March 9, 2002

6:47 AM

U.S. Works Up Plan for Using Nuclear Arms -- "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... The secret report... says the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria."
posted by mrbula (42 comments total)

not very secret, is it?

'paging dustin hoffman, please report to the oval office...'
posted by jcterminal at 6:57 AM on March 9, 2002

1. I believe we have "smaller" nuke weapons because Nixon recently released material mentions possibly using them in Viet Nam.
2. Is it wrong to prepare for any possibility?
3. If this so secret how come the paper got hold of it? A failure of our security--very disturbing--or a leak done on purpose as is often the case with our press being helpful to the White House.
posted by Postroad at 7:27 AM on March 9, 2002

The report itself remains classified, but here is the transcript of a press briefing given by the Pentagon in January:

Special Briefing on the Nuclear Posture Review
posted by Owen Boswarva at 7:36 AM on March 9, 2002

Honestly, I'd be surprised if we didn't already have contingencies for all these countries, among others.

The bigger issue is #3 postroad asks above, how did this get out? I can't even begin to imagine the white house/pentagon doing this intentionally (why bait russia or china now?), so it must have been a leak, right? Yet another thing isolating the US in world politics, not good at all.
posted by malphigian at 7:52 AM on March 9, 2002

do we have our own doomsday cult running this country?
posted by specialk420 at 8:02 AM on March 9, 2002

This doesn't really surprise me at all. After Hiroshima, it seems nukes have becomes the preverbial scare weapon (well, in Civilization, at least)...I am one of those whackos who believe we don't really know anything that goes on w/in out government, and weapons intelligence is one of those things.
specialk420-> does the CIA/FBI/Military count?
posted by jmd82 at 8:11 AM on March 9, 2002

We have met the rogue nation and it is us.
posted by shagoth at 8:14 AM on March 9, 2002

nice post shagoth. im checking in with my pal in moscow to get her impression of this latest round of sabre rattling BS from washington.
posted by specialk420 at 8:39 AM on March 9, 2002

I understand the use of nuclear capability as a deterrent, and I recognize that this may simply be a tactical information leak, but my fear is that the millitary is seriously considering the use of small nukes in Afghanistan.

Has our distaste of shedding any American blood left our millitary with no other option except small nuclear arms? And even if their environmental ramifications are relatively tame, is this really a precedent the U.S. wants to set?
posted by johnnyace at 9:30 AM on March 9, 2002

And yet another well-written piece on the Nuclear Policy Review...

Heretofore, nuclear strategy tended to exist as something apart from the ordinary challenges 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.

Accordingly, the NPR calls for new emphasis on developing such things as nuclear bunker-busters and surgical "warheads that reduce collateral damage," as well as weapons that could be used against smaller, more circumscribed targets...

Whatever high ground the U.S. still tenuously clings to in the War Against Terror, it will be irrevocably lost with the initial use of offensive nuclear weapons, regardless of their yeild.
posted by johnnyace at 10:04 AM on March 9, 2002

Oh wonderful, and just as we're sending troops into Georgia in addition to the ones we already have in Central Asia. You would think we were deliberately trying to sabotage our alliances in the war on terrorism.
posted by homunculus at 10:07 AM on March 9, 2002

Hmmm...

well, seems the US has a classical love-hate relationship with these countries. When will the US presidents realise this is a bad thing?

If you're considering blowing somewhere up, perhaps you should stop buying their computers and electronics, steel, oil, computers and electronics, oil, boat registrations and US coins, oil, in that order.

My country (Canada) does the same thing, but I don't think we could drop a hand grenade on these countries, never mind a nuclear weapon.
posted by shepd at 10:55 AM on March 9, 2002

2. Is it wrong to prepare for any possibility?

Whether or not it's wrong, we do. The Pentagon and the White House always put ALL the cards on the table in any major military situation, from the deuces all the way up to the aces. The aces never get played (sans 1945, and that was at the end of a very different game played in a very different world), but they're always in the deck, and the discussion is always had as to why we should throw them out and stick with the face cards.

So the chances that this document was going to be produced approaches 100%. Now, the order to actually produce some battlefield-level nukes is indeed out of the ordinary, but hardly surprising given the current situation. And we have almost 60 years of history to show that production of nuclear weapons != the intention of using them.
posted by aaron at 10:58 AM on March 9, 2002

Okay, I just read the BBC version of this. So our plans to use nuclear weapons are only in cases of : Retaliation for N/B/C attacks, attacks against targets that are impossible to get without nuclear weapons, and in case of "surprising military developments."

The first two I understand (though the second shold be used ONLY if they've already tried using everything else... twice.) But "surprising military developments"? WTF is that?

Iran: "Boo!"
USA: "Aaugh!" *click*
Thermonuclear Device: "Boom"

Damn near ANY military development is surprising. It's a key element of military tactics. "The element of surprise." Does this mean that when (for instance) Lebanon sends in their 3rd batallion Transvestite Brigade (aiborne wing) that we panic and turn their country into a cockroach parking lot? I hope not.
posted by phalkin at 11:55 AM on March 9, 2002

As serious as this topic truly is, phalkin, your last comment was phalkin' hilarious!
posted by Danelope at 12:25 PM on March 9, 2002

Remember, Bush's strategy has been to float these trial balloons and gauge public opinion (and opposition) before go aheading full on. If people start screaming then he can always claim he was just kidding and this was "under disscussion" but there were no plans to "implement it". He'll keep going as far down this path as the country will let him.
posted by euphorb at 12:29 PM on March 9, 2002

Somewhere, deep in a file cabinet, are plans to invade Canada. (pace SDB)

Should it become necessary.

If you're a general, it's your job to prepare for every eventuality.
posted by dhartung at 12:33 PM on March 9, 2002

But "surprising military developments"? WTF is that?

i.e. Several hundred troops suddenly trapped by thousands of enemy in location unsupportable by traditional support, and facing imminent total death, for one possible tact-nuke possibility.
posted by HTuttle at 12:36 PM on March 9, 2002

Or using redundancy too much! ;-)
posted by HTuttle at 12:40 PM on March 9, 2002

Somewhere, deep in a file cabinet, are plans to invade Canada. (pace SDB)

True, but Canada's not on the nuke list. And how much a threat is Russia, actually? It's only on there, I'd guess, for three possible reasons: 1) Russia is still a large nation and unstable, although coming back strongly from the brink, so to speak, last time I heard; 2) Russia still has a lot of weapons and defense bureaucrats who probably think the old way and think we'll attack too; and 3) Russia (or at least the Soviet Union) topped the list for 50 years or so and it's impossible to get it off the list, because that's the way bureaucracies and public policy tend to work. The irrationality of bureaucratic rationalism, vested interests at work, path dependence, etc. (Why? Because that's the way it had been done before and, well, it's hard to stop.)
posted by raysmj at 1:07 PM on March 9, 2002

In a world of psycho-suicide militias, dirty radioactive devices (which might be used on the battlefield) and people willing to use bio-weapons, this is a good, if unfortunate thing. It's also really not that new: remember the neutron bomb polemic of the Carter administration?
posted by ParisParamus at 1:17 PM on March 9, 2002

In a world of psycho-suicide militias, dirty radioactive devices (which might be used on the battlefield) and people willing to use bio-weapons, this is a good, if unfortunate thing. It's also really not that new: remember the neutron bomb polemic of the Carter administration?
posted by ParisParamus at 1:17 PM on March 9, 2002

oops.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:18 PM on March 9, 2002

I have to disagree with euphorb's interpretation of this. Public opinion is, and has been since 9/11, as close to absolute as it can possibly get in a democracy WRT Bush's handling of the war. He has carte blanche to do whatever he wants, and I doubt he'd alter a war decision he thought to be unquestionably necessary even if it knocked his approval ratings down to 20%. Sometimes the news media raises holy hell and forces a "public" backtrack (example: that whole OSI mess recently, which the media largely misreported), but it doesn't change what's really being done (example: everything the OSI was planning to do is still going to be done, only now it will be done clandestinely).

i.e. Several hundred troops suddenly trapped by thousands of enemy in location unsupportable by traditional support, and facing imminent total death, for one possible tact-nuke possibility.

I think it would have to something far more "surprising" than that for us to actually use a nuclear device of any sort. A few hundred troops is a lot, but I seriously doubt it's enough to undertake an action that will permanently alter the worldwide Realpolitik of the use of nuclear weapons, in battle or anywhere else. Once we do use them, we'll be unleashing a genie that will be damn hard to put back into the bottle. The Administration knows that, the Pentagon knows that. And they have known that since the late 1940s. So nukes won't be used unless something truly horrendous is done to us first, such as the use of a nuke against us, which of course has always been the One Real Trigger for a US nuclear response.

I also don't think the "use against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack" scenario would ever possibly happen unless events had already taken a turn to the point where we'd already used nukes somewhere else. There's no way we'd use a nuke againt Saddam just because he was hiding inside a really good bunker.

All in all, I think this is a smart combination: preparation for some very possible contingencies, combined with effective sabre-rattling.
posted by aaron at 1:26 PM on March 9, 2002

paris: Carter actually suspended research into the neutron bomb - the weapon only a sociopathic architect could love, given that it would have kept buildings around, while killing people - in 1978. Research on it had begun earlier, but Carter made the proposed weapon public. He consulted with other nations, NATO, etc., tested the waters and then pulled the plug. (Brzezinski says Carter found it, ultimately, morally abhorrent.) Reagan reversed the decision in 1981.
posted by raysmj at 1:33 PM on March 9, 2002

Since I have little respect for President Carter, I'm not sure what that signifies.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:56 PM on March 9, 2002

excuse me (posting error), Reagan gave the thumb's up for renewed neutron bomb research in 1981.
posted by raysmj at 2:00 PM on March 9, 2002

Paris: What I think the neutron bomb story signifies is that these sorts of things (contingency plans, weapons research, etc.) take on a life of their own. Don't think there was a strategy there in the late '70s, necessarily. Presidents don't, ultimately, have all that much to do with these sorts of initiatives. They can embrace them, tacitly endorse them by saying nothing or kill the plans with executive orders. But how often do they do kill these efforts? Presidents do have great control over foreign policy actions, and Congress approves spending, etc., but there is still a more or less permanent military administration out there, which has long-range plans and programs of its own. It sounds here like this most recent plan was not developed independently by the Bush administration, but the Pentagon, with the authorization of Congress. Also, sounds like it's an annual, or at least semi-annual, initiative.
posted by raysmj at 2:11 PM on March 9, 2002

All in all, I think this is a smart combination: preparation for some very possible contingencies, combined with effective sabre-rattling.

Yeah, and that sabre rattling will just about force those listed targets to move weapons production up a notch. Sounds real smart...

It takes two (or eight) to tango.
posted by Aikido at 2:24 PM on March 9, 2002

Yeah, and that sabre rattling will just about force those listed targets to move weapons production up a notch

Do you really think any country that would use those weapons go "Oooooh George is talkin' 'bout us, make more weapons!!". They're already doing it, they're going to do it. Please realize these countries have their own agendas and are on track anyways. The best we can hope is to rattle our (very large) sabre and get them to think twice about actually deploying these weapons.
posted by owillis at 4:05 PM on March 9, 2002

The best we can hope is to rattle our (very large) sabre and get them to think twice about actually deploying these weapons.

How do you know if the US will always have the high ground and not be the ones deploying the weapons? Furthermore, such actions could make the enemy more offensive instead of "scaring them off."
posted by Aikido at 4:17 PM on March 9, 2002

Could I just say that before the WTC structural failure, I predicted war would be coming. I knew it. I thought it would be with China, and I guess I was wrong about that. But I knew there was going to be war. So here's what it'll be: lots of fighting in Iraq, some fighting in Georgia, maybe china later. That the new leader of Afghanistan used to be a spokesperson for Unocal, and that we have troops in Georgia, and that we fought a war in Afghanistan, does imply that this war is over (surprise!) oil.

So let it be known. There is a big long war coming folks. Korea, Iraq Iran. I'm going out on a limb here but I think the plight of the Palestinians will become very unimportant to people, and that they will lose, be wiped out etc.

Just a friendly wager, that's all. I've been wrong before.
posted by Settle at 6:35 PM on March 9, 2002

Just released by the DoD:

STATEMENT ON NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW

We will not discuss the classified details of military planning
or contingencies, nor will we comment on selective and misleading leaks.

The Nuclear Posture Review is required by law. It is a
wide-ranging analysis of the requirements for deterrence in the 21st century. This review of the U.S. nuclear posture is the latest in a long series of reviews since the development of nuclear weapons. It does not provide operational guidance on nuclear targeting or planning.

The Department of Defense continues to plan for a broad range of contingencies and unforeseen threats to the United States and its allies. We do so in order to deter such attacks in the first place.

Of particular significance in the new Nuclear Posture Review is President Bush's decision to reduce operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons by two-thirds, a decision made possible by the new strategic relationship with Russia.

This administration is fashioning a more diverse set of options for deterring the threat of WMD. That is why the Administration is pursuing missile defense, advanced conventional forces, and improved intelligence capabilities.

A combination of offensive and defensive, and nuclear and
non-nuclear capabilities, is essential to meet the deterrence
requirements of the 21st century.

For more information, see the Nuclear Posture Review foreword and the Jan. 9 DoD news briefing transcript and accompanying briefing slides.
posted by aaron at 7:11 PM on March 9, 2002

Could I just say that before the WTC structural failure, I predicted war would be coming.

War is always coming. Add it up day-for-day throughout human history, and it's peace that's the abnormal state of affairs. I agree with you about China though. One ideology is going to have to prevail eventually; either China will itself turn democratic more or less bloodlessly, a la Russia, or there will one day be a war; maybe tomorrow, maybe 50 years from now. I also believe a war between some combination of rogue states, such as North Korea, and/or the hardline Islamist (not Islamic, Islamist) regimes has long been inevitable, which is why I'm quite happy to see the US take some unilateral action now to end the threat, even with the loss of human life now, instead of simply sitting on our hands, pretending the world is a peaceful place and allowing untold millions of civilians to die X number of decades down the line. Ditto with the Israel-Palestine mess.
posted by aaron at 7:25 PM on March 9, 2002

OK, the report shown above says that the Bush administration has directed the Pentagon to end the MAD (mutually assured destruction) stance against Russia, and to develop a strategy more in keeping with the Russian-American relationship. Did anyone here really think it would be a fine idea to have Russia seen by the U.S. govt. as a threat equal to that of Iraq or North Korea? I'm not sure, given that I didn't seen this issue at all questioned by those giving a thumb's up to the report as outlined in the L.A. Times.

I wonder why on Earth this story was leaked, if the facts in the report clash to some degree with the facts reported earlier.
posted by raysmj at 7:41 PM on March 9, 2002

Another NY Times story on the contingency plans, via Yahoo. The Times receieved the full report, and it does not mention Russia or China as being on the primary list, unlike in the LA Times story.
posted by raysmj at 7:45 PM on March 9, 2002

WTC structural failure
is that what that was?
posted by quonsar at 12:50 PM on March 10, 2002

"surprising military developments" = hijacked planes (our *own* planes, nonetheless) destroying/damaging our biggest buildings/symbols of economic and military power, non?
posted by mrgrimm at 1:06 PM on March 10, 2002

Preparing a nuclear strategy for:

China: Lamentable but unavoidable. Plus no one is going to use nukes against a major nuclear power, barring a doomsday all out nuclear war scenario.
Russia: What? I thought Russia was as good an ally as the US currently has. How about France then? Again MAD makes things somewhat safe.
Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria: Are we serious? Can one imagine any of these countries attacking the US? This is scary, since it necessarily implies the US's willingness to use nuclear weapons first in the event of even minor conflicts. Libya and N. Korea for chrissakes... and in a battlefield situation... What next? The Commoros and Brunei?
posted by talos at 3:22 AM on March 11, 2002

"Nuclear Posture Review" - so, they've thought of something besides bend over and kiss your ass goodbye?
posted by groundhog at 6:15 AM on March 11, 2002

"WTC structural failure"

That's the most interesting spin on it I've heard yet. I suppose that means we can't blame all of the deaths on the terrorists because the architect didn't design the building to withstand a large modern jet full of fuel slamming into it.
posted by ArkIlloid at 9:42 PM on March 11, 2002

"smaller" and/or subterranean nuclear weapons are still nuclear, and carry the same threats - they should be used under no condition whatsoever

haven't we learned that nuclear materials represent uniquely devastating health risks?
posted by gkr at 10:34 PM on March 11, 2002