Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons
The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear
weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them
to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass
destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy
known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
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. The strategy was outlined in more
detail at the time in classified national security directives.
At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States
would "respond with overwhelming force" to the use of weapons of mass
destruction against the United States, its forces or allies, and said "all
options" would be available to the president.
The draft, dated March 15, would provide authoritative guidance for commanders
to request presidential approval for using nuclear weapons, and represents the
Pentagon's first attempt to revise procedures to reflect the Bush preemption
doctrine. A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration,
contains no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against
threats from weapons of mass destruction.
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.
Another scenario for a possible nuclear preemptive strike is in case
of an "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects
from nuclear weapons can safely destroy."
That and other provisions in the document appear to refer to nuclear initiatives
proposed by the administration that Congress has thus far declined to fully
Last year, for example, Congress refused to fund research toward development
of nuclear weapons that could destroy biological or chemical weapons materials
without dispersing them into the atmosphere.
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."
But Congress last year halted funding of a study to determine the viability
of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator warhead (RNEP) -- commonly called the
bunker buster -- that the Pentagon has said is needed to attack hardened, deeply
buried weapons sites.
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." It says that there are "about thirty nations with WMD
programs" along with "nonstate actors [terrorists] either independently
or as sponsored by an adversarial state."
To meet that situation, the document says that "responsible security planning
requires preparation for threats that are possible, though perhaps unlikely
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
The draft says that to deter a potential adversary from using such weapons,
that adversary's leadership must "believe the United States has both the
ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible
and effective." The draft also notes that U.S. policy in the past has "repeatedly
rejected calls for adoption of 'no first use' policy of nuclear weapons since
this policy could undermine deterrence."
Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee
who has been a leading opponent of the bunker-buster program, said yesterday
the draft was "apparently a follow-through on their nuclear posture review
and they seem to bypass the idea that Congress had doubts about the program."
She added that members "certainly don't want the administration to move
forward with a [nuclear] preemption policy" without hearings, closed door
A spokesman for Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, said yesterday the panel has not yet received a copy of the draft.
Hans M. Kristensen, a consultant to the Natural Resources Defense Council,
who discovered the document on the Pentagon Web site, said yesterday that it
"emphasizes the need for a robust nuclear arsenal ready to strike on short
notice including new missions."
Kristensen, who has specialized for more than a decade in nuclear weapons research,
said a final version of the doctrine was due in August but has not yet appeared.
"This doctrine does not deliver on the Bush administration pledge of a
reduced role for nuclear weapons," Kristensen said. "It provides justification
for contentious concepts not proven and implies the need for RNEP."
One reason for the delay may be concern about raising publicly the possibility
of preemptive use of nuclear weapons, or concern that it might interfere with
attempts to persuade Congress to finance the bunker buster and other specialized
In April, Rumsfeld appeared before the Senate Armed Services panel and asked
for the bunker buster study to be funded. He said the money was for research
and not to begin production on any particular warhead. "The only thing
we have is very large, very dirty, big nuclear weapons," Rumsfeld said.
"It seems to me studying it [the RNEP] makes all the sense in the world."