|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Nuclear Doctrine Will Probably Omit Controversial Text By David Ruppe WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is likely to modify a controversial nuclear war-fighting document by dropping language that describes scenarios in which the United States could use nuclear first-strikes against enemy WMD capabilities, a defense official told Global Security Newswire recently (see GSN, Sept. 12). Still, the United States would probably reserve the option to use nuclear weapons in such instances, even if those scenarios are not articulated in the military’s official nuclear doctrine document, the official said. That choice has been available for decades and alluded to in other documents but not specified in previous publicly available versions of the nuclear doctrine. The military, however, might also reduce the prominence of a nuclear first strike as an option against chemical and biological capabilities by seeking to “balance” it, the official said, presumably with non-nuclear options. “They’re coming back to take a much harder look at this,” the official said. The current version of the doctrine was completed in 1995. The move to update it, begun early this decade, was driven in part by the perception of an increasing threat from weapons of mass destruction, the official said. A section of the Joint Staff prepared the draft nuclear doctrine, which has been sent to the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy for review. “It may be as long as a year before it is out now. So, don’t be looking for this anytime soon and I’m not sure that any of that language is going to stay in,” the official said in a telephone interview with Global Security Newswire. Consistency with Values QuestionedA final draft of the “Doctrine on Joint Nuclear Operations” was discovered on the Internet in March and the controversial language was the subject of several prominent news articles. The Washington Post reported last month that completion of the doctrine could be delayed well beyond the previous goal of late this summer. U.S. officials mostly have been tight-lipped about what the final document might contain, including the controversial text. “We don’t comment on draft doctrine and it’s not normally publicized,” said the defense official. A section of the text as it appeared on the Internet says U.S. regional commanders could request presidential authorization to use nuclear weapons against an adversary “using or intending to use” weapons of mass destruction, an imminent biological attack, or WMD-related facilities. The defense official said that segment is being reconsidered because of concern about its consistency with U.S. values against causing civilian casualties. “It’s not because some of the complaints from the outside, it’s because of discussion about values from some on the inside here” that has occurred since the text had become more widely known within the defense establishment, the official said. “Because they want American values to be different from a lot of the values that we see among our opponents in the Third World in the global war on terrorism,” the official continued. “These terrorists, they don’t think twice about employing these kinds of things. They don’t care about civilian casualties.” The controversial text appears intended to address scenarios in which an attack by a foreign state that could harm U.S. forces or civilians might be prevented by the threat or use of a U.S. nuclear weapon. “To maximize deterrence of WMD use,” the document says, “it is essential … that U.S. forces are determined to employ nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use.” Critics have complained that a doctrine allowing for nuclear first-use against chemical or biological capabilities could conflict with U.S. assurances that it would not attack a non-nuclear-weapon state with atomic weapons unless that nation was working in concert with a nuclear power. Further, they have argued the doctrine text could increase the likelihood that the United States would use a nuclear weapon, potentially producing mass civilian casualties. The draft language also could encourage nations to pursue nuclear weapons for deterrence and undermine U.S. efforts to promote nonproliferation, critics said. The military might alternatively simply do away with the doctrine, or make it classified, said Natural Resources Defense Council consultant Hans Kristensen. Kristensen said the military is attempting to do “damage control” and avoid greater public and congressional scrutiny of a policy that already is a reality. “Our strategic submarines out there on patrol are already tasked under [a plan] that has pre-emption in it,” he said. “Operationally, it’s already out there.”
| ||||||||||
Back to top
