NATO Top brass issue manifesto "Prepare for Nuclear first strike"

by Mike - Judean Popular Peoples Front Tue Jan 22, 2008 17:56

"The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction."

Yup

Makes a lot of sense alright ?

by Sceptic Tue Jan 22, 2008 20:14

What is meant is that the threatened first use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent to prevent a WMD attack on the alliance members insofar as a State actor would be concerned. However first pre-emptive first use might be employed against a non-State actor such as Al Qaeda as such an opponent cannot be deterred. The article was deficient in headlining evolving possible military strategies without giving enough context.

by Feudal castrato Tue Jan 22, 2008 22:22

septic rationalises the wisdom of a policy of pre-emptive nuclear strike!

I thought the idea of MAD was
"if you attack me you'll regret it"
not
"I might attack you at any time to stop you attacking me"
there is a difference.

by iosaf Wed Jan 23, 2008 13:27

Russian Chief of Armed Forces General Staff, Yury Baluevsky He said no attack is planned but a nuclear strategy to ensure national security is needed. That strategy includes `pre-emptive nuclear strikes. “We have no plans to attack anyone. But we consider it necessary for all our partners in the world community to clearly understand that to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, military force will be used - pre-emptively, and including the use of nuclear weapons,” Baluevsky said.
http://www.russiatoday.ru/news/news/19844

That was January 19th by the way. Anyway before you get yourselves down to Tesco for some panic-buying I'd suggest you enjoy this wonderful thread on nuclear weapons which has been on the newswire for a little time now. Therein you'll find embedded videos, links & a pretty useless argument about Soviet versus NATO strategy about 40 years ago.

this is what a pre-emptive nuclear strike looks like. a TOPOL ICBM silo (Russia)

by tomeile Wed Jan 23, 2008 16:22

A manifesto doesn’t have to be issued by a political party in the run-up to an election. The Nato strategists are articulating policies which they think the organization should pursue . It is a manifesto in that sense . But let’s not quibble on that and thanks for the Russiatoday link . Surely though ,the fact that the Russian military issued similar threats around the same time as these five warmongers ,should make the world more, not less concerned .

Nato has always kept the pre-emptive nuclear first strike as an option , but these five strategists are calling for the ending of restraints on alliance policy by member states with interests that diverge from the course that the U.S. right wing wants to lay down for the organization - i.e. more war .

Turkey’s membership of the alliance and “old European” opposition meant that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 wasn’t carried out under the auspices of NATO as America and Britain would have liked. The lesson the neo-cons took from that is that there should be a shift from consensus decision-taking in Nato bodies to majority voting, and an end to national vetoes, which is the position articulated in the strategists’ blueprint.

With Nato’s credibility on the line in Afghanistan , there is a very real possibility that America will use nuclear weapons : that’s the lesson the neo-cons took from America’s defeat in Vietnam .

by crookstown Wed Jan 23, 2008 18:46

The real objective of NATO and the Americans is to lay hands on the oil and gas of Russia and Central Asia. This would necessitate the breakup of Russia which nearly happened under Yeltsin. This underlies the rampant media hostility against Putin, who to some extent has restored Russian power after the disastrous Yeltsin years. Iran is the other country which restricts American access to Central Asia, and we know how the neocons long for war with Iran. The " war on terror" is a conjob.

by Sceptic Wed Jan 23, 2008 20:14

Crookstown’s assertions are the grand conspiracy stuff which are the hallmarks of the paranoid far left.. NATO is an alliance of free and democratic states which harbours no such aggressive intent and its political objectives are arrived at openly.

“tomeile’s” contribution is the same vein and is manifestly factually inaccurate in stating that the decision of the Turkey not to support the intervention in Iraq prevented this from becoming a NATO operation. There was never the slightest question if it ever being a NATO operation at any stage.

As for “Fuedal” I was explaining not rationalizing. And you misunderstand MAD – that is only applicable in the event of a superpower exchange of nuclear missiles in large numbers. However the new environment envisages WMD in the hands of rouge states, failed states and private operators. These especially the latter cannot be deterred in a classic sense – only intelligence and pre-emption, if necessary, could curb them.

by Alfred E.Neuman Wed Jan 23, 2008 21:25

Sceptic says "first pre-emptive first use might be employed against a non-State actor such as Al Queda"

Al Queda is grouped in small cell units. To propose using nukes on these is not just MAD: its stark, staring bonkers.

by Feudal castrato Thu Jan 24, 2008 00:45

However the new environment envisages WMD in the hands of rouge states, failed states and private operators. These especially the latter cannot be deterred in a classic sense – only intelligence and pre-emption, if necessary, could curb them.

blowing people up is not the only way to solve problems. Thats insane tunnel vision. And shows a serious lack of imagination!

furthermore you cannot use nukes against small dispersed groups. Its daft to think you can.

In my experience, people usually get angry when they are treated badly.

Maybe being nice to people for a change instead of always threatening and bullying might be a good thing?
There might be other ways to encourage people to disarm. How about by trying to set a good example?

Like the superpowers finally deciding to adhere properly to the terms of the NPT, by disarming their nuclear arsenels hence creating an example to others, diffusing tensions and removing the main argument for other countries arming themselves with nukes to avert possible attacks or invasions with a view to stealing their resources!

Also, by the superpowers ceasing the sales of arms to and support for corrupt unstable dictatorships in rogue states (including israel!) and by their making reparrations to the nations they have violated in the past.

apologising for some / all the grave wrongs they have done would go a long way towards getting the healing started.
http://www.flagrancy.net/timeline.html

Ceasing further research and testing of nukes / bio / chemical weapons would also make the world a safer place. Such programmes are self fulfilling prophecies.

Spending the necessary money to dispose safely of current nuclear waste so it no longer poses a threat would be a good idea too.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/031200-01.htm

Spending their bloated military budgets in the search for alternative energy sources, social restructuring programmes and generic medecines, reining in corporations, the IMF, world bank etc and making friends not enemies for a change would also be steps in the right direction

by Feudal castrato Thu Jan 24, 2008 03:18

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01232008.html

by tomeile Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:14

You can read the manifesto/report "Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World: Renewing Transatlantic Partnership.” at :

http://www.csis.org/media/csis/events/080110_grand_stra...y.pdf

...and an analysis from Bill Van Auken on WSWS which squares with Crookstown's comment of yesterday.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jan2008/nato-j24.shtml

by crookstown Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:33

In July 2003, Dick Cheney held a meeting with Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the oligarch to enable Exxon mobil to gain a large stake in Khodorkovskys oil and gas interests. Putin acted fast to put Khodorkovsky in jail and broke up the deal. Since then US-EU hostility to Putin has reached hysterical levels. John McCain and Tom Lantos called for Russia to be thrown out of the G8. Only by controlling the vast energy resources of Central Asia can the US rescue its sinking economy. At present they have to borrow nearly 3 billion dollars a day. John McCain is potentially more dangerous than GW Bush.