|
REPLY TO THREAD
|
|
Subject
|
The US First Strike Doctrine And the Threat of Nuclear War...US on record may retaliate a CYBER attack with nukes,even on non-nuke countries
|
|
User Name
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Font color:
Font:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original Message
|
[link to newsclick.in]
China has a theory of credible minimum deterrence. Unlike the US, both Russia and China have always declared that they will not use nuclear weapons unless attacked with nuclear weapons first.
The US had withdrawn from the ABM treaty with the arguments that there were “rogue” states and rogue non-state players demanding the development of a missile shield. Initially, they had also argued that the missile shield being deployed was against Iran. Russia had asked the US that if the shield was for other countries and not Russia, Russia was willing to join the US in creating such a shield. The US has spurned all such advances and its deployment in locations where the country being targeted is obviously Russia makes it clear that the ABM shield is central to its doctrine of nuclear primacy.
Lest we believe that this talk of nuclear primacy is just some anti US posturing, it is instructive to see what the latest US doctrine is. The Nuclear Weapons Employment Policy submitted by the Obama administration on June 13, 2013 [link to www.defense.gov] makes it clear that the principle of “counterforce” is retained as the central principle in employing nuclear weapons as also the ability to Launch Under Attack. Each of them are continuance of the cold war policies and means that the key elements of nuclear war still remains. Counterforce means that weapons are kept at high levels of alert, ready to launch upon warning of an enemy attack, and able to pre-emptively attack enemy forces. Both elements – pre-emptive nuclear strikes and hair trigger alert of nuclear forces means that the threat of nuclear war remains. With the added policy of ABM shields, the temptation of the US to target other nuclear weapon states or states such as Iran actually increases.
The US has not only argued that it can use pre-emptive nuclear strikes against non-nuclear weapon states, but recently has also argued that even a cyber attack on the US could trigger a nuclear response. [link to articles.washingtonpost.com]
It is clear today that while the US is arguing that nuclear weapons are unacceptable in the arsenal of other countries, it regards the same nuclear weapons not as deterrence but as first strike and pre-emptive weapons. It wants the world to do what it says and not what it does. The hypocrisy involved in these postures is what is unravelling the nuclear compact in which nuclear weapon states agreed to disarm while others agreed to forego nuclear weapons.
More at link
|
|
Pictures (click to insert)
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | | Next Page >> |
|
