A Sharpening of Swords
What are we to make of reports that Russia may have clandestinely sold "nuclear suitcases" to Islamic militants in Chechnya at the end of the Cold War? Is it true or false? Are these "suitcases" a viable weapon of mass destruction that can be used by our enemies on an unsuspecting America with porous borders both on the Canadian and Mexican horizons?
Is Russia perhaps engaging in international brinkmanship covertly by arming International Islamic Terrorists with the most lethal of all weapons in a mad bid at empire building or perhaps even simple vengeance for loss of prestige? Or does Russia have longer range goals to seize the most valuable real estate on the planet: the Middle East? By secretly arming the Islamic Jihad with nuclear weapons, has Russia thrown the dice by giving our enemies a nuclear edge over us? Thus laying the groundwork for America to be incapacitated by nuclear warfare against an intractable enemy? And thus removing the only thing keeping Russia out of the Middle East: American Military Superiority? I cannot accept that Moscow would allow nuclear weapons accidentally to fall in the hands of the Islamic fanatic. But I could be wrong.
Whatever the Russians may have done whether intentionally or accidentally, the United States has put the world on notice by releasing a defense department draft that should not go unnoticed by our adversaries.
From the Australian:
A new draft US defense paper calls for preventive nuclear strikes against state and non-state adversaries in order to deter them from using weapons of mass destruction and urges US troops to "prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively.
"The document, titled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" and dated March 15, was put together by the Pentagon's Joint Staff in at attempt to adapt current procedures to the fast-changing world after the September 11, 2001, attacks, said a defense official.
A copy of the draft obtained by AFP urges US theatre force commanders operating around the world to prepare specific plans for using nuclear weapons in their regions -- and outlines scenarios, under which it would be justified to seek presidential approval for a nuclear strike.
They include an adversary using or planning to use weapons of mass destruction against US or allied forces as well as civilian populations. Preventive nuclear strikes could also be employed to destroy a biological weapons arsenal belonging to an enemy, if there is no possibility to take it out with conventional weapons and it is determined the enemy is poised for a biological attack, according to the draft.
What is interesting about this draft paper is the apparent willingness to use the doomsday weapon in American arsenals if the enemy is too entrenched or perhaps militarily too difficult to invade such as Iran with our current troop deployments. Will our enemies be so arrogant as to second-guess our intentions in a post-9/11 world?
In the context of the US-led "war on terror", the draft explicitly warns that any attempt by a hostile power to hand over weapons of mass destruction to militant groups to enable them to strike a devastating blow against the United States will likely trigger a US nuclear response against the culprit.
Regional US commanders may request presidential approval to go nuclear "to respond to adversary-supplied WMD use by surrogates against US and multinational forces or civilian populations," the draft says.
"To maximize deterrence of WMD use, it is essential US forces prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively and that US forces are determined to employ nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use," the document states.
Let there be no mistake about it. Petty threats from Islamic dictators about nuclear terrorism will be met with a swift and fiery retribution the nations of the earth have not witnessed since the Second World War.
The doctrine reminds that while first use of nuclear weapons may draw condemnation, "no customary or conventional international law prohibits nations from employing nuclear weapons in armed conflict."
Now mind you, America has always had contingency plans on the Pentagon shelves that outlined what we should do in case of a Nuclear Attack by the once formidable Soviet Union. Plans that outlined the complete destruction of cities throughout Russia can become operational, however, it is a propitious moment in these last days to remind our enemies that we will not hesitate to use our own weapons of mass destruction against them and countries that harbor Islamic terrorists who utilize them for politics or war by other means.
Is Russia perhaps engaging in international brinkmanship covertly by arming International Islamic Terrorists with the most lethal of all weapons in a mad bid at empire building or perhaps even simple vengeance for loss of prestige? Or does Russia have longer range goals to seize the most valuable real estate on the planet: the Middle East? By secretly arming the Islamic Jihad with nuclear weapons, has Russia thrown the dice by giving our enemies a nuclear edge over us? Thus laying the groundwork for America to be incapacitated by nuclear warfare against an intractable enemy? And thus removing the only thing keeping Russia out of the Middle East: American Military Superiority? I cannot accept that Moscow would allow nuclear weapons accidentally to fall in the hands of the Islamic fanatic. But I could be wrong.
Whatever the Russians may have done whether intentionally or accidentally, the United States has put the world on notice by releasing a defense department draft that should not go unnoticed by our adversaries.
From the Australian:
A new draft US defense paper calls for preventive nuclear strikes against state and non-state adversaries in order to deter them from using weapons of mass destruction and urges US troops to "prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively.
"The document, titled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" and dated March 15, was put together by the Pentagon's Joint Staff in at attempt to adapt current procedures to the fast-changing world after the September 11, 2001, attacks, said a defense official.
A copy of the draft obtained by AFP urges US theatre force commanders operating around the world to prepare specific plans for using nuclear weapons in their regions -- and outlines scenarios, under which it would be justified to seek presidential approval for a nuclear strike.
They include an adversary using or planning to use weapons of mass destruction against US or allied forces as well as civilian populations. Preventive nuclear strikes could also be employed to destroy a biological weapons arsenal belonging to an enemy, if there is no possibility to take it out with conventional weapons and it is determined the enemy is poised for a biological attack, according to the draft.
What is interesting about this draft paper is the apparent willingness to use the doomsday weapon in American arsenals if the enemy is too entrenched or perhaps militarily too difficult to invade such as Iran with our current troop deployments. Will our enemies be so arrogant as to second-guess our intentions in a post-9/11 world?
In the context of the US-led "war on terror", the draft explicitly warns that any attempt by a hostile power to hand over weapons of mass destruction to militant groups to enable them to strike a devastating blow against the United States will likely trigger a US nuclear response against the culprit.
Regional US commanders may request presidential approval to go nuclear "to respond to adversary-supplied WMD use by surrogates against US and multinational forces or civilian populations," the draft says.
"To maximize deterrence of WMD use, it is essential US forces prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively and that US forces are determined to employ nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use," the document states.
Let there be no mistake about it. Petty threats from Islamic dictators about nuclear terrorism will be met with a swift and fiery retribution the nations of the earth have not witnessed since the Second World War.
The doctrine reminds that while first use of nuclear weapons may draw condemnation, "no customary or conventional international law prohibits nations from employing nuclear weapons in armed conflict."
Now mind you, America has always had contingency plans on the Pentagon shelves that outlined what we should do in case of a Nuclear Attack by the once formidable Soviet Union. Plans that outlined the complete destruction of cities throughout Russia can become operational, however, it is a propitious moment in these last days to remind our enemies that we will not hesitate to use our own weapons of mass destruction against them and countries that harbor Islamic terrorists who utilize them for politics or war by other means.
posted by Bruce R. McConnell | 9:15 PM
7 Comments:
"What are we to make of reports that Russia may have clandestinely sold "nuclear suitcases" to Islamic militants in Chechnya at the end of the Cold War? Is it true or false?"
I would without some real proof downgrade that threat,
One suitcase or rather steamer trunk bombs would have VERY sensitive electronics, not the kind of things you can sit on the shelf and then expect to use later without some serious and continuous mainatance,
'
Second Sell them to Chechnyan terrorists? The kind who gunned downn school children in Beslan?
I doubt it, had they done so, they would have had something more than satchel charges in the theatre in Moscow,
Had they done so the Russian Mafia might think Nukes going off in Moscow, St Petersburg and other areas of economic value to them not such a good idea.
SO if by some miracle they still worked the CIA, the FSB and the Russian Mafia would all be busy hunting them down,
Thank you Dan for your comments.
I'm generally in your court on the idea that this threat may be a red herring.
I just can't believe that the Russians would whether accidentally or intentionally arm her own enemies with the "unthinkable" weapon even in the name of international brinkmanship.
However, then why the release of this Defense Draft Paper on the American use of nukes?
Russia has been known to take sides with her enemies at the expense of the West i.e. Hitler-Stalin Pact which ushered in WWII.
Nice to see your comments back. I thought you'd taken your ball and gone home.
I don't know why you're at all suprised that we've drawn up plans for pre-emptive nuclear strikes around the globe. I'm pretty sure we've had said plans, in one form or another, for a lot longer than just this past year.
So we're going to nuke anybody who passes along WMD to terrorists or our enemies? Better shore up the intelligence agencies now, cause it's one thing to invade a country on false intelligence, but you nuke a country and kill millions under false pretenses and you got a World War on your hands, with pretty much every nation on the planet earth lined up against us.
The same might be true for even a "justified" pre-emptive action.
To say nothing of the fact that we, ourselves, have never had a problem passing WMD to an ally in order to hurt one of our enemies.
I don't like the fact that the criteria with which you attempt to justify aggression can be employed to justify aggression against America. You embolden our enemies with your intellectual laziness. If you have a goal, then pursue it, not haphazardly, but with consistency and reason.
Your detachment from logic is, at times, absolutely terrifying. Why would the Russian government arm domestic terrorists, ones who have never struck against the West, but have killed hundreds of Russians over the past decade? Your desire to relive the Cold War would be quaint if it were not so deadly serious.
Russia is the second largest oil exporter, after Saudi Arabia. Their oil consumption is 1/10th of ours. Using your faculties, who has more of a reason to expend the money, the political capital, and the military force necessary to grab Middle Eastern oil.
You're obviously familiar with the term "mutually assured destruction". Over 95% of the world's nuclear arsenal lies in the hands of two countries. We have thousands of nukes, capable of launch within three minutes, on 24 hour alert. Hundreds are aimed at Moscow alone. Russia, likewise, has a similar system.
Are you familiar with the articles regarding how many times we've almost launched on each other accidentally SINCE the Cold War ended. Where is there room for brinksmanship in that kind of scenario? Especially when there is no reason to take militarily what can be achieved peacefully with a fraction of the cost, across the board.
I'll just leave you with this link.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/nonopec.html
If you think Russia needs to nuke us for oil, then read the table regarding non-OPEC nations net exporting of oil. Note that the United States was the third largest PRODUCER of oil in 2004, but look at where we stand on the table. Any dealer recognizes a good customer when they see one. Keep them SUV factories open and your minds closed!!!
Thank you blooog for your comments.
Well, gee. Where do I begin. I have to say you must not have read my blog because I state this may or may not be true about Russia arming Islamic fanatics in a bid to destabilize the West. In other words, I'm unsure.
Neither Did I say or convey that I was "surprised" that we have contingency plans in case of a nuclear attack either by nations or terror organizations. I did state that we do have those plans since the Cold War began and no doubt have since been dusted off from the Pentagon shelves with the advent of 9/11.
Intellectual laziness? You make me laugh with that one. Actually, simply to talk about our choices available to us does not embolden our enemies, if anything, it should give them pause.
I say to you: Who do you want to win? The forces of totalitarian evil or the forces of Freedom? Clearly from your remarks you cannot tell who is friend or foe.
Your moral equivications can only serve our enemies will to divide and conquer.
I think it is a great idea that we "pass off a wmd to our friends" such as Britain or Canada or even France if that means our enemies will shrivel before us in fear.
You cannot view the world ENTIRELY thru the prism of economics. Countries wage war for many reasons: economics, politics, culture, religion and even for revenge.
Oil from the Middle East is the best oil on the market. Russian oil is not as good as it is from the Middle East. It was WESTERN companies that drilled the oil for the Arabs, so we were already there. The West is not going to wage war on assets that it already has. We don't need to invade oil-rich countries because it is only through our expertise that this oil is even extracted in the first place.
In closing, your worldview is symptomatic of the Left: They loathe America and all that she stands for.
"In closing, your worldview is symptomatic of the Left: They loathe America and all that she stands for."
To respond to this incredibly ignorant statement, repeated ad nauseum by you and your ilk, would be a waste of time.
And to clarify, I accused you of "intellectual laziness" because your justification for the US position on pre-emption leaves us open for the same interpretation. If this were debate team at school and I were your teacher, I'd tell you the same thing. Arguments need logic. Brute force will only get you so far.
In response to your assertions regarding U.S. oil assets, I would suggest doing some reading on the matter. As other regions begin to rival our consumption during the next several decades, the political and economic ties which you believe are so steadfast will begin to muddy an already murky picture. That is not propaganda for the left or right. Take a look at what the leading economists and political thinktanks have to say on the matter. Money, land, and resources are the primary motive for all large scale military operations.
I would also suggest reading up on the new Russian oil industry. It seems that they are getting their stuff together.
So "who do I want to win". This abstraction or that abstraction? You need to rejoin reality my friend. This is not a battle between "totalitarian evil" and "the forces of Freedom". That would be an episode of GI Joe. To disregard what is really happening here would be to embolden our enemies. The less we understand about the conflict in which we are currently engaged, the better it is for our adversaries. Get in the game.
Attacking domestic political opponents at the expense of real dialogue concerning our shared interests does neither of us a service. If you just don't give a damn, keep raving about nuking folks and how this all works into some apocalyptic vision you heard on your "Left Behind" books on tape.
If you care about the ACTUAL fate of your children and your grandchildren, I would suggest you leave the self-indulgent fantasy behind and start helping. I don't care if you're liberal or conservative. Bring your view to bear and stop being a pawn of those who would use your time and effort for their own cynical gain.
LOL!
Bloooog, you take yourself way too seriously. I'm afraid, my friend, it is you who has chosen to ignore reality. This blog is about viewing current events in light of historical trends. I'm not sure what could be more real than that.
Nuclear Warfare is a very real threat that OUR generation will have to deal with both diplomatically and militarily. For you to simply rely on diplomacy is a one-edged sword when you can have a two-edged sword in a diplomatic/military response.
The fact that I bring up a military option doesn't necessarily mean I want it. However, being the realist that I am, I understand that it is there and because of our American way of life we have the BEST military in the world, we should keep everthing on the table.
So whats your solution, Einstein?
I'm sorry I came across as "taking myself too seriously". The last time I checked, I'm pretty adept with the self-deprecation. Maybe you bring it out in me.
Viewing our current situation (or any conflict for that matter) as a battle between rhetorical absolutes, abstractions with no meaning or value, is destructive. It's the tool of the propagandist. I guess the real problem would be if our leaders actually believe this kind of stuff, in which case I would question their competence.
So what's my solution? I guess you mean in regards to the world's issue with nuclear weapons. Sadly, I haven't come up with a unifying theory about worldwide disarmament in the past couple of hours.
But I can tell you this...a pre-emptive nuclear strike against any nation is an act of diplomatic and political suicide. I'll refer back to my initial post. After our intelligence failures with regards to Iraq, I don't know how any reasonable person can still back the doctrine of pre-emption.
If you're so concerned about the threat of nuclear weapons, I hope you're supportive of the bilateral disarmament of the United States and Russia, the owners of the VAST majority of the world's nuclear stockpile. Furthermore, I hope you don't support the efforts of many of your political cohorts (I'm just going to assume you're a conservative, if I may) to militarize space. Their efforts to develop "tactical" nuclear weapons.
In short, I don't really need to come up with a solution. There are thousands of capable people working towards worldwide nuclear disarmament and I hope you would support them. Once again, I suggest researching how many times the US and Russia have almost launched on accident SINCE the Cold War ended.
Don't take it personal. I'm not trying to attack you. Debate is healthy. It keeps you from getting lazy.
Post a Comment
<< Home