Preventive Warriors

Courtesy Of JourneyMan Pictures

If in doubt -- attack! 

The American neo-conservative policy of attacking rivals before they're a real danger represents a dangerous political shift within the most powerful nation on earth. 

But what will the long term consequences of pre-emptive war be? 

This week's documentary is a polished and critical investigation into the foreign affairs sledgehammer now being wielded out of Washington. 

Featuring interviews with leading intellectuals this documentary offers a frightening insight into what could become a harsh new world order.

Britain Rejects US Request To Use UK Bases To Attack Iran

Secret Legal Advice States Pre-Emptive Strike Could Be In Breach Of International Law As Iran Not Yet 'Clear and Present Threat'

By Nick Hopkins,

Britain has rebuffed US pleas to use military bases in the UK to support the build-up of forces in the Gulf, citing secret legal advice which states that any pre-emptive strike on Iran could be in breach of international law.

The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories.

They have pointed US officials to legal advice drafted by the attorney general's office which has been circulated to Downing Street, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence.

This makes clear that Iran, which has consistently denied it has plans to develop a nuclear weapon, does not currently represent "a clear and present threat". 

Providing assistance to forces that could be involved in a pre-emptive strike would be a clear breach of international law, it states.

"The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans."

"But I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise."

The UK, however, has assumed that it would only become involved once a conflict had already begun, and has been reluctant to commit overt support to Washington in the buildup to any military action.

"It is quite likely that if the Israelis decided to attack Iran, or the Americans felt they had to do it for the Israelis or in support of them, the UK would not be told beforehand," said the source. "In some respects, the UK government would prefer it that way."

A Foreign Office spokesman said: 

"As we continue to make clear, the government does not believe military action against Iran is the right course of action at this time, although no option is off the table. We believe that the twin-track approach of pressure through sanctions, which are having an impact, and engagement with Iran is the best way to resolve the nuclear issue. We are not going to speculate about scenarios in which military action would be legal. That would depend on the circumstances at the time."

In August, the most senior US military officer, General Martin Dempsey,distanced himself from any Israeli plan to bomb Iran. He said such an attack would "clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran's nuclear programme".

He added: "I don't want to be complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it."

Via: "The Guardian"

Weaponized Drones: A Casus Belli To Attack Iraq

Senators Were Told That Saddam Hussein Could Deliver Biological and Chemical Weapons To America Via Unmanned Drones.

Critics of America's drone war occasionally ask its supporters to imagine how they would feel if unmanned aerial vehicles were Weaponized and sent by foreign powers to attack American cities. 

What's always forgotten is the time when the U.S. Senate confronted that possibility. It scared them. In fact, one senator said his alarm helped persuade him to approve the war in Iraq. 

Congress was told a lot of things about Iraqi weapons that didn't turn out to be true. We remember the talk of WMDs, but we've forgotten the drones.

Senator Bill Nelson recounted the episode for the Congressional Record in 2004. One of 77 senators to vote for the Iraq War resolution, he wanted to share information "that had a great deal of bearing on my conclusion to vote for that resolution," because it convinced him that the U.S. was in "imminent peril."

He continued: 

I, along with nearly every Senator in this Chamber, in that secure room of this Capitol complex, was not only told there were weapons of mass destruction--specifically chemical and biological--but I was looked at straight in the face and told that Saddam Hussein had the means of delivering those biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction by unmanned drones, called UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles. Further, I was looked at straight in the face and told that UAVs could be launched from ships off the Atlantic coast to attack eastern seaboard cities of the United States. Is it any wonder that I concluded there was an imminent peril to the United States? 

It's interesting to revisit America's drone fears now that we've used the technology to kill more people than any other country, and to normalize its use in ways that may forever change the course of civilization. 

Via: "The Atlantic"

Below is additional information from "The Seattle Times":

The information was so startling that CIA Director George Tenet and Vice President Dick Cheney trooped up to Capitol Hill to brief the four top Senate and House leaders the day after Labor Day, 2002.

In the briefing, Tenet and Cheney presented what one participant described as a "smoking gun": New intelligence showed Iraq had developed unmanned airborne vehicles (UAVs) that could deliver chemical or biological agents.

In addition, they said, Iraq had sought mapping software that would allow it to produce sophisticated views of the eastern U.S. cities. President Bush hinted at the evidence in a speech on Oct. 7, 2002.

The UAVs were a major source of controversy, officials said. For many senior officials, this was some of the best evidence they had. 

"The UAV program, to me, that was more serious because that was a direct threat to our military," a high-ranking national-security official said later. "Those UAVs could get up and spread chemical or, worse, biological weapons."

The NIE, according to declassified portions made public last year, firmly stated that "Baghdad's UAV could threaten Iraq's neighbors, U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf and if brought close to, or into, the United States, the U.S. homeland."

But the NIE included a dissent to this conclusion that, after the war, would be considered correct: The Air Force intelligence arm, the expert on UAVs in the U.S. government, strongly argued that the primary role of these aircraft was reconnaissance, "although CBW (chemical and biological weapons) delivery is an inherent capability."

Air Force officials have said this last phrase was added during negotiations in crafting the NIE, though they viewed the possibility as highly unlikely because the drones would be inefficient delivery vehicles.


Powell and his team stuck with the consensus position of the other intelligence agencies because a decision had been made that his speech should reflect the best judgment of the intelligence community.

The Air Force dissent was "perfectly logical," one State Department official said. "Some of the drones may have been reconnaissance, maybe all of them. But the weight of the intelligence community was that these were delivery vehicles. Given the history of Iraq's interest in UAV development, we couldn't discount it."

"There was a very strong dominant view on UAVs," another official said, "and that's what we went with."

Russia 'Retains Right' To Pre-Emptive Strike On Missile Shield

Published: 03 May, 2012, 13:49
Edited: 04 May, 2012, 07:34
Courtesy Of "Russia Today"

Russia is ready for a pre-emptive strike on European missile defense systems if the US refuses dialogue, stated Russia’s senior military official. Washington has responded by saying it doesn’t rule out giving Russia legally binding guarantees on AMB.

Russia is ready for a pre-emptive strike on European missile defense systems if the US refuses dialogue, stated Russia’s senior military official. Washington has responded by saying it doesn’t rule out giving Russia legally binding guarantees on AMB.

“Russia is constantly speaking about guarantees of ABM systems not targeting it, but we think we need to come to cooperation. We provide guarantees after we start cooperating,” Ellen Tauscher, US Special Envoy for Strategic Stability and Missile Defense, told reporters at the end of the first day of the Moscow ABM conference.

Earlier on Thursday Russia’s Chief of General Staff Nikolay Makarov stated that Russia might consider a pre-emptive strike an option in certain circumstances.

“Considering the destabilizing nature of the [American] ABM system, namely the creation of an illusion of inflicting a disarming [nuclear] strike with impunity, a decision on pre-emptive deployment of assault weapons could be taken when the situation gets harder,” Makarov said.

Among other measures, Russia has already promised to deploy short-range Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad Region if NATO fails to reach agreement with it on missile defense.

After Makarov`s remarks, the NATO delegation present at the conference hastened to take issue with the Russian general, saying that the ABM system would never target Russia.

Russia is concerned that the ultimate aim of America’s global ABM shield is the gradual diminution of the effectiveness of Russia’s nuclear arsenal. Moscow says no country possesses any militarily significant quantity of nukes to pose a vital nuclear threat to the US other than Russia.

Vice chairman of the Polish foreign affairs committee Tadeusz Iwinski told RT a pre-emptive strike on Poland represented the “worst case scenario.”

Speaking as a representative of the Polish opposition, Iwinski, said an agreement between Russia and the United States was vital for his country’s security. He further claimed that US Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher “was ready to offer guarantees” that the ABM system“was not going to be against Russia.”

Political analyst Vladimir Orlov thinks that missile threats against Europe, which the shield is supposedly designed to counter, are “very much exaggerated.”

“Missile threats by those countries which Americans and Europeans claim develop long-range missiles, it is just not credible. Europe should not feel vulnerable and the issue is that Russia instead of Europe now feels vulnerable,” he asserted.

Moscow's proposition to develop a joint-European missile defense system has been turned down.

Political analyst Jan Tamas believes the generation of leaders in the Eastern European countries that want to join the US-led AMD system are still thinking in the terms of the Cold War. “They still have negative feelings towards Russia and are also partly afraid of Russia. They take this participation in the system as a sort of guarantee for their security,” he told RT.

“They don’t realize that this is not a guarantee but that it would actually make them a target.”

Also, the Obama administration refused to give cast-iron guarantees that the new ABM is not going to be deployed against Russia.

Bruce Gagnon from the 'Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space' think tank told RT the lack of guarantees reflects the US intention "to continue surrounding Russia and China with these so-called missile defense systems.”

Saying Iran has no missiles capable of hitting the United States, Gagnon says the system is aimed at Russia because it has “the world’s largest supply of natural gas.” He further argues “the Pentagon’s primary job today is to serve as a resource extraction service on behalf of corporate globalization.”

'Heading Towards A Dead End'

The Russian Defense Ministry has organized a representational international conference called “Missile Defense Factor in Establishing New Security Environment” on May 3-4 in Moscow to correlate positions of many interested states on the burning issue of missile defense.

Over 200 experts from military departments of 50 countries, including 28 NATO states, have gathered in the Russian capital to share opinions.

Opening the conference, Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov stated that so far no mutually-acceptable solution to the issue of ABM has been found.

“The situation is practically heading towards a dead end,” acknowledged Servdyukov.

At the same time, the Russian president sent an address to the conference, sharing hope that a solution can be found.

“I believe we can find a formula which could help us avoid the division into those who win and those who lose,”President Medvedev insists.

The conference consists of several working groups. Russia’s Ministry of Defense is going to present a computer model of how the American ABM in Europe is going to influence Russia’s forces of nuclear containment.

Besides Russia and NATO member countries, experts from China, South Korea, Japan and CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization) member states will participate in the Moscow conference.

As a goodwill gesture, Russia wants to make an excursion for the delegates to the heart of Moscow’s A-135 ABM system near the Russian capital.

No official documents are going to be signed as a result of the ABM conference in Moscow.

The Nuclear Posture Attack

By Robert Farley
Posted: June 02, 2010
Courtesy Of "Right Web"

In a May 11 Washington Times editorial, Frank Gaffney, Ed Meese, Clifford May, and four additional coauthors—all of whom represent institutions that form part of the hawkish extreme of the Republican Party establishment—called for a “renewed adherence to the national security philosophy of President Ronald Reagan: ‘Peace Through Strength.’”[1] The authors argued that “freedom,” “America’s exceptional role,” and even the country’s very existence are at stake as a result of an astounding array of purported threats—which the Barack Obama administration, they implied, was doing little to confront—including missile attacks, Shariah law, electromagnetic pulse weapons, Islamic terrorism, unlawful enemy combatants, illegal aliens, and a weak military. Echoing a message that was honed by neoconservative groups like the Project for the New American Century during the Clinton presidency, the authors championed the notion that U.S. global leadership was essential to guarantee the country’s security.

This rhetorical broadside represents one facet of a larger assault on the administration’s national security policy, with other facets including criticism about the size of the defense budget, Middle East policy, and terrorist detention policy. Arguably the most significant attacks, however, have developed around questions about strategic policies, in particular President Obama’s efforts to restructure U.S. nuclear doctrine by restraining the country’s nuclear retaliation policy and renegotiating the START Treaty with Russia. The Washington Times op-ed went so far as to call for the resumption of nuclear testing, in contravention of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and a two-decade testing moratorium.

In recent weeks, multiple lines of attack against the nuclear policy of the Obama administration have emerged from several bastions of U.S. rightwing politics, including the National Review, the Weekly Standard, the Center for Security Policy, and the Heritage Foundation. The angles of these attacks have varied, but they have centered on the claim that the Obama administration, in pursuit of international acclaim, has insufficiently provided for the security of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

These right-wing attacks reveal the continued entrenchment of elements of the hawkish extreme in the Republican Party’s foreign policy establishment, despite the significant setbacks they have suffered since helping drive the country into war with Iraq. Also, the arguments currently emanating from groups like Heritage and the William Kristol-led Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) show the degree to which the right has grasped onto outdated, nostalgic concepts from the heyday of the Cold Warriors. Discussions about “throw weight” and “rail mobile launchers” echo intra-conservative debates that took place during the Reagan era. However, conservatives who had advocated responsible arms control measures during that time have now been left behind. Voices that argued for engagement with the Soviet Union—such as George Schultz and James Baker—now stand outside the laboratories developing Republican foreign policy.

Attacking No First Use

Following its release early this year, the Obama administration’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which defines U.S. nuclear weapons policy and strategy, became the subject of a concerted right-wing attack. The NPR modified U.S. deterrence posture by declaring that the country would not respond to a chemical or biological attack as long as the attacker was a member in good standing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This “no-first-use” policy, however, did not entail any change in the U.S. stance toward North Korea and Iran, as the former left the NPR in the 1990s and the United States has questioned the adherence of the latter.

In an effort to win conservative “buy in,” the Obama administration made several major concessions. In addition to the caveats that significantly limit the impact of the “no first use” policy, the NPR includes significant appropriations for the modernization and maintenance of the existing nuclear stockpile. The NPR also revives “prompt global strike,” a system designed to place conventional warheads on nuclear-like delivery systems. Perhaps most disappointing to progressives, the NPR reserves a key role for missile defense in U.S. security strategy.

Nevertheless, the NPR shifted the United States, however marginally, from a policy of ambiguity regarding nuclear retaliation to a no-first-use policy. This shift has spurred a series of bitter attacks from conservative foreign policy figures and organizations, who claim that it displays weakness in the face of the enemy. For example, John Noonan of the Foreign Policy Initiative and Stuart Koehl, an analyst for the defense contractor ARDAK Corporation and a fellow at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), argued in the National Review that the reduction of ambiguity in the NPR undercut U.S. deterrence and invited foreign aggression.[2] “This has the potential to create a false impression in the minds of potential aggressors that such weapons can be used without fear of an equivalent reprisal, because the U.S. and its allies have eliminated their chemical and biological stockpiles.”

This claim ignores the fact that the United States has stark, overwhelming conventional dominance over any foe or possible combination of foes, and that this conventional advantage provides its own deterrent. Noonan and Koehl neither explain this discrepancy, nor call for a reduction of U.S. conventional forces.

New START?

A similar line of attack has developed against the new START Treaty signed by the United States and Russia in April. The treaty reaffirms the limits on warheads and delivery devices developed at the end of the Cold War, and renews and further develops Washington and Moscow’s commitments to reduce their nuclear arsenals. Again, the administration tried to win conservative support by negotiating very mild, non-restrictive language with the Russians on missile defense. These concessions may have won the president some room on the right, especially among moderately conservative senators like Richard Lugar and Joseph Lieberman, but generated considerable consternation on the hawkish extreme.[3]

In an emblematic critique of the new START published in the National Review, two defense officials who served during the George W. Bush administration—Robert Joseph, senior scholar at the National Institute for Public Policy, and Eric Edelman, visiting scholar at Johns Hopkin’s SAIS—argued that the treaty could limit missile defense, diminish the ability to field prompt global strike weapons, and potentially result in the expansion of Russian and U.S. nuclear arsenals through exploitation of treaty loopholes regulating bombers and missiles launched from rail cars.[4] Remarkably, however, Joseph and Edelman do not call on the Senate to reject the treaty, but rather to simply examine it in detail.

Pavel Podvig, a researcher at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University and a specialist on Russian weapon systems, responded to this line of argument with the refrain, “All this, of course, is just plain crazy.” He noted that the new START placed no limitations on missile defense, no meaningful limitations on prompt global strike (a system likely a decade away from service), but did put limitations on rail mounted ICBMs.[5]

However, GOP elected officials such as Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation continue to echo, and occasionally elaborate upon, claims like those made by Joseph and Edelman.[6] A report from Heritage’s “New START Working Group,” for example, reiterated the rail car assertion and made a series of additional arguments claiming that the new treaty does not place enough limits upon the use of MIRV (missiles with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles) and tactical nuclear weapons, and places too many limitations upon some forms of missile defense.[7]

Marginalizing The Moderates

Ironically, the attacks launched by the conservative foreign policy establishment against the Obama administration could also have been used against Ronald Reagan’s administration. The defense and nuclear policy of the Reagan administration is often understood as the zenith of hawkish, anti-Soviet sentiment. While this largely applies to Reagan’s first term in office, in the second term Reagan pursued far more conciliatory policies toward the Soviet Union and arms control. Reagan himself, as demonstrated by several historians, held almost radical views about the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons.[8] In one famous case, Reagan’s advisers had to restrain him from coming to an overarching deal with Soviet premier, Mikhail Gorbachev, that would have substantially reduced global nuclear weapon stockpiles.[9]

As Max Bergmann, Deputy Policy Director at the National Security Network, has argued, a divide has emerged between the “realist” wing of the Republican foreign policy establishment and its more radical right-wing counterpart.[10] The debate over nuclear policy has demonstrated that the latter now essentially dominates the institutional apparatus of right-wing foreign policy thinking. Ideas and arguments that were welcome in the Reagan administration can now find no purchase at Heritage, or the Weekly Standard, or anywhere else on the right.

Many of the moderate Republicans who favored arms control and engagement with the Soviet Union are still around, but they have minimal influence on the institutional right. Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Colin Powell, and George Schultz have all played key roles in developing foreign policy for multiple Republican administrations. However, none have developed an extensive base within the institutional right wing, the constellation of independent organizations and foundations (including the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute) that have emerged as key players in internal Republican Party debates. This faction has, by and large, concluded that the greatest threat posed by Russian nuclear weapons is loss, theft, or accidental launch, rather than pre-emptive attack.

In contrast, the signatories to the Washington Times op-ed mentioned above all represent organizations that are part of the institutional machinery of movement conservatism.[11]

In addition, prominent political figures have been able to promote the studies and reports produced by these groups, including for instance Sarah Palin, who despite her clear lack of knowledge on the subject tried to use that hardline rhetoric in attacking Obama’s arms control initiatives.

The influence of the radical right over its realist counterpart has become clear in the behavior of many congressional Republicans. While some Republicans remain committed to arms control, others have adopted the rejectionism of the institutional right. For example, in a speech to the Heritage Foundation in early May, House Minority Whip Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) called on the Senate to reject the new START Treaty.[12]

“Cognitive Closure”

Over the past month, the question of “cognitive closure” on the right has been discussed extensively in the blogosphere. Cognitive closure refers to the concept that the Republican political establishment and major conservative pundits review information from within a very limited circle of sources. The nuclear critique mounted by the right wing represents an example of conservative “cognitive closure,” with the ironic outcome that those most eager to wave the banner of the Reagan administration’s foreign policy are offering arguments that Reagan himself would have rejected.

Of course, President Obama also faces other domestic and international obstacles to his nuclear agenda. The major nuclear weapons labs favor developing new nuclear weapons, and they represent powerful economic interests in important states. Elements of the national security bureaucracy also oppose parts of the president’s agenda, including officials in the Pentagon as well as at the State Department and the Energy Department.[13] The ratification of START and the successful implementation of the goals outlined in the NPR will depend on more than just the outcome of internecine conflicts in the conservative movement. Indeed, as with health care, the success of extreme elements within the right to hijack the debate in the Republican Party may mean the functional exclusion of other conservative voices from key policy decisions.

At this point, the degree to which these attacks will find purchase with the American public is unclear. Nuclear issues appear to have relatively low salience among the public, although general charges of weakness on foreign affairs may have more influence. The general accommodation of these attacks within the context of a “peace through strength” political argument may make them more understandable to that part of the electorate responsive to GOP political arguments. However, the Republican Party may find it difficult to make the conceptual connection between a fear of underwear bombers and reloadable rail-launched ICBMs. The real constituency for the pro-nuclear message lies not with the GOP base, but rather within the right-wing institutions themselves—with the theorists and policymakers who have been fighting the nuclear fight since the 1980s.

The nature of these attacks against the Obama administration’s nuclear policy are not so much evidence of a battle within conservative foreign policy circles as they are a sign of the ascendancy of one particular faction. One key to achieving this dominant position in the discourse on the right has been the establishment and nurturing of institutions for developing and promoting their views. The wing of the GOP foreign policy establishment once regarded as “realist” failed to construct an institutional structure to develop and promulgate its ideas. Consequently, the major organs of conservative foreign policy-making now follow one line, serious debate is marginalized, and there are fewer new voices on the right arguing for responsible nuclear weapons policy.

Robert Farley is an assistant professor at the University of Kentucky’s Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce. His last article for Right Web, “The EMP Threat: Lots of Hype, Little Traction,” was published in October 2009.

[1] The seven coauthors were Meese (Heritage Foundation), Gaffney (Center for Security Policy), May (Foundation for the Defense of Democracies), Elaine Donnelly (Center for Military Readiness), Brian Kennedy (Claremont Institute), Herbert London (Hudson Foundation), and Herman Pirchner (American Foreign Policy Council). “Restoring Peace through Strength,” Washington Times, May 11, 2010, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/11/restoring-peace-through-strength/.

[2] Stuart Koehl and John Noonan, “The Wrong Nuclear Posture” National Review Online, May 10, 2010

http://article.nationalreview.com/433824/the-wrong-nuclear-posture/stuart-koehl-and-john-noonan?page=1.

[3] Bridget Johnson, “Lieberman: Not enough votes in Senate to ratify new START treaty,” The Hill, April 11, 2010, http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/91507-lieberman-not-enough-votes-in-senate-to-ratify-start-treaty.

[4]Robert Joseph and Eric Edelman, “The New START: Weakening Our Security,” National Review Online, May 10, 2010, http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MmFkZjc3YzJlMDgyYWM1MDUxMjg0Y2I0OGNkMzJlNTM=.

[5] Pavel Podvig, “New START on Rail-Mobile ICBMs and Reloads”, Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces, April 30, 2010, http://russianforces.org/blog/2010/04/new_start_on_rail-mobile_icbms.shtml?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+russianforces+%28RussianForces.org+Blog%29&utm_content=Google+Reader.

[6] Peter Baker, “A Defender for a Defense the US Doesn’t Want,” New York Times, May 19, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/20/world/europe/20baker.html; New START Working Group, “An Independent Assessment of the New START Treaty,” Heritage Foundation, April 30, 2010 http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/04/An-Independent-Assessment-of-New-START-Treaty#_ftn16.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Richard Rhodes, Arsenals of Folly: The Making of the Nuclear Arms Race. New York: Knopf, 2007 2692 (refers to Kindle Edition).

[9] Ibid, 5132.

[10]Max Bergman, “Eric Cantor and the Death of a Conservative Foreign Policy,” Think Progress: Wonk Room, May 5, 2010. http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/05/05/eric-cantor-and-the-death-of-a-conservative-republican-foreign-policy/.

[11] Meese et al ibid.

[12] Mike Brownfield, “Rep. Eric Cantor Speaks on National Security,” The Foundry, May 4, 2010. http://blog.heritage.org/2010/05/04/rep-eric-cantor-speaks-on-national-security/.

[13] Jeffrey Lewis “Grading the NPR: New Warheads,” Arms Control Wonk, May 5, 2010. http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2717/grading-the-npr-new-warheads; Nuclear Watch New Mexico, “Three Huge New Facilities Rebuild US Nuclear Weapons Production Capability,” May 2010. http://www.nukewatch.org/facts/nwd/NewUS-productionfacilities4-29-10.pdf.

Russia's Right For PrEmptive Nuclear Strikes

Kremlin Announces Non-Specific Revisions To Doctrine

By Jason Ditz,
October 13, 2009
Courtesy Of Anti-War News

According to the secretary if the Russian Security Council, the Russian government’s new review of its nuclear weapons policy retains and even expands the nation’s long-standing option to pre-emptively use nuclear weapons in warfare.

“Different variants are considered to allow the use of nuclear weapons depending on a certain situation and intentions of a would-be enemy,” the secretary insisted. Russia has insisted that it has the right to launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes since early 2008.

NATO has likewise had a long-standing position of threatening to launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes, even against non-nuclear nations. Most recently officials have said the alliance could use nuclear weapons against other nations if they were concerned that they might soon acquire nuclear weapons.

Between them, Russia and NATO control the vast majority of the world’s nuclear weapons, and while they are unlikely to use them against one another, fearing reprisal, the threat remains that either side may launch a pre-emptive strike against a smaller power with little to no retaliatory capability. So far, however, such threats have remained simply threats, and no nation has used nuclear weapons against another in over 64 years.

Related Stories

• August 16, 2009 -- Finland Blames ‘Stupid Firemen’ for Nuclear Cargo Ship Rumors
• August 3, 2009 -- New NATO Chief Calls for Russia ‘Partnership’
• May 13, 2009 -- Russian Report Points to US, NATO as Security Threats

Obama Is Pushing Israel Toward War

President Obama can't outsource matters of war and peace to another state.

By Bret Stephens
SEPTEMBER 15, 2009, 10:30 A.M. ET
Courtesy Of The Wall Street Journal

Events are fast pushing Israel toward a pre-emptive military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, probably by next spring. That strike could well fail. Or it could succeed at the price of oil at $300 a barrel, a Middle East war, and American servicemen caught in between. So why is the Obama administration doing everything it can to speed the war process along?

At July's G-8 summit in Italy, Iran was given a September deadline to start negotiations over its nuclear programs. Last week, Iran gave its answer: No.

Instead, what Tehran offered was a five-page document that was the diplomatic equivalent of a giant kiss-off. It begins by lamenting the "ungodly ways of thinking prevailing in global relations" and proceeds to offer comprehensive talks on a variety of subjects: democracy, human rights, disarmament, terrorism, "respect for the rights of nations," and other areas where Iran is a paragon. Conspicuously absent from the document is any mention of Iran's nuclear program, now at the so-called breakout point, which both Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his boss Ali Khamenei insist is not up for discussion.

What's an American president to do in the face of this nonstarter of a document? What else, but pretend it isn't a nonstarter. Talks begin Oct. 1.

All this only helps persuade Israel's skittish leadership that when President Obama calls a nuclear-armed Iran "unacceptable," he means it approximately in the same way a parent does when fecklessly reprimanding his misbehaving teenager. That impression is strengthened by Mr. Obama's decision to drop Iran from the agenda when he chairs a meeting of the U.N. Security Council on Sept. 24; by Defense Secretary Robert Gates publicly opposing military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities; and by Russia's announcement that it will not support any further sanctions on Iran.

In sum, the conclusion among Israelis is that the Obama administration won't lift a finger to stop Iran, much less will the "international community." So Israel has pursued a different strategy, in effect seeking to goad the U.S. into stopping, or at least delaying, an Israeli attack by imposing stiff sanctions and perhaps even launching military strikes of its own.

View Full Image

Associated Press

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Thus, unlike Israel's air strike against Iraq's reactor in 1981 or Syria's in 2007, both of which were planned in the utmost secrecy, the Israelis have gone out of their way to advertise their fears, purposes and capabilities. They have sent warships through the Suez Canal in broad daylight and conducted widely publicized air-combat exercises at long range. They have also been unusually forthcoming in their briefings with reporters, expressing confidence at every turn that Israel can get the job done.

The problem, however, is that the administration isn't taking the bait, and one has to wonder why. Perhaps it thinks its diplomacy will work, or that it has the luxury of time, or that it can talk the Israelis out of attacking. Alternatively, it might actually want Israel to attack without inviting the perception that it has colluded with it. Or maybe it isn't really paying attention.

But Israel is paying attention. And the longer the U.S. delays playing hardball with Iran, the sooner Israel is likely to strike. A report published today by the Bipartisan Policy Center, and signed by Democrat Chuck Robb, Republican Dan Coats, and retired Gen. Charles Ward, notes that by next year Iran will "be able to produce a weapon's worth of highly enriched uranium . . . in less than two months." No less critical in determining Israel's timetable is the anticipated delivery to Iran of Russian S-300 anti-aircraft batteries: Israel will almost certainly strike before those deliveries are made, no matter whether an Iranian bomb is two months or two years away.

Such a strike may well be in Israel's best interests, though that depends entirely on whether the strike succeeds. It is certainly in America's supreme interest that Iran not acquire a genuine nuclear capability, whether of the actual or break-out variety. That goes also for the Middle East generally, which doesn't need the nuclear arms race an Iranian capability would inevitably provoke.

Then again, it is not in the U.S. interest that Israel be the instrument of Iran's disarmament. For starters, its ability to do so is iffy: Israeli strategists are quietly putting it about that even a successful attack may have to be repeated a few years down the road as Iran reconstitutes its capacity. For another thing, Iran could respond to such a strike not only against Israel itself, but also U.S targets in Iraq and the Persian Gulf.

But most importantly, it is an abdication of a superpower's responsibility to outsource matters of war and peace to another state, however closely allied. President Obama has now ceded the driver's seat on Iran policy to Prime Minister Netanyahu. He would do better to take the wheel again, keeping in mind that Iran is beyond the reach of his eloquence, and keeping in mind, too, that very useful Roman adage, Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Write to bstephens@wsj.com