http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=4190

December 21, 2004
Kill Missile Defense Now

by Ivan Eland
The most recent among many testing glitches of the Bush administration missile defense program should remind us that this exorbitant and heavily politicized effort should be scrapped. Until September 11, in the eyes of conservatives, the litmus test for patriotism was support for missile defense. Now they have moved on to view backing for the troubled Iraq War as the badge of armchair courage. Yet the 9/11 attacks demonstrated that the missile defense program did not address the most severe threats facing the United States.

The most serious threats to the U.S. homeland won’t arrive by missile. They’ll likely be attacks using either conventional means—as on 9/11—or nuclear, biological or chemical weapons smuggled into the country by ship or delivered by small aircraft. Terrorists are unlikely to have the technology to develop the long-range missiles that a missile defense system is designed to intercept using other missiles or lasers.

Missile defense could be a back-up in case deterrence fails against rogue states, such as Iran or North Korea, that have both long-range missile and nuclear weapons programs. Nuclear deterrence usually works against even radical states because, unlike terrorists, they have a home address that can be incinerated with the large and powerful U.S. nuclear arsenal. Alternatively, missile defenses could act as a shield in the unlikely event of an accidental nuclear launch from one of those nations. But missile defense systems are very complex and expensive to build. In fact, missile defense is the most complicated weapon system ever designed by man. The U.S. government has had a few successful test intercepts, but these tests did not resemble actual battle conditions and were rigged for success. In the most recent failed test, the interceptor missile could not even get off the ground. Furthermore, hitting a missile with another missile (“hitting a bullet with a bullet”) is not the toughest aspect of development—the biggest challenge is integrating the interceptors, sensors, and battle management computers.

The Missile Defense Agency has spent $80 billion since 1985 and has very little to show for it. Over the next five years, the U.S. government will dump another $50 billion into missile defense programs. Yet rogue states probably will be able to come up with cheap countermeasures to foil costly defensive systems.

Although the Pentagon claims the systems will defend against potential missile attacks from Iran and North Korea, some conservatives have the hidden agenda of using them to counter China. China now has only about 20 aging long-range missiles that could deliver nuclear warheads to the United States. Unlike the relatively poor rogue states, however, wealthy China—which already has programs to modernize such missiles—could simply build more offensive missiles to overwhelm the defenses. In fact, the conservative fable—that is, during the later years of the Cold War, President Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars program struck so much fear into the hearts of the Soviets that it helped collapse the East bloc—was belied by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev’s dismissal of Reagan’s dream by saying that he could build offensive missiles faster and more cheaply than the United States could build pricey missile defenses. Today’s missile defense programs are a mere shadow of Reagan’s scheme, and Russia can already saturate even the most ambitious of them with thousands of long-range missiles.

So if missile defenses don’t counter the greatest threats and are not cost-effective why are the Bush administration and its conservative allies so gung ho on them? The answer is primarily politics. Even after a failed test in December 2002, President Bush, for electoral purposes, ordered the premature initial activation of a rudimentary system by September 2004 (which is running many months behind schedule because of development problems and scrapped tests). Although Reagan’s Star Wars program was grandiose and a financial black hole for taxpayers, many conservatives have used modern-day missile defense programs to rally the faithful around their hero’s legacy. At every turn, President Bush compares himself to Reagan, and the continuance of missile defense has been a concrete manifestation of that phenomenon.

But, these days, instead of vanquishing incoming missiles, too many conservative pundits are intent on destroying new monsters—terrorists and Iraqi guerillas. Winning one for the Gipper is no longer needed to fire up conservatives. The Bush administration should take advantage of that to reduce the yawning budget deficit by killing the grotesquely wasteful missile defense programs.

In case you missed it:


http://www.antiwar.com/orig/stockbauer1.html
'
Rebuilding America's Defenses' and the Project for the New American Century
by Bette Stockbauer
June 18, 2003

"Rebuilding America's Defenses (RAD)" is a policy document published by a neoconservative Washington think tank called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Its pages have been compared to Hitler's Mein Kampf in that they outline an aggressive military plan for U.S. world domination during the coming century. And just as Hitler's book was not taken seriously until after his catastrophic rise to power, so it seems that relatively few Americans are expressing alarm at this published document that is a blueprint for many of the present actions of the Bush administration, actions which have begun to destabilize the balance of power between the nations of the world.

There is, indeed, much reason for alarm because PNAC is not an ordinary think tank and "RAD" is not an ordinary policy paper. Many PNAC members now hold key positions in the White House, Defense and State Departments, among them Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Lewis Libby, and John Bolton, along with others in lesser positions. William Kristol, writer for the conservative magazine, the Weekly Standard, is chairman of the group.

Some of these men have been advocating for a strong military posture since the ending of cold war hostilities with the Soviet Union. Wishing to capitalize on the fact that the US had emerged as the world's preeminent superpower, they have lobbied for increases in military spending in order to establish what they call a Pax Americana that will reap the rewards of complete military and commercial control of land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace. This, they said, would be accomplished by the waging of "multiple simultaneous large-scale wars" and one of their first orders of business was always the removal of Saddam Hussein, thereby giving the US a toehold in the oil-rich Middle East.

During the Clinton presidency, when the Republicans were out of power, this militaristic wing in American politics became highly organized and efficient. They formed the PNAC in 1997 And published "RAD" in September 2000. Determined to have their world empire, they offered an eerie prophecy on page 52 of that document about how it might be accomplished, "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." Their dream of a catalyzing event could not have been better actualized than in the events of 9/11.

Although there could have been many responses to the tragedy of 9/11, the Bush administration seized upon that event to mold public opinion into accepting many ideas embodied in "RAD". The overthrow of Saddam Hussein, was being proposed by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz one day after 9/11, even before anyone knew who was responsible for the attacks. As soon as the war against Afghanistan was completed, the focus of US policy became regime change in Iraq, with all of the tragic consequences we are now seeing in that country.

Policies advocated in "RAD" are being enacted with terrifying speed, such as denigration of the UN, importance of Homeland Security, abrogation of international agreements, revamping of the US nuclear program and the spread of American military power into all corners of the globe by preemptive engagement. In Iraq we have seen the embodiment of "RAD" directives that call for the subjugation of regimes considered hostile to US interests and the prevention of military build-up in countries that may challenge US power. Bush's "Axis of Evil" nations Iraq, Iran and North Korea are mentioned numerous times as potential trouble spots and there is repeated insistence that the US establish military outposts in the Middle East and East Asia.

Most frightening is its complete isolation from any ideas of world unity and cooperative action. The authors appear to be intent on waging war as an answer to the problems of our planet, tragically imagining that peace can be won by enforcing American values on every other nation. A more chilling statement of the PNAC devotion to militaristic domination cannot be found than in Richard Perle's concept of "total war". "No stages," he said, "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq... this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war... our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

This article is a summarization of "RAD." I believe it is of importance to become familiar with this document because it is determining US policy decisions which will have far reaching repercussions for decades to come. Subject areas are arranged under three topics: A. Pax Americana, outlining the rationale for global empire, B. Securing Global Hegemony, pinpointing regions that are considered trouble spots for US policy, C. Using the Military to Gain Empire, outlining military plans for complete world domination. My personal comments are in italics; page numbers are from the original document. See URLs at the end for further reading.

A. Pax Americana
The building of Pax Americana has become possible, claims "RAD," because the fall of the Soviet Union gave the United States status as the world's preeminent superpower. Consequently the US must now work hard, not only to maintain that position, but to spread its military might into geographic areas that are ideologically opposed to its influence, waging "multiple simultaneous large-scale wars" to subdue countries that may stand in the way of US global preeminence. Rationales offered for going to war with other nations are the preservation of the "American peace" and the spread of "democracy."


On Preserving American Preeminence

"It is not a choice between preeminence today and preeminence tomorrow. Global leadership is not something exercised at our leisure, when the mood strikes us or when our core national security interests are directly threatened; then it is already too late. Rather, it is a choice whether or not to maintain American military preeminence, to secure American geopolitical leadership, and to preserve the American peace" (p. 76).

"The Cold War world was a bipolar world; the 21st century world is – for the moment, at least – decidedly unipolar, with America as the world's 'sole superpower.' America's strategic goal used to be containment of the Soviet Union; today the task is to preserve an international security environment conducive to American interests and ideals. The military's job during the Cold War was to deter Soviet expansionism. Today its task is to secure and expand the 'zones of democratic peace;' to deter the rise of a new great-power competitor; defend key regions of Europe, East Asia and the Middle East; and to preserve American preeminence through the coming transformation of war made possible by new technologies" (p. 2).


Four Vital Missions

"RAD" lists four vital missions "demanded by US global leadership":

"Homeland Defense. . . . the United States . . . must counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to deter US military action by threatening US allies and the American homeland itself. Of all the new and current missions for US armed forces, this must have priority.

"Large Wars. Second, the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars and also to be able to respond to unanticipated contingencies in regions where it does not maintain forward-based forces.

"Constabulary Duties. Third, the Pentagon must retain forces to preserve the current peace in ways that fall short of conducting major theater campaigns. . . . These duties are today's most frequent missions, requiring forces configured for combat but capable of long-term, independent constabulary operations.

"Transform US Armed Forces. Finally, the Pentagon must begin now to exploit the so-called 'revolution in military affairs,' sparked by the introduction of advanced technologies into military systems; this must be regarded as a separate and critical mission worthy of a share of force structure and defense budgets" (p. 6).

". . . the failure to provide sufficient forces to execute these four missions must result in problems for American strategy. And the failure to prepare for tomorrow's challenges will ensure that the current Pax Americana comes to an early end" (p. 13).


On Usurping the Power of the UN

"Further, these constabulary missions are far more complex and likely to generate violence than traditional 'peacekeeping' missions. For one, they demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations, as the failure of the UN mission in the Balkans and the relative success of NATO operations there attests. Nor can the United States assume a UN-like stance of neutrality. . . . American troops, in particular, must be regarded as part of an overwhelmingly powerful force" (p. 11).


B. Securing Global Hegemony

"RAD" takes the posture that only the US should manipulate international relations and points out "trouble spots" that may cause future problems, like all of East Asia, and Iraq, Iran, and North Korea (now labeled by George Bush as the "Axis of Evil"). There is concern that several nations might come together to challenge US interests. Consequently any nation that produces nuclear weapons or engages in significant arms buildup will be viewed as a potential threat.

"America's global leadership, and its role as the guarantor of the current great-power peace, relies upon the safety of the American homeland; the preservation of a favorable balance of power in Europe, the Middle East and surrounding energy-producing region, and East Asia; and the general stability of the international system of nation-states relative to terrorists, organized crime, and other 'non-state actors.'

"A retreat from any one of these requirements would call America's status as the world's leading power into question. As we have seen, even a small failure like that in Somalia or a halting and incomplete triumph as in the Balkans can cast doubt on American credibility. The failure to define a coherent global security and military strategy during the post–Cold War period has invited challenges; states seeking to establish regional hegemony continue to probe for the limits of the American security perimeter" (p. 5).


Axis of Evil

"The current American peace will be short-lived if the United States becomes vulnerable to rogue powers with small, inexpensive arsenals of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction. We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself. The blessings of the American peace, purchased at fearful cost and a century of effort, should not be so trivially squandered" (p. 75).


Iraq and the Persian Gulf

"Although the no-fly-zone air operations over northern and southern Iraq have continued without pause for almost a decade, they remain an essential element in US strategy and force posture in the Persian Gulf region. Ending these operations would hand Saddam Hussein an important victory, something any American leader would be loath to do" (p. 11).

"The Air Force presence in the Gulf region is a vital one for US military strategy, and the United States should consider it a de facto permanent presence, even as it seeks ways to lessen Saudi, Kuwaiti and regional concerns about US presence" (p. 35).


East Asia

"Raising US military strength in East Asia is the key to coping with the rise of China to great power status.

"The prospect is that East Asia will become an increasingly important region, marked by the rise of Chinese power….A similar rationale argues in favor of retaining substantial forces in Japan. In recent years, the stationing of large forces in Okinawa has become increasingly controversial in Japanese domestic politics, and while efforts to accommodate local sensibilities are warranted, it is essential to retain the capabilities US forces in Okinawa represent. If the United States is to remain the guarantor of security in Northeast Asia, and to hold together a de facto alliance whose other main pillars are Korea and Japan maintaining forward-based US forces is essential" (p. 18).

"Reflecting the gradual shift in the focus of American strategic concerns toward East Asia, a majority of the US fleet, including two thirds of all carrier battle groups, should be concentrated in the Pacific. A new, permanent forward base should be established in Southeast Asia" (p. 39).


Europe

"Despite the shifting focus of conflict in Europe, a requirement to station US forces in northern and central Europe remains. The region is stable, but a continued American presence helps to assure the major European powers, especially Germany, that the United States retains its longstanding security interest in the continent. This is especially important in light of the nascent European moves toward an independent defense 'identity' and policy; it is important that NATO not be replaced by the European Union, leaving the United States without a voice in European security affairs" (p. 16).


Regime Change

"American military preeminence will continue to rest in significant part on the ability to maintain sufficient land forces to achieve political goals such as removing a dangerous and hostile regime when necessary" (p. 61).

"America's adversaries will continue to resist the building of the American peace; when they see an opportunity as Saddam Hussein did in 1990, they will employ their most powerful armed forces to win on the battlefield what they could not win in peaceful competition; and American armed forces will remain the core of efforts to deter, defeat, or remove from power regional aggressors" (p. 10).


C. Using the Military to Gain Empire

One stated objective of "RAD" is "to outline the large, 'full-spectrum' forces that are necessary to conduct the varied tasks demanded by a strategy of American preeminence for today and tomorrow" (p. 5). Much of the document is an elucidation of those missions and includes specific recommendations about weaponry, deployment patterns, increased personnel and defense spending. It envisions a future in which the United States is in complete control of land, sea, air, space and cyberspace of planet Earth and urges a new rendition of Reagan's "Star Wars" defense shield program.

"Until the process of transformation is treated as an enduring military mission – worthy of a constant allocation of dollars and forces – it will remain stillborn" (p. 60).

"If an American peace is to be maintained, and expanded, it must have a secure foundation on unquestioned US military preeminence" (p. 4).

"In sum, the 1990s have been a 'decade of defense neglect'. This leaves the next president of the United States with an enormous challenge: he must increase military spending to preserve American geopolitical leadership, or he must pull back from the security commitments that are the measure of America's position as the world's sole superpower and the final guarantee of security, democratic freedoms and individual political rights" (p. 4).


Army

"American landpower remains the essential link in the chain that translates US military supremacy into American geopolitical preeminence. . . . Regimes are difficult to change based upon punishment alone. If land forces are to survive and retain their unique strategic purpose in a world where it is increasingly easy to deliver firepower precisely at long ranges, they must change as well, becoming more stealthy, mobile, deployable and able to operate in a dispersed fashion. The US Army, and American land forces more generally, must increasingly complement the strike capabilities of the other services. Conversely, an American military force that lacks the ability to employ ground forces that can survive and maneuver rapidly on future battlefields will deprive US political leaders of a decisive tool of diplomacy" (p. 30).


Air Force

"Because of its inherent mobility and flexibility, the Air Force will be the first US military force to arrive in a theater during times of crisis; as such, the Air Force must retain its ability to deploy and sustain sufficient numbers of aircraft to deter wars and shape any conflict in its earliest stages. Indeed, it is the Air Force, along with the Army, that remains the core of America's ability to apply decisive military power when it pleases. To dissipate this ability to deliver a rapid hammer blow is to lose the key component of American military preeminence" (p. 37).


Navy/Marine Corps

"The end of the Cold War leaves the US Navy in a position of unchallenged supremacy on the high seas, a dominance surpassing that even of the British Navy in the 19th and early parts of the 20th century. With the remains of the Soviet fleet now largely rusting in port, the open oceans are America's, and the lines of communication open from the coasts of the United States to Europe, the Persian Gulf and East Asia. Yet this very success calls the need for the current force structure into question. Further, the advance of precision-strike technology may mean that naval surface combatants, and especially the large-deck aircraft carriers that are the Navy's capital ships, may not survive in the high-technology wars of the coming decades. Finally, the nature and pattern of Navy presence missions may be out of synch with emerging strategic realities. In sum, though it stands without peer today, the Navy faces major challenges to its traditional and, in the past, highly successful methods of operation" (p. 39).


Overseas Bases to Advance American Geopolitical Interests

"There should be a strong strategic synergy between US forces overseas and in a reinforcing posture: units operating abroad are an indication of American geopolitical interests and leadership, provide significant military power to shape events and, in wartime, create the conditions for victory when reinforced. Conversely, maintaining the ability to deliver an unquestioned 'knockout punch' through the rapid introduction of stateside units will increase the shaping power of forces operating overseas and the vitality of our alliances. In sum, we see an enduring need for large-scale American forces" (p. 74).

"As a supplement to forces stationed abroad under long-term basing arrangements, the United States should seek to establish a network of 'deployment bases' or 'forward operating bases' to increase the reach of current and future forces. Not only will such an approach improve the ability to project force to outlying regions, it will help circumvent the political, practical and financial constraints on expanding the network of American bases overseas" (p. 19).


Nuclear Expansion

"…of all the elements of US military force posture, perhaps none is more in need of reevaluation than America's nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons remain a critical component of American military power but it is unclear whether the current US nuclear arsenal is well-suited to the emerging post–Cold War world. . . . there may be a need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements, such as would be required in targeting the very deep underground, hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries" (p. 8). If the United States is to have a nuclear deterrent that is both effective and safe, it will need to test." (pp. 7–8).

"But what should finally drive the size and character of our nuclear forces is not numerical parity with Russian capabilities but maintaining American strategic superiority – and, with that superiority, a capability to deter possible hostile coalitions of nuclear powers. US nuclear superiority is nothing to be ashamed of; rather, it will be an essential element in preserving American leadership in a more complex and chaotic world" (p. 8).


Space Command – Control of the "International Commons"

". . . control of space – defined by Space Command as 'the ability to assure access to space, freedom of operations within the space medium, and an ability to deny others the use of space' – must be an essential element of our military strategy" (p. 55).

"The ability to have access to, operate in, and dominate the aerospace environment has become the key to military success in modern, high-technology warfare. . . . How well the Air Force rises to the many challenges it faces – even should it receive increased budgets – will go far toward determining whether US military forces retain the combat edge they now enjoy" (pp. 38–39).

"Much as control of the high seas – and the protection of international commerce – defined global powers in the past, so will control of the new 'international commons' be a key to world power in the future. An America incapable of protecting its interests or that of its allies in space or the 'infosphere' will find it difficult to exert global political leadership" (p. 51).

"As Space Command also recognizes, the United States must also have the capability to deny America's adversaries the use of commercial space platforms for military purposes in times of crises and conflicts. Indeed, space is likely to become the new 'international commons', where commercial and security interests are intertwined and related. (Pp. 54–55).


Star Wars

"Building an effective, robust, layered, global system of missile defenses is a prerequisite for maintaining American preeminence" (p. 54).

". . . effective ballistic missile defenses will be the central element in the exercise of American power and the projection of US military forces abroad. Without it, weak states operating small arsenals of crude ballistic missiles, armed with basic nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction, will be in a strong position to deter the United States from using conventional force, no matter the technological or other advantages we may enjoy. Even if such enemies are merely able to threaten American allies rather than the United States homeland itself, America's ability to project power will be deeply compromised" (p. 12).


Cyberspace or 'Net War'

"If outer space represents an emerging medium of warfare, then 'cyberspace', and in particular the Internet hold similar promise and threat. And as with space, access to and use of cyberspace and the Internet are emerging elements in global commerce, politics and power. Any nation wishing to assert itself globally must take account of this other new 'global commons'.

"Although many concepts of 'cyber-war' have elements of science fiction about them, and the role of the Defense Department in establishing 'control', or even what 'security' on the Internet means, requires a consideration of a host of legal, moral and political issues, there nonetheless will remain an imperative to be able to deny America and its allies' enemies the ability to disrupt or paralyze either the military's or the commercial sector's computer networks. Conversely, an offensive capability could offer America's military and political leaders an invaluable tool in disabling an adversary in a decisive manner.

"Taken together, the prospects for space war or 'cyberspace war' represent the truly revolutionary potential inherent in the notion of military transformation. These future forms of warfare are technologically immature, to be sure. But, it is also clear that for the US armed forces to remain preeminent and avoid an Achilles Heel in the exercise of its power they must be sure that these potential future forms of warfare favor America just as today's air, land and sea warfare reflect United States military dominance" (p. 57).


Future Forms of Warfare, Including Biological

"Future soldiers may operate in encapsulated, climate-controlled, powered fighting suits, laced with sensors, and boasting chameleon-like 'active' camouflage. 'Skin-patch' pharmaceuticals help regulate fears, focus concentration and enhance endurance and strength. A display mounted on a soldier's helmet permits a comprehensive view of the battlefield – in effect to look around corners and over hills – and allows the soldier to access the entire combat information and intelligence system while filtering incoming data to prevent overload. Individual weapons are more lethal, and a soldier's ability to call for highly precise and reliable indirect fires – not only from Army systems but those of other services – allows each individual to have great influence over huge spaces. Under the 'Land Warrior' program, some Army experts envision a 'squad' of seven soldiers able to dominate an area the size of the Gettysburg battlefield – where, in 1863, some 165,000 men fought" (p. 62).

"Although it may take several decades for the process of transformation to unfold, in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and sea will be vastly different than it is today, and 'combat' likely will take place in new dimensions: in space, 'cyber-space,' and perhaps the world of microbes. Air warfare may no longer be fought by pilots manning tactical fighter aircraft sweeping the skies of opposing fighters, but a regime dominated by long-range, stealthy unmanned craft. On land, the clash of massive, combined-arms armored forces may be replaced by the dashes of much lighter, stealthier and information-intensive forces, augmented by fleets of robots, some small enough to fit in soldiers' pockets. Control of the sea could be largely determined not by fleets of surface combatants and aircraft carriers, but from land and space based systems, forcing navies to maneuver and fight underwater. Space itself will become a theater of war, as nations gain access to space capabilities and come to rely on them; further, the distinction between military and commercial space systems – combatants and noncombatants – will become blurred. Information systems will become an important focus of attack, particularly for US enemies seeking to short-circuit sophisticated American forces. And advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool" (p. 60).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


For further reading, see "Rebuilding America's Defenses" on the PNAC website at:

http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf.

There is a website devoted exclusively to articles and information about PNAC at:

http://pnac.info/

Truthout and Information Clearing House have many enlightening articles about the PNAC. See especially "Blood Money" by William Rivers Pitt at:

http://truthout.org/docs_03/022803A.shtml.

See "Global Eye-Dark Passage" by Chris Floyd at:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2326.htm.
This article is followed by a long list of links to published articles about the PNAC.

Also see article by John Pilger at:

http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759.

A longer summary of "RAD" (including more extensive quotes than here) can be found at http://gvtc.com/~mpingo/pnac.html.

Bette Stockbauer is a writer, activist and conservationist who lives in central Texas. She has been working for issues related to peace and justice since the Vietnam era.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8263

December 16, 2005
Nuclear Deployment for an Attack on Iran
And the nuclear hitmen behind it
by Jorge Hirsch
Are U.S. tactical nuclear weapons deployed in the Persian Gulf, on hair-trigger alert, and ready to be launched against Iran at a moment's notice?

The answer is contained in presidential directive NSPD 35, "Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization," issued May 2004, which is classified. Nevertheless, we can infer the answer from the fact that every other element needed for a nuclear strike on Iran is now "deployed" and ready, namely:


The nuclear hitmen: Stephen Hadley, Stephen Cambone, Robert Joseph, William Schneider Jr., J.D. Crouch II, Linton Brooks, and John Bolton are nuclear-weapons enthusiasts who advocate aggressive policies and occupy key positions in the top echelons of the Bush administration.
A nuclear doctrine that advocates nuclear strikes against non-nuclear countries that precisely fit the Iran profile: the "Nuclear Posture Review" and the "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations."
The doctrine of preemptive attack adopted by the Bush administration and already put into practice in Iraq, and the "National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction" (NSPD 17), which promises to respond to a WMD threat with nuclear weapons.
150,000 American soldiers in Iraq, whose lives are at risk if a military confrontation with Iran erupts, and who thus provide the administration with a strong argument for the use of nuclear weapons to defend them.
Americans' heightened state of fear of terrorist attacks and their apparent willingness to support any course of action that could potentially protect them from real or imagined terrorist threats.
The allegations of involvement of Iran in terrorist activities around the world [1], [2], including acts against America [1], [2], and its alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction.
The determination of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission that Iran has connections with al-Qaeda.
Senate Joint Resolution 23, "Authorization for Use of Military Force," which allows the president "to take action to deter and prevent acts of terrorism against the United States" without consulting Congress, and the War Powers Resolution [.pdf], which "allows" the president to attack anybody in the "global war on terror."
The Bush administration's willingness to use military power based on unconfirmed intelligence and defectors' fairy tales.
The fact that Iran has been declared in noncompliance [.pdf] with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which makes it "legal" for the U.S. to use nuclear weapons against Iran.
The course of action followed by the Bush administration with respect to Iran's drive for nuclear technology, which can only lead to a diplomatic impasse.
The Israel factor [1], [2] .
I have discussed many of these elements in previous columns. Here I will focus on the people, the doctrine, and the weapons.

Nuclear Hitmen

The decision to employ nuclear weapons at any level in a military conflict rests with the president. Neither Congress nor state governments nor you nor I have to be consulted. According to Robert McNamara (U.S. secretary of defense during the Cuban missile crisis), to launch a nuclear attack requires "20 minutes' deliberation by the president and his advisers."

In preparation for the nuclear strike on Iran, the Bush administration in its second term has deployed into key positions hardliners that have both expertise in nuclear weapons and a known history of advocating the aggressive use thereof. Thus the president can say, "I feel like I'm getting really good advice from very capable people" to justify nuking Iran.

National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley
Hadley is one of the coauthors of the document "Rationale and Requirements for U.S. Nuclear Forces and Arms Control" [.pdf], which served as a blueprint for the " Nuclear Posture Review" of 2001. In a 1997 paper, "Policy Considerations in Using Nuclear Weapons," Hadley applauded the "many men and women" who "have devoted their professional lives" to nuclear weapons as having made "a significant contribution to our nation." Further, "It is often an unstated premise in the current debate that if nuclear weapons are needed at all, they are needed only to deter the nuclear weapons of others. I am not sure this unstated premise is true … this is not why we got into the nuclear business." He was one of the leading proponents of the claim that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, and he was profiled in a 2004 Los Angeles Times article as "A Hawk in Bush's Inner Circle Who Flies Under the Radar."

Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone
Cambone is Rumsfeld's right-hand man, another coauthor of "Rationale and Requirements," and a longtime promoter of missile-defense systems. If there is any doubt as to whether he will promote the policies advocated in that document, let's hear his own words: "Any policymaker has certain views. Policymakers are where they are and doing what they do because they have a view." (New York Times, April 11, 2003)

Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs Robert Joseph
Joseph has the position formerly held by John Bolton and is another coauthor of "Rationale and Requirements." He also helped draft the document "National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction" (NSPD-17), which advocates the use of nuclear weapons in response to WMD and names Iran as one of the countries that are the focus of the new U.S. strategy. He is a member of the National Institute for Public Policy, which says on its Web page that Joseph is a leading promoter of counterproliferation policy ("formulation and implementation of national security strategies to counter proliferation threats") and "criminalizing proliferation activities." He was the National Security Council member supervising the portion of the 2003 State of the Union speech dealing with intelligence about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. According to Right Web, Joseph "advocates the offensive use of nuclear weapons" and advocates placing "preemptive attacks and weapons of mass destruction at the center of U.S. national security strategy."

In a recent interview, Joseph "dismissed Iran's contention it seeks only civilian nuclear power," said that "Iran is closing in on production of nuclear weapons and even UN sanctions may not deter the aggressive government in Tehran," and averred that "once they begin to enrich, that is the point of no return," echoing similar statements by Israeli officials.

National Nuclear Security Administration Director Linton Brooks
Brooks oversees the country's nuclear weapons infrastructure and is another coauthor of "Rationale and Requirements." He also served on the Pentagon's Deterrence Concepts Advisory Panel, which was charged with overseeing the production of the Nuclear Posture Review policy document. In explaining the Nuclear Posture Review to the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2004, Brooks stated [.pdf]:

"The Nuclear Posture Review represented a radical departure from the past and the most fundamental rethinking of the roles and purposes of nuclear weapons in almost a quarter-century. … Instead of treating nuclear weapons in isolation, it considered them as an integrated component of American military power. … Instead of treating the future as static and predictable, it recognized that requirements could change and that U.S. nuclear forces must be prepared to respond to those changes, including by increasing the fraction of the force that is deployed. … The Nuclear Posture Review broadens our thinking to encompass a New Triad of flexible response capabilities consisting of non-nuclear and nuclear strike capabilities."

In that address, he also advocated research on the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator initiative to "hold at risk hardened, deeply buried facilities that may be important to a future adversary," and repealing the prohibition on low-yield nuclear weapons to allow research in "advanced concepts" of more usable nuclear weapons. He stated, "We need to make sure our weapons will in fact be seen by other countries as a deterrent. One element of that is usability. If nobody believes there is any circumstance where you will use the weapon, it is not a deterrent."

Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Science Board William Schneider Jr.
Schneider is another coauthor of "Rationale and Requirements." He was a staff member at the Hudson Institute between 1967 and 1971, where "he contributed to studies on strategic forces, Soviet affairs, theater nuclear force operations, and arms control." In his own words, "The leakage of nuclear weapons-design technology over time has become a flood in recent years," and "Both Iran and Iraq sought to develop their own military ballistic and cruise missiles as well as weapons of mass destruction. In conjunction with offshore procurements of conventional defense products, they produced formidable military establishments posing an overwhelming threat to U.S. allies."

Deputy National Security Advisor J.D. Crouch II
Crouch served as assistant secretary of defense from 2001 to 2003, and was the "principal advisor to the secretary of defense on the formulation and coordination of policy … for nuclear forces, missile defense, technology security policy, counterproliferation, and arms control." In a briefing he gave on the Nuclear Posture Review in 2002, he stated, "Now, we are trying to look at a number of initiatives. One would be to modify an existing weapon, to give it greater capability against deep and hardly – or hard targets and deeply-buried targets." He is characterized as a "nuclear weapons enthusiast."

Conclusion? None of these people, when asked for advice, is likely to advise against the use of nuclear weapons for reasons that you or I would find eminently reasonable [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].

Finally, there is the infamous John Bolton. While undersecretary of state, he warned that "efforts to attain nuclear weapons pose a direct and undeniable threat to the United States and its friends and allies around the world. Whether the nuclear capabilities of states like Iran, North Korea and others are threats today, or threats tomorrow, there can be no dispute that our attention is required now before the threats become reality, and tens of thousands of innocent civilians, or more, have been vaporized." Concerning Iran specifically, he stated that "Iran has a covert program to develop and stockpile chemical weapons," that "Tehran probably maintains an offensive BW program," and in this connection that the "risks to international peace and security from such programs are too great to wait for irrefutable proof of illicit activity." Concerning missiles, he said, "Iran continues its extensive efforts to develop the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction," and just like his successor, he stated categorically that "Iran has a clandestine program to produce nuclear weapons." Today, John Bolton is "deployed" as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, where he will be most effective (simply cutting and pasting from his old speeches) explaining to the world why a nuclear strike on Iran was necessary.

Note that there is no obvious reason why the national security advisor, the deputy national security advisor, the undersecretary of defense for intelligence, the chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Science Board, and the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations have to be people with experience in nuclear weapons policy. This was not the case in other administrations. That it is the case in this administration is highly unlikely to be a coincidence. Instead, it gives a strong indication that it was envisioned in advance that the use of nuclear weapons would be a central theme of the second term of the Bush administration.

Doctrine Deployment

The Bush administration has been busy in recent years "deploying" the doctrine that will underpin the upcoming nuclear strike against Iran. Some of this deployment occurred through presidential speeches, some through unclassified policy documents, and some through classified documents, parts of which were "leaked." It has been a well-orchestrated process with a clear purpose: that the more alert sectors of the public and policymakers, and in particular the arms control community, become fully aware of it, so that when nuclear weapons are used it does not come as a total surprise. At the same time, the mainstream media have provided little coverage on the radical change in the nuclear weapons doctrine (a few articles in the New York Times and Washington Post), so the issue has remained largely invisible to the general public.

The National Security Strategy of the United States of America of September 2002 codifies the doctrine of preemptive attacks, with phrases such as

"We cannot let our enemies strike first…"

"We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries…"

"[E]ven if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack…"

"[T]he United States cannot remain idle while danger gathers…"

This doctrine was used with Iraq and will be used next with Iran.

The National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction states, "The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force – including potentially nuclear weapons – to the use of WMD against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies."

The Nuclear Posture Review delivered to Congress in 2001 is classified, but portions have been made public. It substantially broadens the role of nuclear weapons from their traditional role as deterrents against nuclear countries to encompass non-nuclear "rogue" nations. It states that "U.S. nuclear forces will now be used to dissuade adversaries from undertaking military programs or operations that could threaten U.S. interests or those of allies and friends," and that "Nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack."

The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations [.pdf] is the Pentagon's implementation of the new nuclear posture. According to Hans Kristensen's analysis, "Foremost among the doctrine's new features [is] the incorporation of preemption into U.S. nuclear doctrine…." It lists a variety of new conditions under which nuclear weapons will be used, including, "For rapid and favorable war termination on U.S. terms," "To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD," and against "An adversary using or intending to use WMD against U.S., multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations."

The " Rationale and Requirements for U.S. Nuclear Forces and Arms Control" [.pdf] was produced by the National Institute for Public Policy and served as a basis for the Nuclear Posture Review. Furthermore, five of its authors are in key positions in the administration today as discussed above, and as a consequence, the contents of this document are likely to reflect also the views of these policymakers and forecast the future actions of the administration. Statements in this document include:

"[A] counterforce strategy will entail more targets, including many that are harder to find and are better protected…"
"[A] larger number of weapons, weapons with varied characteristics and greater accuracy, will be needed for a counterforce strategy…"
"Hardened targets built underground and deeply buried facilities are the most difficult to destroy and will influence the required number and characteristics of nuclear weapons…"
"Examples of hardened and buried targets include missile silos, launch control centers, concrete aircraft shelters, deeply buried command posts, tunnels for missile storage and assembly, storage bunkers, and underground facilities for weapons research and production…"
"For example, although conventional weapons could be used to attack the entrances, exits, or 'umbilicals' – electrical power, air supply, and communications links – of a deeply buried facility, one or more nuclear weapons might be required to destroy the facility itself…"
"To ensure that enemy facilities or forces are knocked out and cannot be reconstituted, attacks with nuclear weapons may be necessary. Indeed, in the future the United States may need to field simple, low-yield, precision-guided nuclear weapons for possible use against select hardened targets such as underground biological weapons facilities."
In summary, the doctrines proclaimed by the administration envision preemptive nuclear attacks on enemy facilities suspected of harboring WMD and other "assets most valued" by the enemy.

Tactical Nuclear Weapons Deployment

It is generally believed that the U.S. has tactical nuclear weapons deployed only in Western Europe, remnants of the Cold War. According to Hans Kristensen of the Nuclear Information Project:

"The 480 bombs deployed in Europe represent more than 80 percent of all the active B61 tactical bombs in the U.S. stockpile. No other U.S. nuclear weapons are forward-deployed (other than warheads on ballistic missile submarines)." [.pdf]

According to Kristensen, the Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization Presidential Directive (NSPD 35) merely "authorizes the military to continue deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe." However, Kristensen himself states that the new Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations calls "for maintaining an aggressive nuclear posture with weapons on high alert to strike adversaries armed with weapons of mass destruction (WMD), preemptively if necessary."

The reasons listed above make it essentially certain that NSPD 35 authorizes deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Persian Gulf, and it is likely that such deployment has already occurred and that the weapons are there for the specific purpose of targeting Iran. The U.S. had tactical nuclear weapons deployed in South Korea for many years to defend against a massive conventional North Korean attack. It is easy to argue that an invasion of southern Iraq by a 9-million strong Iranian Basij militia reacting to Israel's bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities cannot be stopped without nuclear weapons.

The following statements in the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations [.pdf] suggest that tactical nuclear weapons have been already deployed and are ready to be used, given that "all options are on the table" with respect to Iran and that many of Iran's facilities are underground:

"Integrating conventional and nuclear attacks will ensure the most efficient use of force and provide U.S. leaders with a broader range of strike options to address immediate contingencies. Integration of conventional and nuclear forces is therefore crucial to the success of any comprehensive strategy. This integration will ensure optimal targeting, minimal collateral damage, and reduce the probability of escalation."
"Combatant commanders may consider the following target selection factors to determine how to defeat individual targets. … 1. Time sensitivity. 2. Hardness (ability to withstand conventional strikes). 3. Size of target. 4. Surrounding geology and depth (for underground targets). 5. Required level of damage."
"Nuclear weapons and associated systems may be deployed into theaters, but combatant commanders have no authority to employ them until that authority is specifically granted by the president."
"Deployed nuclear-strike capabilities include … theater-based, nuclear-capable dual-role aircraft."
"Nuclear-capable aircraft offer a greater degree of flexibility in escalation control because they may be a highly visible sign of resolve and, once ordered to conduct a nuclear strike, are recallable, if necessary. Aircraft-delivered weapons also provide strike capability across the range of nuclear operations."
The F-16 fighter planes, of which there are many deployed in Iraq and surrounding American bases, are such dual-role aircraft, capable of delivering B61-11 earth-penetrating nuclear bombs.

The Public Has a right to know

It is likely that the administration has briefed key senators (e.g., John Warner, John McCain, Carl Levin, Dianne Feinstein, Joe Lieberman) on the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Persian Gulf as classified information, arguing that it is necessary to protect American troops in Iraq against an unprovoked Iranian attack, and the American people from a possible terrorist attack with WMD sponsored by Iran, and that making the information public could endanger American forces in Iraq or make a terrorist attack more likely.

However, the use of nuclear weapons by the United States is a grave decision that affects every man, woman, and child in America (not to mention the rest of the world). The American public has a right to know if its government has deployed nuclear weapons in the Persian Gulf targeting Iran, because given the circumstances described above, it is highly likely that those weapons will be used. The administration has created the circumstances to make it appear that the upcoming use of nuclear weapons against Iran will be "unavoidable." The most likely (though not the only) scenario is that Israel will "pull the trigger," bombing some Iranian facilities, and that the U.S. will be dragged into the conflict to protect American, Iraqi, and Israeli lives. The use of low-yield nuclear weapons to destroy underground Iranian facilities and deter an Iranian response will appear to be the most "humane" path to achieve U.S. goals of eliminating Iran's nuclear program and destroying its military capabilities, minimizing casualties, and achieving "rapid and favorable war termination on US terms."

The American public and the rest of the world will not fall for this deception. The circumstances surrounding the nuking of Iran were created with the specific intent of making the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. "unavoidable." The real purpose of nuking Iran is to establish the credibility of U.S. nuclear weapons as a deterrent against any undesirable action by "rogue" states.

If Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the other nuclear hitmen are really convinced that this is the best course of action for America, they should make their case public now. The president should tell the American people that the exercise of "all options" against Iran will include nukes. He should allow for a democratic debate on the pros and cons of using nuclear weapons in the Iran situation, and on pursuing alternative courses of action, before it is too late.

The president was not elected on an agenda of nuking a non-nuclear country, and the radical views of the nuclear hitmen are not likely to be the views of the majority of Americans.

If the president engages in the use of nuclear weapons against Iran in the coming weeks or months, without disclosing the preparations to the American public, he will be making a mockery of the most fundamental democratic principles that America represents. And he will have provided clear evidence of duplicitous intent, no matter how many eloquent speeches he delivers afterwards.

http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?Do...ge=../index.cfm
April 3, 2006

A Smarter Military, Not a Bigger Arsenal

This article first appeared as “The US needs to build a smarter military, not a bigger arsenal: Cut missile defense and expand resources for the Army and National Guard” in the Christian Science Monitor on March 23, 2006.

WASHINGTON – As the war in Iraq enters its fourth year with no end in sight, support for the war among the American public is dropping rapidly. But more ominously, so is support for U.S. engagement in the world. President Bush is aware of this and in his State of the Union address and his recently released National Security Strategy, he warned of the attraction of isolationism in a complex and challenging time.

While this desire to be relieved of the burden of global responsibility is understandable, it is wrong. U.S. military force in conjunction with other instruments of American power will be needed to protect our security for the foreseeable future. What the president must do is lay out the circumstances for its use.

Above all, the armed forces must be ready to defend the homeland. They must also, with allies, be prepared to deter and defeat aggression, halt genocide, and share in peacekeeping.

Even homeland defense requires international collaboration in order to destroy global terrorist networks and prevent attacks. Intelligence agents, special police, and financial experts at home and abroad are as vital to this mission as the fighter pilots who fly over our capital and the Coast Guardsmen who protect our shores. The military role must expand when necessary, as in Afghanistan, to eliminate a regime that provides a haven to the terrorists. It's not enough to sweep away such a regime; the United States must also serve as midwife to a new, viable government.

To bolster homeland defense, the Army National Guard should return to its core mission as chief protector when large-scale disasters occur, its resources directed toward coping with terrorist attacks and devastating hurricanes.

Homeland defense does not, however, require National Missile Defense. North Korea is often cited as the rationale for this costly program (over $40 billion since President Bush took office). Should Pyongyang acquire a credible means of delivering nuclear weapons, the threat of U.S. retaliation would almost certainly deter a Korean attack. Missile defense, however, is powerless against hijacked airliners and smuggled bombs.

But since the potential for conventional warfare between nations still exists, the U.S. military must maintain sufficient forces to deter or defeat attacks by North Korea against South Korea, China against Taiwan, or Iran against Israel.

Deterrence and war fighting call for a flexible and agile military - but not a massive nuclear arsenal like ours. We have 5,000 deployed H-bombs, many on hair-trigger alert, and another 5,000 in reserve. In addition, 600 to 700 tactical nuclear weapons are ready for battlefield use. A nuclear arsenal of this size has no rational military purpose. By holding at risk critical military targets in a handful of countries, the United States could, and should, reduce its deployment to 600 warheads, plus another 400 in reserve.

Most military missions are geared to national security threats. We accept other missions because we're human. Such is the case with genocide. The slaughter of as many as 800,000 people in Rwanda was not a direct threat to Americans; it was a moral outrage. As a signatory to the Genocide Convention of 1948, the United States is committed "to prevent and to punish" acts intended to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Yet the United States and other nations looked away when genocide occurred in Rwanda. Today, the United Nations must scrounge for help in halting genocide in Darfur. The inadequate African Union force there must be strengthened, and U.S. military transport and communications could provide needed muscle to a new peacekeeping operation. The Pentagon is at long last working on a doctrine for U.S. participation in peacekeeping. It should have happened years ago.

These missions can be accomplished, at far lower cost than currently, by a larger Army that includes a doubling of Special Forces, a robust Coast Guard, and a somewhat smaller Air Force and Navy - provided we eliminate redundant and irrelevant weapon systems. Therefore we should shrink the nuclear arsenal and cancel missile defense, the F/A-22 fighter jet, Virginia class submarines, and the V-22 Osprey helicopter.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who took his post committed to transforming the armed forces, can't cut these major weapon systems. Like many of his predecessors, he has been stymied by the top brass, pork-hungry members of Congress, and big defense contractors. The Pentagon continues to buy everything in sight, and military spending now tops half-a-trillion dollars a year.

American military power has a job to do. But Pentagon bloat and the Iraq war weaken the public's support for its missions.
# # #

Lawrence Korb served as assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a senior adviser to the Center for Defense Information. Sanford Gottlieb worked for 34 years in the peace movement and is the author of "Defense Addiction: Can America Kick the Habit?"