[Peace-discuss] proposal to NATO: "pre-emptive" nuclear strikes, "without ratification by the UN", and even "abandoning consensus decision making [within NATO]"

[Laurie at advancenet.net]

What I find both interesting and disturbing is the fact that nobody seems to
consider the fact that, if they assume this strategy and can justify it for
the protection of their interests, why can't other do the same -even those
who may be current or future opponents?  We all seem to think that we have
good and morality on our side justifying any action we may wish to undertake
or propose, which is precisely what leads to crusades of all sorts.  

Deterrence is only an effective option if all the parties believe that they
have something to lose and are not willing to lose it, where there is
symmetry among the protagonists in the dance.  It does not work where there
is asymmetry among the protagonists in the dance. The lessons of the Viet
Nam war, the Algerian War, the Afghan war against the Soviet Union and now
the Taliban war against the U.S., the suicide bombers engaged in asymmetric
battles against their opponents, and the insurgents in Iraq and around the
world seem to be lost. 

Insurgents without all the weaponry available to advanced nation-states and
their armies can and do adopt very effective strategies against their
opponents without needing the high tech weaponry as long as they are
committed and feel that they have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
All it took was a few to commandeer a commercial airline and turn it into a
very effective weapon at very little cost to the insurgents and great cost
to their opposition when they brought down the World Trade Center buildings
despite all the advanced weaponry and high tech defenses that the advanced
nations had available at hand.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:peace-discuss-
> bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Stuart Levy
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 12:59 PM
> To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net
> Subject: [Peace-discuss] proposal to NATO: "pre-emptive" nuclear
> strikes, "without ratification by the UN", and even "abandoning
> consensus decision making [within NATO]"
> 
> Seen in theregister.co.uk, drawn from The Telegraph (UK).
> I haven't seen this mentioned elsewhere.  Has anyone heard of this
> appalling
> proposal in the US press?
> 
> `... nuclear war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become
> possible ...'
> How would that limit get set, now?
> 
> 
>    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/22/nato_nuke_proposal/
> 
> or, original Telegraph story at:
> 
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=0WBIK4WKC1ELDQFIQ
> MFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2008/01/22/wnato122.xml
> 
> Here's The Register's version:
> 
> A group of former senior military officials has said that Nato must be
> prepared
> to launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes to "ward off the use of weapons
> of mass
> destruction by its enemies", the Telegraph reports.
> 
> The authors of the "blueprint for reforming Nato" - which was written
> after its
> authors were "briefed by senior serving military officials who are
> unable to
> speak publicly about their concerns with Nato's military strategy" -
> include
> the former British chief of the defence staff, Lord Peter Inge, and US
> General
> John Shalikashvili, former Nato commander in Europe and chairman of the
> US
> joint chiefs of staff.
> 
> In it, they stress the need to rethink "Nato's approach to defending
> its
> members and their interests" and describe first-strike nukes as an
> "indispensible instrument" against foes bearing WMDs. The report says:
> "The
> risk of further proliferation is imminent and, with it, the danger that
> nuclear
> war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become possible.
> 
> "The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of
> escalation as
> the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass
> destruction."
> 
> Inge reportedly comments: "To tie our hands on first use or no first
> use
> removes a huge plank of deterrence."
> 
> To make the pre-emptive strike option viable, the report proposes a
> major
> shake-up of the way Nato operates, including "abandoning consensus
> decision
> making so fast action can be taken without the threat of vetoes and
> caveats
> imposed by some nations".
> 
> It also suggests military action "without ratification by the UN" when
> "immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings".
> 
> The report, which has been delivered to Nato and Pentagon officials,
> may be
> discussed at a Nato summit in Bucharest in April, the Telegraph notes.
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss