The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.
At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States would 'respond with overwhelming force' to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces or allies, and said 'all options' would be available to the president.
The draft, dated March 15, would provide authoritative guidance for commanders to request presidential approval for using nuclear weapons, and represents the Pentagon's first attempt to revise procedures to reflect the Bush preemption doctrine. A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration, contains no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from weapons of mass destruction.
Unfortunately, Bush has lost credibility due to both Katrina and the WMD issue in Iraq. Were he to launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran, or North Korea for that matter, Bush would risk more than impeachment with his gamble--he would risk war crimes trials for making aggressive war and killing innocent civilians. Especially if the rest of the world is not convinced that he were justified. Ironically, Chinese and Russian judges might condemn George W. Bush to death at the International War Crimes Court.
Maybe he needs to think things through a little, since his strategies have not worked so far, and this proposal sounds both dangerous and irresponsible, at least to a layman who grew up in the era of Mutual Assured Destruction, and remembers that the Russians still have 7,000 nuclear warheads in their arsenal.
