The Incredible Shrinking Bomb

—BBC NEWS VIDEO: Has the Threat of Nuclear Attack Increased or Diminished?, Aug. 7, 00:51:58
— VIDEO: Watch America's First and Only Test of Nuclear Artillery

America Miniaturizes and Trivializes Nuclear Weapons

A new report called the 'Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations' now wending its way through the Pentagon redefines the circumstances where nuclear weapons can be used, for the first time permitting a nuclear ‘first strike,’ and, according to this article from France’s Humanite, replaces the word ‘war’ with ‘conflict’ to cirumvent rules against a nuclear first use under the U.N. Charter.

By Michel Muller

September 15, 2005

l'Humanite - Original Article (French)    

Two events with serious consequences for the future of the planet took place over recent days. On September 6, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States, [Air Force] General Richard B. Meyers, submitted a report to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for approval by George W. Bush. It was entitled: "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations."

[Editor’s Note: According to the Washington Post, the document "is expected to be signed within a few weeks by Air Force Lt. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, director of the Joint Staff, according to Navy Commander Dawn Cutler, a public affairs officer in Myers's office. Meanwhile, the draft is going through final coordination with the military services, the combatant commanders, Pentagon legal authorities and Rumsfeld's office." It would then, presumably, go to President Bush.]

This document was drawn up over several years based on presidential directives, notably the reexamination of nuclear positioning in 2001. The United States announced that it is ready to use nuclear weapons in a first strike, "for preventive purposes" against a "threat" that could be non-nuclear. This was formally prohibited by all international treaties and agreements since the end of World War II.

On Tuesday, the Secretary General of the U.N. announced, right before the opening of the 60th General Assembly of the United Nations, that member State representatives could not reach an agreement on the reaffirmation and consolidation of the commitments made by the States party to the NPT, opening the way for the dismantling of the treaty. The first failure occurred in May during the five-year quinquennial review of the treaty. Kofi Annan called this new blow to disarmament "shameful."

The NPT’s creditability and its acceptance by countries that don’t have nuclear weapons are based on the firm commitment of "official" nuclear weapons States to progressively dismantle their atomic weapons systems. In 2000, they undertook to proceed to disarmament, to refrain from any perfecting of the weapons and, particularly, to make the Middle East a nuclear-free zone. On the other hand, it is no mystery to anyone that Washington, Paris and London are pursuing their plans to ensure the "maintenance and stability" of their "deterrence force," but that their real goal is the qualitative improvement of these weapons (miniaturization, tactical handling, force control, precision, etc.).

The new American doctrine affirms that at least thirty States possess or have the intent to possess weapons "of mass destruction." To "respond" to this "new planetary menace that is much worse than the cold war," the Bush administration recommends a veritable mutation of the American military doctrine. It is now a matter of "deterring" a potential adversary ("rogue" States) from attempting any aggression against the United States by "preventatively" destroying their capabilities, that are characterized as aggressive. To this end, "tactical" nuclear weapons will be perfected and adapted in all ways, including intercontinental missiles. The document goes so far as to recommend the undertaking of "warning" friendly countries near the theater of operations of the imminence of a strike, to allow them to take measures "to protect themselves from the effects of the attack"…

The plan submitted for Bush’s approval recommends, furthermore, the integration of nuclear weapons into the hierarchy of use of conventional weapons, making the ultimate weapon simply an additional tool in the military toolbox.

At the same time, the threshold for use is lowered, which authorizes a nuclear strike even as a "response" to an "imminent crisis." This is detailed by the listing of four "cases" when a preventative strike "could occur":

-When an adversary has the "intention" to use weapons of mass destruction;

-In the event of an "imminent" attack with biological weapons that only a nuclear weapon could preventatively destroy "safely";

-In the event that it is a matter of striking offensive mechanisms buried so deeply underground that they are out of range of a conventional weapon ['bunker busters'];

-To demonstrate the intention and capability of the United States to use nuclear weapons to dissuade the adverse use of weapons of mass destruction.

In the same vein, the U.S. strategic command has been permitted to replace the word "war" with "conflict," a term that doesn’t necessarily imply belligerence. By this semantic trick, the American authorities claim to comply with the United Nations Charter, which includes the "prevention" of "conflicts."

For his part, the U.N. secretary general has given the appearance of legitimacy to this U.S. project. In a March 24 statement, Kofi Annan affirmed that "imminent threats are fully covered by Article 61 of the Charter, which guarantees the natural right of legitimate defense." He also said that, "Jurists have long established that this provision covers imminent attacks, as well as those that have already taken place."

---