The Pentagon is actively
contemplating the use of nuclear weapons to win wars that need not be fought in
the first place. As expected, opposition to the US nuclear doctrine is almost
non-existent in the mainstream media.
It used to be the case that the idea of using nuclear weapons in
a real-world conflict was such a taboo idea that no one was ever openly to
contemplate it. We need only look back to the end of World War II to realize
how catastrophic and harmful nuclear weapons can be on civilian populations;
yet we shouldn’t have had the blueprint of Nagasaki and Hiroshima to know that
the use of nuclear weapons would be a frightening and criminal act. They are
deadly and unnecessary, end of story. You can all save me the cliched response
“But they ended a war.”
Firstly, the use of nuclear weapons didn’t end a war – it
started one (the Cold War). Secondly, anyone who knows even a little bit of history knows that Japan was on the
verge of defeat. But don’t take my word for it – I wasn’t there. But those who
were typically made statements to the effect that “[t]he use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of
no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already
defeated and ready to surrender.” But I digress.
The United States military
has decided that the only chance it has of maintaining a stranglehold over its
empire is to actively contemplate the scenarios and situations in which it
should deploy the use of nuclear weapons.
According to the
Pentagon’s June Nuclear Operations or Joint Publication 3-72 (which was
unsurprisingly made private not long after its release), the US believes that “developing nuclear contingency
plans sends an important signal to adversaries and enemies that the US has the
capability and willingness to employ nuclear weapons to defend itself and its
allies and partners”.
“Nuclear
weapon capabilities constitute a vital element of national defense,”
the document states. “Nuclear
operations are those activities within the range of military operations, to
include deterrence, crisis response, strike assessment and return to stability.”
The Pentagon apparently believes that it is “necessary” and “prudent” to “preplan nuclear employment
options for contingencies prior to a crisis,” which includes “a
means to assess the anticipated effectiveness of options prior to execution,”
as well as a “means to assess the nature and
extent of unintended consequences.”
Having executed an option, the US military is unlikely to stop
there. According to the document, “planning
and operations must not assume use in isolation but must plan for strike
integration into the overall scheme of fires.” The document also
states that “there may be a requirement to
strike additional (follow on and/or emerging) targets in support of war
termination or other strategic objectives.” Commanders must “maintain the capability to
rapidly identify and strike previously unidentified or newly emerging targets.”
Forget the Iran nuclear deal. Where is the US nuclear deal?
Where is the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to stop global annihilation by
nuclear holocaust by a former reality TV star billionaire (the
JCPOATSGABNHBAFRTSB)?
“The
spectrum of nuclear warfare may range from tactical application,”
the document eerily confirms, “to
limited regional use, to global employment by friendly forces and/or enemies.”
As the Military Times was
astute to note, the new doctrine reflects a world in which the US military is
losing its “technological edge”
over “other near-peer military
rivals.” Just to give you a hint, the list of near-peer military
rivals does not include Iran. It includes two nuclear giants in particular who
are beginning to put the US military on the backfoot to the extent that the
Pentagon has no choice but to release documents which call the employment of
nuclear weapons “essential”
to mission success.
The urge to deploy the use of nuclear weapons only makes sense
if you live in a world in which you must always be prepared to win a war
against every potential adversary. Americans amongst you reading this may be
thinking: “Yeah, so what?” But
take it from the rest of us who don’t wake up every morning swearing allegiance
to a flag that to many others represents death and destruction, that winning
wars tends to be less of a focus when compared to other issues such as
healthcare, housing, climate change, and the list goes on.
Perhaps if the US gave up on the idea that it needs to fight
wars in order to predicate its survival in the first place, it wouldn’t need to
contemplate such a catastrophic doctrine.
Prosecuting wars on this basis also assumes that these wars are
unavoidable and must be fought. In hindsight, did the wars in Vietnam, Libya,
Iraq, Yemen, and co., really need to be fought? Will the wars the US cooks up
in the next few decades similarly and inescapably need to be fought? (Not to
mention that, if we are being honest, the US military has barely won a war
since World War II anyway.)
Prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall, every US artillery unit in
Europe was nuclear-ready. Post-1991, this had supposedly all changed. However,
a recently released (and then amended) document published
by a NATO affiliated body has finally admitted what we all suspected anyway:
that American nukes are being stored in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the
Netherlands and Turkey (approximately 150 in total).
Just to summarize: the US is the only nation to deploy nuclear
weapons during battle. The Trump administration suspended its obligations under
the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in February this year, and
is releasing documents left, right and center which suggest they are actively
considering using nuclear weapons again.
And
yet as I type this, the top news item on the BBC is an article entitled “Time running out for missile
treaty – Nato head,” the focus of which is NATO chief Jens
Stoltenberg calling on Russia to comply with the INF Treaty before the upcoming
August deadline.
Somehow, the use of nuclear weapons is only scary or worthy of
discussion if that discussion involves countries such as Russia and China. Just
take the bombshell admission that the US stores nuclear weapons in Turkey as an
example. The US is saying it will remove Ankara from its F-35 fighter jet
program – but only because Turkey has purchased the advanced S-400 missile
defense system from Moscow. The US barely blinked as a failed coup in 2016
could have put advanced nuclear weapons in
some very unsavory hands.
Whoever pulls the trigger on this nuclear holocaust will
ultimately bear the blame for what’s to come, but in my estimation, history
(what’s remaining of it anyway) will recall the recklessness of the Trump
administration and those administrations that served the American empire before
it.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Reprinted from RT News.
