The Pentagon’s inability to win America’s recent wars in any convincing
way may be about to become a much bigger problem than anyone realized,
as experts express major concerns about a new policy doctrine adopted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
US struggles with conventional warfare, despite massively outspending
everyone else, and they are hoping to turn that around by using nuclear
weapons in America’s assorted conflicts, seeing nuclear war as creating
“conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic
stability.”
This Nuclear Operations document was published online by the Pentagon
briefly last week, but was subsequently removed, and approved by the
Joint Chiefs, with officials saying it is “for official use only” now.
Experts see it as a substantial change in US military policy, and
particularly nuclear war policy. They say in particular this document
does not focus on nuclear deterrence, but rather on US nuclear
first-strikes as a war-fighting doctrine. That they see nuclear strikes
as a potential cure-all is particularly troubling.
It is not clear if it is directly related to the low-yield nuclear weapons whose funding
is a topic of major debate in Congress. Some in Congress were concerned
that creating more low-yield nuclear arms would make their use a
lower-threshold issue.
Though more usable nukes would clearly fit nicely with the Pentagon’s
doctrine of using nukes more, it’s not clear that the doctrine is
dependent on having lower-yield options, or if the US will just nuke
with whatever they’ve got.
I’m not sure that this is that new. The US has had a policy justifying the use of nuclear weapons in the event that a country uses WMDs, which, can, of course, be just about anything.
Yes, that would be our obligatory “all options are on the table” line that we use ad nauseum.
The US doctrine is to strike preemptive also with nukes, countries who have no nukes.
The US is the only country who has used nukes…preemptive or not
Hiroshima & Nagasaki is an example.
The United States has refused to adopt a no-first-use policy, saying that it “reserves the right to use” nuclear weapons first in the case of conflict. The U.S. doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons was revised most recently in the Nuclear Posture Review, released April 6, 2010.
Nuclear Operations,” or Joint Publication 3-72https://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_72.pdf
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were evil terror attacks on civilians, but they weren’t “preemptive.” The US and Japan had been at war for more than three years at that point. Any evidence at all for the existence of the policy you claim?
No, WMD’s can’t be anything.
This will not end well for America.
“This will not end well for America.”
Or, the world.
The US has gone totally mad.
On June 11th, the US Department of Defense’s Joint Chiefs of Staff published a new edition of the Doctrine on the Use of Nuclear Weapons and deleted it shortly thereafter.
The Federation of American Scientists managed to keep a publicly available copy and here it is.
“Using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability. Specifically, the use of a nuclear weapon will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and create conditions that affect how commanders will prevail in conflict.”
https://southfront.org/u-s-joint-chiefs-of-staff-nuclear-weapons-usage-contribute-to-restoration-of-strategic-stability/
And … this is what they falsely accused the Russians of doing, classic projection. But the Russians called for tactical nuclear first strike strictly for the case when their survival as a state was at stake. We on the other hand like to squish bugs.
So….the policy of blasting civilians and leveling cities hasn’t changed, just the tools.
This is madness. There is no such thing as low yield. Nuclear is nuclear.
What makes these people think that using low yield nuke would have won Afghanistan? Would have scared everyone in Libya to suddenly accept law and order, and stop fighting each other? Would it have delivered a obedient government in Iraq? Or would it turn the entire world against us — as the tragedy of nuclear devastation and pictures of iburnt children reaches every corner of the world in spite of media control?
And would it not bring about the response to our own cities — or is this already baked into the cake? Sacrifice US town, to get populace to approve total nuclear war? And given state of our technological decline, who says we will win?
A very troubling narratives came out from otherwise respectable people. Suggestions such as nuking Iran, then poisoning its waters. And for a good measure, kill all Shia population of Lebanon, and more. All coming out as an advice to Netanyahu, and from one of the editors of Asia Times.
As the Bible says, there is madness in their hearts.
They want the advantage of being the US back but not by using policies that would restore the US’s standing in the world but by threatening to use nuclear weapons. OMG, these mother fuckers are crazy. There is no war worth starting using nuclear weapons that would ever restore the US’s standing.