NATO's Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine

[HotHotHeat]

Aimed at preserving the Western World's way of life in an uncertain time.

Clearly outlining nuclear 1st strikes as not only viable, but plausible:

. . .technology could produce options that go beyond the traditional role of nuclear weapons in preventing a nuclear armed opponent from using nuclear weapons. In sum, nuclear weapons remain indispensable. . .

So essentially, we're going to use nuclear weapons as a deterrent for countries that do not share our values.

A summary of challenges (facing Western allies) outlined in the report:

• Demography. Population growth and change across the globe will swiftly change the world we knew. The challenge this poses for welfare, good governance and energy security (among other things) is vast.

• Climate change. This greatly threatens physical certainty, and is leading to a whole new type of politics – one predicated, perhaps more than ever, on our collective future.

• Energy security continues to absorb us. The supply and demand of individual nations and the weakening of the international market infrastructure for energy distribution make the situation more precarious than ever.

• There is also the more philosophic problem of the rise of the irrational – the discounting of the rational. Though seemingly abstract, this problem is demonstrated in deeply practical ways. [These include] the decline of respect for logical argument and evidence, a drift away from science in a civilization that is deeply technological. The ultimate example is the rise of religious fundamentalism, which, as political fanaticism, presents itself as the only source of certainty.

• The weakening of the nation state. This coincides with the weakening of world institutions, including the United Nations and regional organizations such as the European Union, NATO and others.

• The dark side of globalization ... These include internationalized terrorism, organized crime and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but also asymmetric threats from proxy actors or the abuse of financial and energy leverage. (Ibid)

Nothing earth shattering, but it's interesting to listen to NATO member countries preach the importance of a nuclear free world with a strategy like this.

Would our governments go as far as to trigger a middle eastern nuclear holocaust to defend our way of life? Is it a useless question as there would not be any life in a post nuclear war world?

The report is available on the CSIS Website

[CaptainCrunch]

Of course a first strike is still on the books, the concept of a decapitation strike against a mobile enemy government, or a disarming strike could become necessary

The target packages on the ICBM's during the cold war were mostly aimed at the Soviet missile fields. I don't know if you've ever seen a nuclear silo, but conventional weapons didn't have the range or destructive power to ensure that those missiles wouldn't launch. America's inventory of extremely accurate weapons made the Soviets change their doctrine to mobile missile launchers that were either rail or road based. The Russians actually had very little in the way of stationary silos.

Submarine based missiles were less accurate and were mostly targeted at high value city targets.

The idea behind nuclear poker is to convince your enemy that you can hit them before they launch their missiles. That still remains in place with China probably being the largest Nuclear threat to America, especially since the Chinese missiles aren't accurate enough for counterforce and are targeted to cities in Russia and the U.S.

Israel's nuclear capability is based more around aircraft based missiles but rumor has it that they have long range sub capable cruise missiles with heavy warheads. France isn't really a nuclear threat, nor are the British.

The concern is a unfriendly nation such as North Korea or Iran developing the warheads to go with their already nuclear capable missiles. the problem with North Korea or Iran is that they know that the minute that they start fueling their first missile for launch, the American counterforce strike will be on the way and be able to hit long before their missile can launch.

[HotHotHeat]

Good post CC,

The parts of the report more interesting to me are the 'religion as rationale' perspectives they subscribe to.

A lot of the strategic and technological differences are more-less off setting in a lot of ways, as no one really would win a nuclear war.

The emphasis on 'protecting Western ways of life' is over looked a lot of the time too. What does that even mean? Protecting our over consumption against the worlds poor? Limiting the Global South's access to control over natural resources?

Obviously measures have to be done to limit N. Korea and Iran, etc., but we're not talking a zero sum outcome...Or at least there's a chance we aren't.

I guess it goes back to the North wind vs. the Sun argument.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

So essentially, we're going to use nuclear weapons as a deterrent for countries that do not share our values.

The "values" of NATO countries are hard to put your finger on. Turkey is a NATO country, but their political, economic, cultural, and religous values are a lot different than those in Iceland. Greek values differ from Polish values... and so on.

If a pre-emptive nuclear attack were to be considered by NATO, it would likely have more to do with gaining resources and strategic control. I think any nation that is willing to go to war (especially a nuclear war) over "values", really needs to question their values.

The U.S. is the de facto leader of NATO and has promoted the idea of pre-emptive attacks in their own domestic policies for decades, so it should be no surprise that such a doctrines would exist within NATO itself. It's scary to think that the taboo of using nukes seems to be relaxing a bit. Some people think that tactical nukes SHOULD be part of a conventional arsenal.

[Sparks]

Religion as rationale? Aren't they saying that it poses a potential problem? From what you posted, they're saying we need to watch out for the decline of rationality and scientific thought. They use religion, if anything, as an example of irrationality.

Edit: OK, now I've read more of the article. They write this:

But symptoms such as the decline of interest in science reflect an intellectual decline that might have more immediately palpable social consequences in areas such as journalism, law, and even public health. It reflects a more general loss of respect for the value of evidence and argument.

Which I think is great. But then they say things like this:

In some Western societies, faith in purely irrational belief systems has overtaken belief in religions that have moral and rational substance, as well as cultural roots.

I'm disappointed that they would put "Western" religions on a pedestal, claiming they're better like a schoolyard argument. All religions seem inherently irrational to me, regardless of where they happened to get popular, or whether they're true or not.

Further, the rise of fundamentalist Christianity in the United States is something that should be troubling to any "rational" person.

[flamey_mcflame]

[

Further, the rise of fundamentalist Christianity in the United States is something that should be troubling to any "rational" person.[/quote]

Those goddamn bible thumpers are taking over the southern U.S. Ewwwww. They should reinstate the mason-dixon line. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Even though are strongest economic ties are to the U.S., we are much more European than we are American when it comes to our philosophy of living. I want a rebounding nuclear safe dome put over Canada and want all missile projections to bounce off us and hit anything with the confederate flag near it. There, I said it.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

If a pre-emptive nuclear attack were to be considered by NATO, it would likely have more to do with gaining resources and strategic control. I think any nation that is willing to go to war (especially a nuclear war) over "values", really needs to question their values.

I strongly disagree with this, and I think that there's a misunderstanding about what the concept of first strike means in a nuclear theater.

First strike is based around one of two key benchmarks

1) The fear of an immediate attack by a opposing state where there is a more then likely chance that this strike consists of a strike using weapons of mass destruction (NBC). Usually in that case, Nuclear weapons are the only weapons that can be deployed with the range, the accuracy, the survivability, and the destructive power required to take out the enemies capability

A) Range - Intercontinental ballistic missiles can travel thousands of miles within a short period of time, most countries do not have the capability to detect or stop these missiles in time to launch any significant counter strike.

B) Accuracy - Most of the next gen nuclear weapons whether they are launched from land based silos, sub based launch system, mobile launch systems or ship based systems, have redundant navigation system. The first uses a combination of way point navigation and photo recognition, the second uses GPS systems. A war head can usually land within 50 meters of its designated target.

C) Survivability - Most mirved warheads travel at 100's of times faster then a conventional missile, because of this there is very little in the way of interception technology that proven to work against them. Combine that with the heavy counter measures that accompany a war head and there is a 9 out of 10 chance that your strike is going to reach its target. This survivability is far in excess of conventional missiles or aircraft delivered armaments.

d) Destructive Power - When your going after a nations strategic weapons system they are usually heavily protected. IE silo's are protected by heavy armor, gravel pits and unusually shaped caps. Because of this the best way to ensure that these systems don't fire, or in the case of mobile systems are obliterated is to deliver as much destruction as possible.

2) The second reason to consider a first strike is if a conventional military strike bogs down. In this case its more then likely that tactical nuclear weapons would be deployed against enemy fortifications, supply lines, rail lines or road ways carrying re-enforcements. These are not large weapons and are usually deployed either via air or long range artillery. These are usually fairly clean weapons as its tough for an army to fight in a irradiated environment.

NATO first strike doctrine covers the first two, however the deployment of the dooms day scenario which is the use of city busting weapons is a political decision, and is only approved in the case of either a required governmental decapitation in the face of the deployment or perceived deployment of WMD, or in retaliation for the use of WMD which Nato doctrine instantly calls for retaliation with political considerations.

Nuclear warfare does not work if the intent is to seize strategic assets or resources. First of all because its extremely difficult to fight in a contaminated environment, and second of all it becomes next to impossible for example to harvest or gain use of those resources (every try to pump oil in a nuclear environment). And third of all, its more then likely that beyond fall out and contamination the use of nuclear weapons would destroy the target nations resource base.

As it stands, NATO cannot fire its nuclear weapons on a strategic level without the approval of all nato nations. And thats one of the great weaknesses in terms of Nato doctrine because the battlefield changes, it will take too long to get the approval to deploy for them to be used effectively. Its also the same on a tactical level, a field commander cannot even gain access to nuclear artillary or chemical artillary rounds without the approval of NATOs member nations.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by flamey_mcflame

Those goddamn bible thumpers are taking over the southern U.S. Ewwwww. They should reinstate the mason-dixon line. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Even though are strongest economic ties are to the U.S., we are much more European than we are American when it comes to our philosophy of living. I want a rebounding nuclear safe dome put over Canada and want all missile projections to bounce off us and hit anything with the confederate flag near it. There, I said it.

What an incredibly insightful post.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Sparks

Religion as rationale? Aren't they saying that it poses a potential problem? From what you posted, they're saying we need to watch out for the decline of rationality and scientific thought. They use religion, if anything, as an example of irrationality.

Edit: OK, now I've read more of the article. They write this:
Which I think is great. But then they say things like this:
I'm disappointed that they would put "Western" religions on a pedestal, claiming they're better like a schoolyard argument. All religions seem inherently irrational to me, regardless of where they happened to get popular, or whether they're true or not.

Further, the rise of fundamentalist Christianity in the United States is something that should be troubling to any "rational" person.

The entire doctrine is putting Western values (all of the above) on a pedestal. Including our ignorance for ridiculous levels of consumption. It's as if we're entitled to more than others solely based of the fact we became developed before other parts of the world.

[flamey_mcflame]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

The entire doctrine is putting Western values (all of the above) on a pedestal. Including our ignorance for ridiculous levels of consumption. It's as if we're entitled to more than others solely based of the fact we became developed before other parts of the world.

What an insightful post. Since you won the birth lottery, maybe you should give all your material possessions and wealth to the unfortunates in the fourth world countries. It seems only fair.

I doubt we will ever see the day when human greed and self-interest is overridden by ethical conduct on a mass scale. It's in our nature.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by flamey_mcflame

What an insightful post. Since you won the birth lottery, maybe you should give all your material possessions and wealth to the unfortunates in the fourth world countries. It seems only fair.

I doubt we will ever see the day when human greed and self-interest is overridden by ethical conduct on a mass scale. It's in our nature.

Congratulations, you've just presented liberal vs. conservative 101.

It's not a right vs. wrong argument, it's sustainable vs. unsustainable.

[Sparks]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

The entire doctrine is putting Western values (all of the above) on a pedestal. Including our ignorance for ridiculous levels of consumption. It's as if we're entitled to more than others solely based of the fact we became developed before other parts of the world.

Good point. Well, we've been ethnocentric throughout our entire history. Why stop now?

[Five-hole]

Thanks for linking that, Triple H (if I can call you that).

I'm about 1/3 of the way through and fascinated.

[Option84]

It's funny how we all live on this tiny little blue pebble which is nothing more than a speck of dust in the vastness of space and yet we are so eager to destroy it.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

I haven't started to wade through the report yet, but just some comments on what others have highlighted:

"Climate change. This greatly threatens physical certainty, and is leading to a whole new type of politics – one predicated, perhaps more than ever, on our collective future."

Well, I guess this should put the whole climate change argument to bed. When NATO, a collection of the most of the industrialized nations, makes this statement in an intergovernmental report, recognizing that climate change does indeed exist and they see it as potential threat, the problem exists and is recognized at the highest levels. All the rest is now just noise. Thank you NATO for stating the obvious.

"There is also the more philosophic problem of the rise of the irrational – the discounting of the rational. Though seemingly abstract, this problem is demonstrated in deeply practical ways. [These include] the decline of respect for logical argument and evidence, a drift away from science in a civilization that is deeply technological. The ultimate example is the rise of religious fundamentalism, which, as political fanaticism, presents itself as the only source of certainty."

"But symptoms such as the decline of interest in science reflect an intellectual decline that might have more immediately palpable social consequences in areas such as journalism, law, and even public health. It reflects a more general loss of respect for the value of evidence and argument."

I guess this puts the United States front and center on the list of targets. The numbers for students studying the sciences in American universities is at an all time low. When you take away the international students, those numbers are even worse. Religious fundamentalism is also on the rise in the United States, with the fastest growing religions being the Evangelical and Mormon sects of Christianity. The level of indoctrination in these belief systems continues to grow as more and more non-accredited "Christian" universities are built to promote the ideology. Finally, the last eight years certainly must show just how much control and damage the fanatical aspects of one political party can do in a country. It seems to me that the United States fits the bill for a first strike based on the criteria presented. I think that shows just how wonky some of the thinking is in classifying potential threats. I know its probably arguimg semantics, but that is some pretty scary stuff.

In the mean time, anyone know the number of a good bomb shelter contractor?

[worth]

More reading:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=8048

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I guess this puts the United States front and center on the list of targets. The numbers for students studying the sciences in American universities is at an all time low. When you take away the international students, those numbers are even worse. Religious fundamentalism is also on the rise in the United States, with the fastest growing religions being the Evangelical and Mormon sects of Christianity. The level of indoctrination in these belief systems continues to grow as more and more non-accredited "Christian" universities are built to promote the ideology. Finally, the last eight years certainly must show just how much control and damage the fanatical aspects of one political party can do in a country. It seems to me that the United States fits the bill for a first strike based on the criteria presented. I think that shows just how wonky some of the thinking is in classifying potential threats. I know its probably arguimg semantics, but that is some pretty scary stuff.

In the mean time, anyone know the number of a good bomb shelter contractor?

The connection between times of uncertainty in the world and rising religious fundamentalism is very significant. Religion is used as a tool for coping with what people can't interpret on a literal level (aka, science). It brings a level of understanding to people that otherwise would be lost sheep. That sounds harsh...But it's a view shared by every anthropologist in the world.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

The connection between times of uncertainty in the world and rising religious fundamentalism is very significant. Religion is used as a tool for coping with what people can't interpret on a literal level (aka, science). It brings a level of understanding to people that otherwise would be lost sheep. That sounds harsh...But it's a view shared by every anthropologist in the world...

... and many psychologists.

[TheDragon]

..And then Russia was all like:

"I'll nuke Ukraine!"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7241470.stm

Russia has said it may target its missiles at Ukraine if its neighbour joins Nato and accepts the deployment of the US missile defence shield.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

The connection between times of uncertainty in the world and rising religious fundamentalism is very significant. Religion is used as a tool for coping with what people can't interpret on a literal level (aka, science). It brings a level of understanding to people that otherwise would be lost sheep. That sounds harsh...But it's a view shared by every anthropologist in the world.

Except, no anthropologist with any tact would use a term like "lost sheep".

All humans are lost in the sense that we only experience our world with 5 narrow physical senses. It's arrogance to think that that is enough for us to truly understand the world we live in.