That, it seems, is the purport of this Washington Post piece about the newly-revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons.
A "summary of changes" included in the draft identifies differences from the 1995 doctrine, and says the new document "revises the discussion of nuclear weapons use across the range of military operations."(Emphasis added.)
The first example for potential nuclear weapon use listed in the draft is against an enemy that is using "or intending to use WMD" against U.S. or allied, multinational military forces or civilian populations.
Another scenario for a possible nuclear preemptive strike is in case of an "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy."
So: How do we determine whether an adversary "intends" to use WMDs? How do we know whether germ warfare is imminent?
I mean, I thought the Pentagon shut down Grill Flame and all those other experimental "remote viewing" programs...
This is the world we now find ourselves in. It was an awfully short step from the concept of "preventive invasion" to "preventive nuclear war"...
1 comment:
I can hear Bushco now :
We know they have the weapons, we know where they are! They're in and around [country/city name], to the South and to the East, and to the West and to the North!
It'll make life easier for Bushco. If they were to use nukes, it would be an awful lot more difficult to not find the WMDs--No one would be willing to go in and see if they were ever there!
Post a Comment