Back in the Cold War, we operated from a basic concept of Mutual Assured Destruction. Recognizing that any nuclear war is going to yield nothing but utter horror and destruction on a level beyond imagination, our military forces stood poised, ready for a "sneak attack," but with a stated policy never to engage in "first use" of nuclear weapons.

It made sense. If everyone were poised to launch on a hair trigger -- "use 'em or lose 'em" -- all of civilization would stand on the verge of annihilation at a moment's notice.

Our nuclear forces were constructed to be invulnerable. The "triad" of bombers, ballistic missiles and submarine-launched missiles ensured that, no matter what others (read: the Soviet Union) did, we would have an overwhelming capacity to strike back. Destruction was assured ... and mutual.

(This is a rather simplistic thumbnail of what was a rather complex policy of details. But even when it came to "flexible response" policy, where nuclear retaliation might come on a more measured scale, in hopes of avoiding total armageddon, the very foundation of American military policy was always based on no first use, because an overwhelming response was always assured. At least that's how we studied it in my poli sci classes in college.)

President Bush and his neo-con militarists changed all that some time ago. But in the aftermath of 9/11, it was glossed over by a mainstream media more intent on cheerleading the administration's foreign adventures.

How ironic that today, on the 4-year anniversary of the al-Qaeda hoodlums' atrocious criminal act, and after witnessing the utter failure of Bush Administration planning and execution in Iraq and the ineffective crisis management in the wake of Katrina, we read today that the Pentagon is refining and expanding its first-use doctrine regarding nukes:

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....

...Titled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" and written under the direction of Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the draft document is unclassified and available on a Pentagon Web site. It is expected to be signed within a few weeks by Air Force Lt. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, director of the Joint Staff, according to Navy Cmdr. Dawn Cutler, a public affairs officer in Myers's office. Meanwhile, the draft is going through final coordination with the military services, the combatant commanders, Pentagon legal authorities and Rumsfeld's office, Cutler said in a written statement.

A "summary of changes" included in the draft identifies differences from the 1995 doctrine, and says the new document "revises the discussion of nuclear weapons use across the range of military operations."

The first example for potential nuclear weapon use listed in the draft is against an enemy that is using "or intending to use WMD" against U.S. or allied, multinational military forces or civilian populations....

...The draft document also envisions the use of atomic weapons for "attacks on adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons."

Of course, that would mean tons of radioactive nuclear fallout blown up to the stratosphere, where it can spread all over the world -- as the surface nuclear tests of the '50s and '60s revealed.

The Joint Staff draft doctrine explains that despite the end of the Cold War, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction "raises the danger of nuclear weapons use."

No kidding. Why should we miss out on the party, when we can actually help make it happen?

To deter the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, the Pentagon paper says preparations must be made to use nuclear weapons and show determination to use them "if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use."

Maybe it's me, but I don't get it. Where is the deterrence in saying all we have to have is a suspicion and we'll take it upon ourselves to blow the crap out of you? Isn't that more of an invitation to our enemies to use 'em or lose 'em?

I'm no pollyanna. I realize that we cannot un-invent nuclear weapons. But it seems to me rather foolish to think that the world will be made a safer place by establishing such a hair-trigger on our own nukes.

About author

media girl also blogs at other places.