Current Article

Preemptive Nukes for NATO

By Leslie on January 22, 2008 at 7:47 PM in Current Affairs

According to the Guardian five former armed forces chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands — including Gen. John Shalikashvili, a former NATO commander — have authored a manifesto insisting that a preemptive nuclear strike should be a key NATO option:

A “first strike” nuclear option remains an “indispensable instrument” since there is “simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world.”

In other words, the West needs to be able to preemptively nuke any country it deems a threat in order to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons!? Don’t worry, however, the manifesto’s authors reassure us that nuclear fighting would be “limited in scope.”

But it gets better…. Apparently renewed emphasis on the preemptive use of nuclear weapons will also revive NATO:

“Nato is at a juncture and runs the risk of failure….”

HUH!? As ArmsControlWonk Andy Grotto asks, “How could a renewed emphasis on the preemptive use of nuclear weapons possibly promote NATO unity?! The authors apparently missed the Schultz-Perry-Kissinger-Nunn op-eds in the WSJ endorsing the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and less reliance on them in the meantime.”

UPDATE: Chris Floyd, whose writing I admire, offers more insightful analysis here:

What are the dangers to “the West’s values and way of life” that the war chiefs want to aim nuclear missiles at? Well, “political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism,” for a start. (Reckon NATO will nuke the next GOP presidential debate?) The “dark side of globalization” is another; this apparently covers organized crime, terrorism and proliferation of WMD. Then there’s “climate change and energy security,” which will entail “a contest for resources and potential ‘environmental’ migration on a mass scale,” as the Guardian puts it. Another danger worth nuking over is “the weakening of the nation-state, as well as of organizations such as the UN, Nato and the EU.”

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

I pulled this post, to give everyone more time to see Susan’s post below. So I’m reposting an earlier comment by Simon, which got lost for a while:

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Comment by simon | 2008-01-22 14:32:20 | Edit This

But you have to remember this was prompted at the height of Bush Cheney kookdom, the stupidity viral all around, with questionable military talent.

Astute diplomacy is the answer, not John Bolton. We can THINK of, develop new solutions, unworkable mediocrity in the form of directionless violence as advocated by Cheney didn’t work, we aren’t Pakistan, we’re the United States of America.

We will also see a number of judiciary “dred scott” decisions out of US courts in the foreseeable future, resulting from the incompetent Bush appointments.

But that too, is only temporary.
http://doublequotes.wordpress.com/ Charles Cameron (hipbone)

Cheryl Rofer of WhirledView invited bloggers to a “blog tank” discussion of nuclear policy about a month ago:

http://tinyurl.com/2f2enr

After a while, she posted the consensus here:

http://tinyurl.com/yodump

and commented on the ways various campaings responded here:

http://tinyurl.com/2y7klx

*

A key finding, *not* in the spirit of the NATO “manifesto”:

QUOTE: Any first use will evoke strong international reaction, particularly if that first use is by the only country to have used nuclear weapons in war. :UNQUOTE
Brenda Stewart

Gen. John Shalikashvili had a severe stroke in 04 I think it was so if this was said by him it had to be before this. He was one of the gens that stood up for Kerry at the convention. I do not know him personally but have met him and can not believe he would do such a thing! He is too level headed for this kind of thing.
Ron Cowin

Are they nuts? Whatever made this bunch of Alte Kockers think that NATO needs revitalizing? Except for the problems in Afghanistan, I thought that NATO was doing prety well. The Soviet Union is gone. No countries are lining up to join the Warsaw Pact. These Generals might be old enough to avoid the ecological disaster of even a limited exchange of nuclear weapons. Someone should check them for senility dementia. (At least they are retired.) They remind me of the General in Dr. Strangelove.
Brenda Stewart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_M._Shalikashvili

http://cisac.stanford.edu/people/johnmshalikashvili/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_M._Shalikashvili

This just is not like him to have said or commited to such a thing.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

Brenda,
That all may be true…but the Guardian reports that Shalikashvili is one of the five authors of the report. I have no reason to doubt the Guardian’s accuracy. By the way, this story has also been picked up by Rawstory.com, which is reporting the same thing.

What I find especially shocking is how closely this manifesto duplicates the Bush administration’s nuclear strike strategy. It’s obvious who is pulling the strings with NATO.
http://thumbsnap.com/v/78mn2yFc.jpg 1Watt, eggumacated

If we’re at war with the religious whackos, I think we found the.

Seriously, what’s driving this mindset?
http://thumbsnap.com/v/78mn2yFc.jpg 1Watt, eggumacated

If we’re at war with the religious whackos, I think we found them.

Seriously, what’s driving this mindset?
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

1Watt,
“Eggumacated” always makes me laugh…

Anyway, you’re right, they’re nuts! As to what’s driving this mindset, I think it’s the Bush administration, a year before he’s to leave office. Preemptive nuclear war will be part of his legacy.
TeakWoodKite

…”simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world.” ???
What is the height of irony is contrasting the statement with The Times of London Report you posted.

Two generations from now will they say we had no imagination?

And Russia is going to not going to react to these statements? PNAC International Inc. petewy!

Robert Cooper, an influential shaper of European foreign and security policy in Brussels, said he was “puzzled”.”Maybe we are going to use nuclear weapons before anyone else, but I’d be wary of saying it out loud.”

We have used them. I see this as an omen for Iran.

Leslie: Had you found the link to the “150-page blueprint” ? Some of the other “suggestions” have merit regarding NATO being unable to find a unified command structure but it would be better to read it.
Thanks for this thread.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

TeakWoodKite,
No, the Guardian doesn’t have a link to it and I can’t find it on the NATO website. It would be good to read it. But it may not be available yet? Because the Guardian reports that copies of the manifesto were presented to the Pentagon and NATO’s secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer. “The proposals are likely to be discussed at a Nato summit in Bucharest in April.” In other words, the Guardian probably got hold of an advance copy ahead of the NATO summit.

Regarding Russia, didn’t Putin just say that Russia won’t rule out the use of a preemptive nuclear strike? Saw that on Rawstory.com a few days ago. The Bush administration has done a lot to lower the bar.
TeakWoodKite

Yes he did, and he is not an ex KGB without sources. Looks like he got a copy of this report and was sending a message.

The Bush administration has done a lot to lower the bar.

In so many ways it is painful to acknowledge and nearly impossible to accept.

I am still trying to digest the fact that they are resigned to accept that they are nuclear black market “surrender monkeys”. IGITS! end timers!!
Cee

Hillary comes out and says that Putin has no soul. Someone needs to tell her that they have a surplus and we don’t.
They also just said they will strike first as well.

Russian bombers to test-fire missiles in Bay of Biscay
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3230615.ece
Mr.Murder

Study: False Statements Preceded War

WASHINGTON (AP) – A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.”

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration’s position that the world community viewed Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

“The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world,” Stanzel said.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

So how about the follow-up report, Sen.Rockefeller?
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

Correction: Actually Rawstory.com picked up the Guardian story and links to it. Rawstory isn’t reporting on it. But they’re so careful about vetting bogus stories.
TeakWoodKite

“I could have told him — he was a KGB agent. By definition he doesn’t have a soul,”

I read this in a book I read last year. There was a line about KGB agents “by definition do not have souls”. Now I am going to bug until I find it.

Tu-160 ? The one thing about russian technology; it’s built like a brickhouse; Props no less.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

Mr. Murder,
Heh, speaking of which, did you see the study by two nonprofit journalism organizations that found that the Bushies issued 935 lies before the Iraq invasion.

That’s got to be a conservative estimate!
Fred C. Dobbs

The time to let an opponent know whether or not you are armed with a knife or gun is just after you have cut or shot him.

Dancing around No First Use doctrine negates the trillion dollar investment we have made in this nasty stuff. It no longer requires an Oppenheiner or Teller to crank out a big can of Instant Eternity brand whoop-ass. Anyone with enough money and contacts with the Unscupulous would, one expects, find acquisition of same problematic and challenging but hardly impossible.

So, IS No First Use a tenable policy in a post-9/11 world? It’s worthy of discussion, in my opinion, and input from those whose careers have been intimately involved with the death and power projection business might…just MIGHT…be at least as illustrative than that of the chattering classes and the intra-Beltway hand wringers.

Nasty, ugly, horrifying things, these nukes. And each of us owns 1/325,000,000th of the US stockpile.

Little tough to wedge into the concept of The Commons, isn’t it?
TeakWoodKite

Have you ever seen a boxer remain standing long that telegraphed their punches?
Fred C. Dobbs

>>> “Between the 1940s and 1996, the United States spent at least $5.8 trillion on the development, testing, and construction of nuclear bombs. By 1967, the peak year of its nuclear stockpile, the United States possessed some 32,500 deliverable atomic and hydrogen bombs, none of which, thankfully, was ever used. They perfectly illustrate the Keynesian principle that the government can provide make-work jobs to keep people employed. Nuclear weapons were not just America’s secret weapon, but also its secret economic weapon. As of 2006, we still had 9,960 of them. There is today no sane use for them, while the trillions spent on them could have been used to solve the problems of social security and health care, quality education and access to higher education for all, not to speak of the retention of highly skilled jobs within the American economy.”