http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/580533.htmlThe U.S. removes the nuclear brakes
By Reuven Pedatzur
Under the cloak of secrecy imparted by use of military code names, the American administration has been taking a big - and dangerous - step that will lead to the transformation of the nuclear bomb into a legitimate weapon for waging war.
Ever since the terror attack of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration has gradually done away with all the nuclear brakes that characterized American policy during the Cold War. No longer are nuclear bombs considered "the weapon of last resort." No longer is the nuclear bomb the ultimate means of deterrence against nuclear powers, which the United States would never be the first to employ.
In the era of a single, ruthless superpower, whose leadership intends to shape the world according to its own forceful world view, nuclear weapons have become a attractive instrument for waging wars, even against enemies that do not possess nuclear arms.
...
The problem with this argument is that it is hopeless. To understand this, one may analyze the effect of a nuclear attack of the sort posited by American military strategists in CONPLAN 8022. Obviously, the U.S. would not use less than five to ten "small bombs" were it to attack Iran or North Korea, since, considering the number of relevant targets in the two countries, anything less would fail to achieve the goal of deterrence and prevention. According to the plan, each bomb would have a 10-kiloton yield - about two-thirds of that of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
...
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7874703/By Michael Moran
Senior correspondent
MSNBC
Updated: 4:58 p.m. ET May 17, 2005
Iran's threats to restart its nuclear development program and pull out of European-led talks is forcing the Bush administration to consider what to do next if diplomatic efforts collapse.
...
The president could, of course, also order American air strikes on suspected Iranian nuclear facilities. According to military analyst William R. Arkin, plans for such a strike already exist. Dubbed “CONPLAN 8022,” and described in Arkin's book "Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs, and Operations in the 9/11 World," the military option calls for pin-point bombings of selected targets, along with destruction of key communications and energy facilities in the vicinity.
...
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/200505/16/200505162204500439900090309031.html...
Hill is wary of seeing Korean talks as positive
In a separate development, the Washington Post reported on Sunday that last summer, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved a top secret order called "Interim Global Strike Alert Order" that directs the military to maintain combat readiness to attack hostile countries, such as Iran and North Korea, that are suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction.
According to the report, the Omaha-based U.S. Strategic Command developed a strike plan, called "CONPLAN 8022-02" that includes a nuclear strike option if intelligence warns of an "imminent" attack on the United States by an enemy using nuclear arms, or if a target needs to be destroyed that is hard-to-reach. Asked yesterday whether Seoul has been aware of such a plan, a South Korean government official declined to comment.
Stephen Hadley, the U.S. national security adviser, said Sunday on a U.S. television news program that Washington has seen evidence that Pyongyang may be ready to test a nuclear weapon and is consulting with allies about a response.
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051400071.htmlNot Just A Last Resort?
A Global Strike Plan, With a Nuclear Option
By William Arkin
Sunday, May 15, 2005; Page B01
Early last summer, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved a top secret "Interim Global Strike Alert Order" directing the military to assume and maintain readiness to attack hostile countries that are developing weapons of mass destruction, specifically Iran and North Korea.
...
CONPLAN 8022 is different from other war plans in that it posits a small-scale operation and no "boots on the ground." The typical war plan encompasses an amalgam of forces -- air, ground, sea -- and takes into account the logistics and political dimensions needed to sustain those forces in protracted operations. All these elements generally require significant lead time to be effective. (Existing Pentagon war plans, developed for specific regions or "theaters," are essentially defensive responses to invasions or attacks. The global strike plan is offensive, triggered by the perception of an imminent threat and carried out by presidential order.)
CONPLAN 8022 anticipates two different scenarios. The first is a response to a specific and imminent nuclear threat, say in North Korea. A quick-reaction, highly choreographed strike would combine pinpoint bombing with electronic warfare and cyberattacks to disable a North Korean response, with commandos operating deep in enemy territory, perhaps even to take possession of the nuclear device.
...
Looks like nuclear brinkmanship is going to be added to W and Dicks short list.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
