plutoniumcafe.org
Open in
urlscan Pro
160.153.92.70
Public Scan
URL:
http://plutoniumcafe.org/2008/01/first-strike-nuclear-madness/
Submission: On February 16 via api from US — Scanned from US
Submission: On February 16 via api from US — Scanned from US
Form analysis 2 forms found in the DOM
POST http://www.gdmig-plutoniumcafe.org/wp-comments-post.php
<form id="commentform" action="http://www.gdmig-plutoniumcafe.org/wp-comments-post.php" method="post">
<p id="comment-notes">Your email is <em>never</em> published nor shared. Required fields are marked <span class="required">*</span></p>
<div id="form-section-author" class="form-section">
<div class="form-label"><label for="author">Name</label> <span class="required">*</span></div>
<div class="form-input"><input id="author" name="author" type="text" value="" size="30" maxlength="20" tabindex="3"></div>
</div><!-- #form-section-author .form-section -->
<div id="form-section-email" class="form-section">
<div class="form-label"><label for="email">Email</label> <span class="required">*</span></div>
<div class="form-input"><input id="email" name="email" type="text" value="" size="30" maxlength="50" tabindex="4"></div>
</div><!-- #form-section-email .form-section -->
<div id="form-section-url" class="form-section">
<div class="form-label"><label for="url">Website</label></div>
<div class="form-input"><input id="url" name="url" type="text" value="" size="30" maxlength="50" tabindex="5"></div>
</div><!-- #form-section-url .form-section -->
<div id="form-section-comment" class="form-section">
<div class="form-label"><label for="comment">Comment</label></div>
<div class="form-textarea"><textarea id="comment" name="comment" cols="45" rows="8" tabindex="6"></textarea></div>
</div><!-- #form-section-comment .form-section -->
<div id="form-allowed-tags" class="form-section">
<p><span>You may use these <abbr title="HyperText Markup Language">HTML</abbr> tags and attributes:</span> <code><a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite>
<code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> </code></p>
</div>
<p style="display: none;"><input type="hidden" id="akismet_comment_nonce" name="akismet_comment_nonce" value="6cd29a90f9"></p>
<div class="form-submit"><input id="submit" name="submit" type="submit" value="Post Comment" tabindex="7"><input type="hidden" name="comment_post_ID" value="50"></div>
<input type="hidden" name="comment_post_ID" value="50" id="comment_post_ID">
<input type="hidden" name="comment_parent" id="comment_parent" value="0">
</form>GET http://www.gdmig-plutoniumcafe.org
<form id="searchform" method="get" action="http://www.gdmig-plutoniumcafe.org">
<div>
<input id="s" name="s" type="text" value="To search, type and hit enter" onfocus="if (this.value == 'To search, type and hit enter') {this.value = '';}" onblur="if (this.value == '') {this.value = 'To search, type and hit enter';}" size="32"
tabindex="1">
<input id="searchsubmit" name="searchsubmit" type="submit" value="Search" tabindex="2">
</div>
</form>Text Content
The Plutonium Café
Skip to content
* Home
* About
* Contact Me
Categories:
* Biological Weapons
* Biological Defense
* Biological Security
* Environment
* General
* Meta Discussions
* Personal
* Hanford Site
* Interviews
* Missile Defense
* Nuclear Weapons
* Cold War History
* New START
* Nuclear Terrorism
* Proliferation
Nukes On A Plane, And Why They Got There »
FIRST STRIKE NUCLEAR MADNESS
By Page | Published: January 23, 2008
Originally published here.
For those of us who grew up during the later years of the Cold War, the acronym
“NATO” brings back memories of watching the evening news with our families, when
most discussions of US foreign policy weren’t complete without mentioning
“nuclear weapons” and “the Soviets”. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (or
NATO) is a Cold War military alliance that was founded in 1949, basically as a
counter-balance to the USSR, where:
> The [NATO] Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in
> Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and
> consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them…
> will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually
> and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary,
> including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the
> North Atlantic area.
>
> [NATO member countries today]
The NATO countries played an important role in the Cold War nuclear arms race by
either having their own nuclear weapons (e.g. France and the UK), or allowing
nuclear weapons to be stationed on their soil (e.g. Pershing nuclear missiles in
West Germany). The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists‘ “Doomsday Clock” is a
vivid historical indicator of the Cold War nuclear tensions (click the image at
right).
The Cold War ended in 1991. The US and Russia have fewer nuclear weapons than
they did, but still have far more than enough to render the Earth uninhabitable;
the US has about 9,900, and Russia has about 15,000 (pdf). NATO has changed its
mission to adapt to post-Cold War conflicts; one of the most recent examples is
the takeover of US-lead military operations in southern Afghanistan by a
NATO-lead force in the south of Afghanistan.
What does the future hold for NATO? General John Shalikashvili (former NATO
commander in Europe), General Klaus Naumann (ex-chairman of Nato’s military
committee), General Henk van den Breemen (former Dutch chief of staff) Admiral
Jacques Lanxade (former French chief of staff), and Lord Inge (former chief of
the general staff and defense staff in the UK) have proposed reforms for NATO
that make me wonder if they are yearning for the Cold War days.
From yesterday’s UK Guardian:
> Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told
>
> The west must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to
> halt the “imminent” spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction,
> according to a radical manifesto for a new Nato by five of the west’s most
> senior military officers and strategists.
>
> Calling for root-and-branch reform of Nato and a new pact drawing the US, Nato
> and the European Union together in a “grand strategy” to tackle the challenges
> of an increasingly brutal world, the former armed forces chiefs from the US,
> Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands insist that a “first strike”
> nuclear option remains an “indispensable instrument” since there is “simply no
> realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world”.
>
> [snip]
>
> “The risk of further [nuclear] proliferation is imminent and, with it, the
> danger that nuclear war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become
> possible,” the authors argued in the 150-page blueprint for urgent reform of
> western military strategy and structures. “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.”
The authors ” …paint an alarming picture of the threats and challenges
confronting the west in the post-9/11 world and deliver a withering verdict on
the ability to cope…”, and include the following as part of the key threats:
> * Political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism.
> * The “dark side” of globalisation, meaning international terrorism,
> organised crime and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
It’s really stretching the imagination try to understand how a new doctrine of
pre-emptive nuclear strikes can possibly be part of the War on Terror™. The
concept of nuclear deterrence can’t apply if your perceived enemy doesn’t have
nuclear weapons. “We think they might be making them,” is not the same as a
nation having them, and being overtly hostile toward another nation, as was the
case in the Cold War. There are no clear targets; we’re talking ideologies and
small groups of people. And, let’s quit waxing theoretical: the use of a nuclear
weapon period is a horrific proposal.
Andy Grotto at Arms Control Wonk points out something even more important:
> The goal of the manifesto, according to its authors, is to revive the troubled
> trans-atlantic alliance.
>
> Huh?!? 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.
Click the link for the WSJ op-ed. It’s a great piece, and they specifically say:
> Apart from the [nuclear] terrorist threat, unless urgent new actions are
> taken, the U.S. soon will be compelled to enter a new nuclear era that will be
> more precarious, psychologically disorienting, and economically even more
> costly than was Cold War deterrence. It is far from certain that we can
> successfully replicate the old Soviet-American “mutually assured destruction”
> with an increasing number of potential nuclear enemies world-wide without
> dramatically increasing the risk that nuclear weapons will be used. New
> nuclear states do not have the benefit of years of step-by-step safeguards put
> in effect during the Cold War to prevent nuclear accidents, misjudgments or
> unauthorized launches. The United States and the Soviet Union learned from
> mistakes that were less than fatal. Both countries were diligent to ensure
> that no nuclear weapon was used during the Cold War by design or by accident.
> Will new nuclear nations and the world be as fortunate in the next 50 years as
> we were during the Cold War?
Indeed. NATO may need new life, but a new doctrine of pre-emptive nuclear
strikes should not be part of it.
This entry was posted in Nuclear Weapons. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment
or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
Nukes On A Plane, And Why They Got There »
POST A COMMENT
Click here to cancel reply.
Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *
Name *
Email *
Website
Comment
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title="">
<acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em>
<i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
*
* RECENT POSTS
* We Were All Equal In The End
* And Now For Something Completely Different
* Blogging Update
* Mitt Romney: Dazed And Confused on New START
* On Pundits, Politicians, and Listening to the Experts
* ARCHIVES
* March 2011
* September 2010
* August 2010
* July 2010
* June 2010
* May 2010
* April 2010
* March 2010
* February 2010
* January 2010
* December 2009
* November 2009
* October 2009
* September 2009
* August 2009
* July 2009
* June 2009
* December 2008
* November 2008
* July 2008
* February 2008
* January 2008
* BLOGROLL
* Arms Control Association
* Arms Control Wonk
* Center for Arms Control And Non-Proliferation
* Expaticats
* FAS – Strategic Security Blog
* Institute for Science And International Security
* New Mexico Science
* Nukes of Hazard
* RSS LINKS
* All posts
* All comments
* RECENT COMMENTS
* Hugo on The Environmental Legacy of the Cold War: Progress, Problems, and
the Big Picture
* Page on Mitt Romney: Dazed And Confused on New START
* Josh on Cleaning Up After The Cold War: Hanford’s Tank Waste
* Mark Lincoln on Mitt Romney: Dazed And Confused on New START
* Andrew on We Were All Equal In The End
* SEARCH
* TAGS
Select Tag Barack Obama Biological Defense Biological Weapons Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists Cold War CTBT David E. Hoffman Dead Hand Dmitri Medvedev
Doomsday Clock Environment Global Zero Gorbachev Hanford Site IAEA interview
Iran ISIS Jacqueline Shire Joe Cirincione low-enriched uranium Missile
Defense modernization New START nuclear command and control nuclear
non-proliferation Nuclear Posture Review nuclear proliferation Nuclear
Security Summit Nuclear Weapons Obama Administration President Barack Obama
President Dmitri Medvedev proliferation Qom Reagan Reliable Replacement
Warhead Richard Rhodes RRW Russia Star Wars Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
strategic nuclear weapons tank waste United States
*
*
* FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER!
* META
* Log in
Powered by WordPress. Built on the Thematic Theme Framework.