NEWS: US Prepares Preemptive Nuclear Strike Plan in Asia Region

If what this news source is telling us is true, i see it not only as a response to what NK, Iran, and some other rogues nations have been doing in acquiring nuclear weapons, but also as a response to the Russian nuclear plan and what nations such as Russia and China have been doing to arm all those rogue countries who have professed their hatred and their wish to destroy the US and Israel.

Ok fine, the "seems to be" is the key here. Would Russia give us the a ok to nukes NK? Or would it do it own its own? How can we or Russia see any nuke strike as not threating to one another even on NK. The golden rule in power is not using them. Next why would NK or any other nation want WMD or nukes? Well so to insure that they wont be attacked. It is to easy to say they would use them when in fact that would only spell out their doom. If we set a standard that nukes can be used for preemptive strike then we only give other a good reason to nukes us if we even do nuke NK. One wrong word and China nukes us and that it, the world is thrown into nuclear war. Rogues nations is just another way of saying nation who wish to be just like us.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
I know this article does sounds bad, but I'm curious as to whether the president will stay have to make the decision to make a strike or if field commanders will be able to decide.

Kind of self-evident, Jamuhn?
Your article title indicates such:
Draft U.S. paper allows commanders to seek preemptive nuke strikes.

Furthermore, your article goes on to say this:

A JCS official said the paper "is still a draft which has to be finalized," but indicated that it is aimed at guiding "cross-spectrum" combatant commanders how to jointly carry out operations based on the Nuclear Posture Review report adopted three years ago by the administration of President George W. Bush.

Citing North Korea, Iran and some other countries as threats, the report set out contingencies for which U.S. nuclear strikes must be prepared and called for developing earth-penetrating nuclear bombs to destroy hidden underground military facilities, including those for storing WMD and ballistic missiles.

"The nature (of the paper) is to explain not details but cross spectrum for how to conduct operations," the official said, noting that it "means for all services, Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine."

As such, the paper is a draft and is simply something that can be used or referred to as a contingency plan(s).

IMHO, I do not know of a major world power that does not develop and analysis contingency plans even against the US. I'm finding it hard to see the big deal in this or why it is seen and viewed as a big deal by some that have responded to this topic.




seekerof

[edit on 1-5-2005 by Seekerof]

Actually Seekerof, the first paragraph states,

The U.S. military plans to allow regional combatant commanders to request the president for approval to carry out preemptive nuclear strikes against possible attacks on the United States or its allies with weapons of mass destruction, according to a draft new nuclear operations paper.

So, yea, I guess it is pretty evident from that paragraph, the title is a little unclear. But it seems this article even allows using nuclear weapons on countries who do not even have them. I just woke up from a nap, so my head is a little clearer now.

[edit on 1-5-2005 by Jamuhn]

Originally posted by Seekerof

IMHO, I do not know of a major world power that does not develop and analysis contingency plans even against the US. I'm finding it hard to see the big deal in this or why it is seen and viewed as a big deal by some that have responded to this topic.




seekerof

[edit on 1-5-2005 by Seekerof]

There is just one problem with your post Seek I cannot give you the way above that you deserve on your post

If I could, I would but I can't, so I won't

Yea, seekerof, I'm not sure why you seem to think noone knows or realizes that this is a "contigency" plan. I think the moans and groans you see on this thread is because they don't agree with the proposals in the draft. I know I don't agree with all of them. I guess you don't mind, am I right?

In particular, I don't think it's necessary to send nuclear weapons at conventional forces, nor do I think it's wise to start "preemptively nuking" countries.

[edit on 1-5-2005 by Jamuhn]

The world war 3 is coming...

But who against who? China VS USA? North Korea, Russia,China and Iran VS USA? Japan,USA and Taiwan VS China and Russia?

Well only time will tell...

[edit on 1-5-2005 by Vitchilo]

The US has always had "what if" plans drawn up for situations. We have made it known what they could be as a detterance factor should anyone try something. Remember that when the Cold War was going on the US withheld the option of using nukes to stop a Warsaw Pact attack on Western Europe. In the first Gulf War we let Iraq know that a Chemical or Biological attack on our troops would result in a devestating response from the US, with an implied Nuclear response. A response to an N.B.C. threat or attack would have to be of such a consequence that the nation/group issuing the threat would have to be suicidal to attempt it. Anything less than the implied threat of total destruction makes the possiblity of someone trying such an attack more likely.

Guys! Come on! Lets not be so negative. First off most of us are American or European. We are the best when we get into something together. Even though we have a crapp leader doesnt mean its a loss for us! The men and woman of america will make sure it doesn't make it to the point of nuclear winter's. Honestly when there is a GOOD VALID CAUSE America and Europe will rule!

[edit on 5/1/2005 by AndrewTB]

"Pre-emptive" and "Contingency" are oxymoronic when used with "plans" in the same sentence.

Some will see that, some won't.

Redundant maybe, but oxymoronic?

Care to explain?

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Well, it looks like we might not have to worry about Bush hijacking Social Security after all. If there is a preemptive strike, we will all be dead anyway.

Does this administration ever consider anything but agression?
[edit on 5/1/05 by Kidfinger]

Wow, you are the second person to comment on this thread and allready you put your "I hate Bush" 2 cents in.

I find nothing wrong with what they (US) say. I highly doubt that the US would nuke a country who is about to strike by conventionial means.

This is mainly a warning to North Korea, who is doing everything perfectly to piss off the US and world, I'm sure Japan thinks this is good news. A recent poll says that North Koreans hate the Japanese more then the Americans...thats a first.

BTW, North Korea fired a short range missile today (5/1/05) into the Sea of Japan...There just fueling the fire, they shoot missiles near Japan, back out of the six-nation Nuclear talks, shutdown nuclear plants so they can have it focus more on uranium enrichment, and some of you still would blame the US if it came to war.

It cannot make sense to "pre-empt" as a "contingency".

Unless you are prevaricating.

I see, so if you are pre-empting an eventuality, you are essentually saying that sometime in the future you are going to nuke these certain organizations and countries. Well, in the face of that, it seems more like a threat than anything else.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
I see, so if you are pre-empting an eventuality, you are essentually saying that sometime in the future you are going to nuke these certain organizations and countries. Well, in the face of that, it seems more like a threat than anything else.

of course not, are you brain dead. Were not saying were going to nuke another country. and its not a threat, its a warning.

Originally posted by Murcielago
of course not, are you brain dead. Were not saying were going to nuke another country. and its not a threat, its a warning.

Dude, you are so clueless. Have you been reading the discussion on the vocabulary used by posters to explain this plan over the post couple posts? Obviously not. Perhaps it is you who are brain dead or perhaps you just need to finish your secondary school english classes.

The great thing about a pre-emptive strike is that you don't have to produce any evidence that you are correct in attacking. It was destroyed in the attack (assuming there would be anyone around to care!) NK is simply rattling the US cage and and US is stupidly reacting which should come as no suprise since you don't have the smartest person on the planet as your head of state.

The US may be the most powerful nation on earth but also one of the most naive, a dangerous combination. Diplomacy is word that must be missing from the Whitehouse' American-English dictionary.

Originally posted by dirk d
What planet are you on folks? Its ok to nuke someone just because they have nukes too? Ok well best get ready for the end of humans. If Bush hadnt walk away from disarming we would have a better case for the preemptive junk. Still its the same old story, its ok for us to wheeled power and nukes and not for anyone else to have any a part in it. Whats wrong with Japan having nukes? Ah, I known, we think only white people will do the right thing and never use nukes, oops not anymore.

TRhats an ignorant, racist statement. Have you forgotten China has Nukes and is a permanent member of the Un security council? No, the nuclear club is not a whites only club nor has it ever been.

The reason we do not want to have Japan have nukes is because that would certainly upset the surrounding region, who still have recent memories and scars of Japanese brutality and agression during world war 2. We do not want to agrrivate an already tense situation.

As far as the whole premptive strike thing, its old hat. The Russians, Chinese, and the US even after the cold war ended all have had and still have premeptive policies and contingencies in place. They never really have ended, even after the cold war did. They are probably bringing this up now as a reminder to North Korea that we still can. But I dont think its gonna escalte into war. The Cuban Missile crisis, maybe, but not war.

Everyone here on ATS knows that this has been in the making for quite some time now. North Korea has been trying to exert it's nuclear power on the world scene for the last few years. Once "Dear Leader" Kim became a player in the nuclear field by the admission of having a bomb or the capability of lobbing one or two in whichever direction it wanted to was, the day the real world and the U.N. should have set up sanctions against N.Korea from behaving like the bully it really is. If I were in the White house, I would have set a blockade of the North the day they kicked our investagators out. This said, Bush has to get some type of talks going and to keep them engaged. I would not get on my hands and knees and beg him (Kim) to get rid of the nukes, but I would make it even more difficult for them to get the goods they need to have in order to survive. Some may argue that this will hurt the innocent even further in the North. Don't you just hate stupid people?

Originally posted by Murcielago
[
Wow, you are the second person to comment on this thread and allready you put your "I hate Bush" 2 cents in.

Typical of some closed minded conservatives I know. Trying to supress peoples opinions now? If you dont like my opinions, you could always lie to the FBI and tell them Im a terrorist. Then they could send me to Stalag 13 for breathing while the patriot act is in session...........

How was that 2 cents

[edit on 5/2/05 by Kidfinger]

I dont know, you would think NK would test a nuke if they had one, just the sttitude they have, i am alittle skeptical because i think kim jong would blow one up if he had one.