NEWS: US Prepares Preemptive Nuclear Strike Plan in Asia Region

The Japanese region is carrying along a disheartening reputation for attracting US nuclear weapons programmes. The Joint Chiefs of Staff prepared a paper entitled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" asking the President for permission to use preemptive nuclear strikes if the US or one of its allies is threatened with strike from a weapon of mass destruction. The paper identifies numerous terrorist and criminal organizations with WMD capabilities as well as about 30 countries. The paper also outlines biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons requiring a pre-emptive strike.



Well, it seems that the US is indeed preparing for a possible confrontation with certain countries. In particular, this doctine seems to be addressing the North Korean nuclear weapon issue. The paper specifically mentions outfitting submarines whose port of call is in Japan. Another point to mention is that the doctrine calls for preemptive nuclear strikes on potentially overwhelming conventional forces. The only country I can think of with such is China. A new era seems to be dawning on foreign policy in the Asian region.

Related News Links:
washingtontimes.com

[edit on 1-5-2005 by Jamuhn]

sigh...

I don't know what else to say.

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]

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.

"threat" ?
"pre-emptive" ?

All very cyclical, and global safety depends to a large extent on having leadership that is sane and not given to criminality. Such a government does not currently exist in the US. MAD and Failsafe and SALT and Dr Strangelove are from time to time in the corral of cowboys with itchy trigger fingers.

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.

I dont think there is anyone competent enough in the current administration to make that decesion. Lets hope it doesnt come to that.

Well better start stocking up on your winter clothes folks.. forcasts say nuclear winter is on its way.

"Geographic combatant commanders may request presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons for a variety of conditions," the paper says.

The paper lists eight conditions such as "an adversary using or intending to use WMD against U.S. multinational or alliance forces or civilian populations" and "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy."

What is wrong with the above statement? Is the US to tie its hands in the face of a crisis? If someone is preparing to strike the US or its allies why not strike first, it is a common sense approach.

This also might be a move in order to keep Japan from going nuclear and setting of a nuclear arms race in the Asian area.

[edit on 1-5-2005 by cryptorsa1001]

You can't fight in here, THIS is the war room!


I guess I'll need to break out the plastic tarps and duct tape again.

Who the hell is Kdoyo News? the source alone sucks. You liberals really need a reality check

Stop jumping to conclusions or find a better source then running around acting like chicken little all the time.

The Russians have a very similar plan which was signed by Putin and has been already approved since 2000.

May 2000

Putin Signs New Military Doctrine, Fleshing Out Security Concept
Philipp C. Bleek
THE RUSSIAN SECURITY Council approved and President Vladimir Putin signed a new military doctrine April 21 that replaces the doctrine adopted in 1993 and "fleshes out" the military policy elaborated in Russia's 2000 national security concept, formally adopted in January. (See ACT, January/February 2000.) Like the security concept, the new doctrine appears to lower Russia's threshold for using nuclear weapons when attacked with conventional weapons. It also explicitly states that Russia's nuclear deterrent can be used to respond to all "weapons of mass destruction" attacks and reaffirms Russia's negative security assurances to non-nuclear- weapon states. (See document.)
The military doctrine, an 8,000-word document addressing a wide range of military issues, reaffirms the 1993 doctrine's call for a substantial Russian nuclear deterrent and authorizes the use of nuclear weapons to respond to "large-scale aggression utilizing conventional weapons in situations critical to the national security of the Russian Federation. " Like the nuclear policy elaborated in the 2000 security concept, this statement appears to permit the use of nuclear weapons in a broader range of circumstances than the previous version of the security concept, which was issued in 1997 and allowed nuclear weapons use only "in case of a threat to the existence of the Russian Federation."

The doctrine also says Russia "reserves the right to use nuclear weapons" when responding "to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against [Russia] and (or) its allies." This statement, which appears to mirror the implied U.S policy for using nuclear weapons, marks the first time Russia has explicitly permitted the use of nuclear weapons to respond to "weapons of mass destruction" attacks. In 1993, Russia abandoned its declared policy of not being the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict under any circumstances.

In addition to addressing the use of nuclear weapons, the doctrine also includes a statement on negative security assurances, which delineate situations in which nuclear weapons will not be used. The doctrine states that Russia will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) except in the event of an attack on Russia, its armed forces, or a Russian ally that is "carried out or supported" by a non-nuclear-weapon state "jointly or in the context of allied commitments" with a nuclear-weapon state. This statement closely parallels assurances given by the United States in 1995 and reaffirmed in 1997.

Excerpted from.
www.armscontrol.org...



I am not sure, if this is true, that we know the entire story behind this plan.

Russian officials have also stated that they retain the capability of attacking any country anywhere in the world that either supports or has given asylum to one of the people they have named to be terrorist. The US actually has provided asylum to at least one former Russian military which are proclaimed by Russia to be terrorist.

MOSCOW (Agence France-Presse) — Russia reacted with fury yesterday to a U.S. decision granting political asylum to the self-declared foreign minister of separatist Chechnya who is viewed as a "terrorist" by Moscow.
Moscow accused Washington of setting double standards in its global war on terror, in a comment straining relations between two Cold War era foes that had warmed after the September 11 attacks on the United States but have had increasingly frequent chilly spells in recent months.

Excerpted from.
washingtontimes.com...


If the news story from yahoo is true, it seems we are once more in a cold war, or close to a situation similar to the Cuban missile crises.

The Russians have been known to have aided to arm rogue countries such as Iraq before the war started, and now it is helping Iran. China is not that far behind either.

Would it even be possible for Korea to strike any other section of the United States besides the west coast with nuclear weapons? And does anyone know what the estimated number of nuclear weapons N. Korea has in its possesion is?

Seems to me this type of news published on ATS should be ratified by another News Source - yes? Certainly before it could possibly be published on our WebSite.

Dallas

Here are two other sources:

washingtontimes

Japan Times

They both reference Kyodo as their source but I don't think yahoo, the Washington Times and Japan Times would all use them as a source if they were not credible.

The site below has looked at the document referenced in the article and provided links to them but they have since been taken offline.
www.armscontrolwonk.com...

I found a copy of the PDF the arms control site was pointing to:

Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations- 15 March 2005

Get it while it's still up.

All political views aside.. source good or not.. and there are many now which back up the original post in this thread..

Common sense would tell you that the U.S.A. would have a Pre-emptive nuclear strike plan for the Asian region.

It would be foolish to not have one.. would it not?

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.

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
All political views aside.. source good or not.. and there are many now which back up the original post in this thread..

Common sense would tell you that the U.S.A. would have a Pre-emptive nuclear strike plan for the Asian region.

It would be foolish to not have one.. would it not?

One cannot argue with that at all, yes it is better to be safe then sorry, hell we all know even Russia and china have the very same plans, why should the US be any different?

The plan seems to call for the use of deep penetrating nuclear bombs to be used against deep underground bunkers, among some of the uses for nuclear weapons.

The plan is also very similar to the Russian plan where the russians say if their allies or themselves are under imminent attack by either conventional forces or any WMD the Russians can use nukes against anyone.

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.

[edit on 1-5-2005 by Muaddib]

This is a good idea at ALL times. With so many nuclear weapons in so many places, who knows who will strike first. Better to be safe than sorry. Stock up on meds, water, warm winter clothes, and so on...
Take precautions before hand.

Originally posted by Lysergic
You can't fight in here, THIS is the war room!


I guess I'll need to break out the plastic tarps and duct tape again.