift after half a century of nuclear deterrence based on the threat of massive retaliation, the revised doctrine would allow pre-emptive strikes against states or terror groups, and to destroy chemical and biological weapons stockpiles.

Presidential approval would still be required for any nuclear strike, but the updated document, the existence of which was confirmed by the Pentagon at the weekend, emphasises the need for the US to adapt to a world of worsening proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in which deterrence might fail. In that event, it states, “the United States must be prepared to use nuclear weapons if necessary”.

The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, last revised ten years ago, extends President Bush’s doctrine of pre-emptive war to cover a US nuclear arsenal that is expected to shrink to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads by 2012.

It was drafted by the Pentagon in March and posted on the internet, but did not attract widespread attention until a report on it in The Washington Post yesterday. It has since been removed from the Department of Defence website.

It came to light as Iran insisted, in defiance of the European Union, that it would continue processing uranium at its Isfahan reactor. The US has called on the UN Security Council to impose sanctions on Tehran for failing to shelve its nuclear programme.

Referring repeatedly to “non-state actors” — parlance for terrorists — the doctrine is designed to arm the White House and US forces with a new range of threats and sanctions to counter the situation of threatened nuclear attack by al-Qaeda or one of its affiliates.

The document’s key phrase appears in a list of pre-emptive nuclear strike scenarios, the first of which is against an enemy using “or intending to use WMD”.

Elsewhere it states that “deterrence of potential adversary WMD use requires the potential adversary leadership to believe that the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective”.

The 1995 version of the doctrine contained no mention of pre-emption or WMD as legitimate nuclear targets.

Posted by crimnos @ 8:38 AM