Changes in nuclear weapons policy in the works. Dark times, and darker times coming. Please get involved.

The truth is out: Bush’s new nuclear stance

What the document shows is how the threshold for actually using nuclear weapons has been lowered dramatically. For instance, the document seeks to justify pre-emptive nuclear strikes against nations (even those without nuclear weapons) which the US thinks might use chemical or biological weapons against US forces or allies. It also positions nuclear weapons as just another item in the military’s box of tricks, even underscoring the importance of US troops being able to continue functioning in a highly irradiated battle zone.

In a chilling finale, “Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations” concludes that the United States is legally free to use nuclear weapons pre-emptively if it chooses, “no customary or conventional international law prohibits nations from employing nuclear weapons in armed conflict”.

Internal Pentagon document reveals new aggressive US nuclear weapons policy

The editing of the document reveals sharp internal disagreements about the legality of the US’s new posture, specifically its implied endorsement of the use of nuclear weapons against targets whose destruction by a nuclear weapon must inevitably lead to massive civilian casualties. A final version of the document is expected this autumn. The document reveals:

* Plans for the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against non nuclear countries and against countries which the US judged might be intending to use chemical or biological weapons against its forces or allies.
* That the Bush administration’s public claims to be reducing the role of nuclear weapons are false.
* That nuclear weapons might be used in less intense crises than previously considered including in a conventional conflict.
* That the distinction between conventional forces and nuclear weapons is being discarded and nuclear weapons being integrated into conventional weapons planning and missile defenses.
* That the main purpose of missile defenses is to defend military forces not civilians.
* That some commanders do not believe that the threats used to justify the new doctrine actually exist.

The entire document is available at the above links (including edits).

See also

The Role of U.S. Nuclear Weapons: New Doctrine Falls Short of Bush Pledge