Plans for a small MAD

March 9th 2002

It's 12 years since the end of the Cold War, yet somehow we have suddenly rekindled one of the biggest fears of that 40 year period of tension, that fear being nuclear holocaust as a consequence of the Trip-wire philosophy. Long considered a pariaha in political circles, but the last line of defense in a European war, was the concept that if we could not hold back Soviet forces before they reached the North Sea tactical nuclear weapons would be used to stop or blunt the soviet armoured charge.

It was a action many felt would lead to full scale nuclear war. It would be difficult for an army commander faced with the instant obliteration of his forces to logically surmise that the weapon just used to slow his advance was a mere Tactical weapon. He would only see that he was missing many divisions and that geiger counters were going nuts all around him, he would have no option but to request support in-kind. The use of nuclear weapons then would escalate rapidly through medium power IRBM's to a full ICBM exchange as each side tried to counter the other sides use of bigger weapons on strategic assets.

Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)

It seems that in early 2000, just after the new administration came to office, a top secret review of nuclear options was undertaken. This may have been part of the bigger Quadrennial review, though I doubt we will know. It seems that this report was highly modified in light of the State Of The Union Speech (January 2002) that lead to the definition of the "Axis Of Evil." The report has been leaked, with classified sections intact to the press (L.A. Times).

The report seems to promote

• the development of new classes of nuclear weapons;
• new delivery mechanisms;
• the breakage of testing bans;
• new rules of engagement and use; and
• growth in the Evil Axis family.

Opinion

These columns are all about my opinion, so they are what I am thinking not what others may be thinking. I lived in the shadow of nuclear weapons and became very aware of the issues in the 1970's when new generations of weapons were being planned and implimented. It took the demise of the Soviet Union to quence the fear we had of nuclear oblivion. Those fears had been reborn in the last few years as a consequence of factions in the USA that wanted to promote vigilance in the face of the apparent lack of control by former Soviet countries of their nuclear stock piles, and even of leakage of nuclear materials from US power facilities.

The hawkish-ness of this report is amazing. It will re-ignite many old fears through the implausible redefinition of what 'safe' use of nuclear weapons can be. No doubt there has to be discussion of what we do with nuclear stockpiles and nuclear weaponry that we already have. We need to refine the strategic goals that this existing offensive capability affords, but to wholesale invent new weapons, then to come up with entirely new criteria for their use that has no framework in current international alliances is preposterous.

Nuclear weapons can never be used. It does not matter how small they are, how clean they are or how eligantly they are delivered to a target. They simply cannot be used. Their use would always spell the start of a rapid retrenchment to old treaties and alliances and the counter use of weapons leading to the much fabled MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction).

Just because we don't like Iraq does not give the West or the USA the right to Nuke the criminal dolts, they have probably concocted alliances and treaties with many nations, secretly, that would set in train a series of diplomatic moves that would have no good outcome. Iraq has clearly got its missile and nuclear technology from somewhere. If that somewhere is North Korea, are the N. Koreans going to idly stand by while one of their possible friends is expunged? Probably not. They are likely to nail either South Korea or Japan. If that happens and we retaliate against the North Koreans with one of these weapons or worse, do we believe the Chinese are going to stand by as their neighbour is incinerated? Holocaust follows such use.

The US needs clear lines of nuclear engagement, that is obvious. The level at which these are currently set is retaliatory. They would be used in response to a nuclear attack on the USA or one of its immediate allies (NATO, SEATO). This report lays the frame work for nuclear weapons use as a first strike option. This is not good. We have no framework to contain the consequences of such a move. Even stating that the US is now willing to send nukes into a country without prior provocation, merely because the country is making weapons of mass destruction (WMD), is such a brazen and ill-thought out move that it beggars the imagination to comprehend what the powers that be at the White House and in the Pentagon think they are doing.

The reports leakage has either been done to test the waters, or there are major divisions in the Pentagon leadership. Either way the international ramifications of this will be tough for Colin Powell to handle; the domestic ramifications are also hard to determine. Certain in this time is the feeling that the US must defend itself, and the Texan approach to this seems to be shoot-first, ask questions later. That may not play well on the coasts that ultimately would be targets to any active response to such a posture by the USA.

We live in interesting times.