Ike Secretive on Nuclear Attack Plans, by RON KAMPEAS, Associated Press Writer
Brooke Rowe
Press Writer
(EXCERPT) WASHINGTON (AP) - President Eisenhower kept secret from U.S
allies his orders that authorized military commanders to launch
retaliatory nuclear attacks from their territory, declassified
documents reveal.
The instructions to the commanders, declassified last month and
published Friday by the independent National Security Archive,
authorized nuclear strikes to repel a major invasion of U.S.-occupied
territory by conventional forces. Such a scenario could have turned a
theater war in Europe into a nuclear conflict.
It has long been known that Eisenhower was the first president to
``predelegate'' nuclear authority to senior U.S. commanders in cases
where they could not contact him in time to authorize nuclear
counterattacks. P...
U.S. and friendly nation laws prohibit fully reproducing
copyrighted material. In abidance with our laws this report
cannot be provided in its entirety. However, you can read it
in full today, 18 May 2001, at the following URL. (COMBINE
the following lines into your web browser.) The
subject/content of this report is not necessarily the
viewpoint of the distributing Library. This report is provided
for your information.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010518/pl/us_nuclear_1.html
---------------------------
Brooke Rowe
Associate Librarian
The American War Library
http://www.americanwarlibrary.com
Joseph S. Powell,III
nuclear counteroffensive- if the CINC isn't available, you shouldn't just
sit there and get nuked....
Of course, today, we have to wait until nuclear weapons actually start
destroying parts of our country before we can launch a counterattack - but
that will be difficult to do when what was once large areas of missile
fields is now a lunar landscape...oh, well- at least we have our subs (oh,
wait - if the President is incommunicado or dead (good chance) then they
can't launch on their own initiative because of Denzel.....
"Brooke Rowe" <us-nationa...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:a1hbgtk07lt6lrk8i...@4ax.com...
spam]@sympatico.ca Louis-Blaise Dumais-Lévesque
Makes sense to me- it you're under nuclear attack, you should initiate a
nuclear counteroffensive- if the CINC isn't available, you shouldn't just
sit there and get nuked....
Why not? If the strike is limited in nature, let's say it only targets
overseas forces, why risking all-out nuclear war, with all the
American civilian casualties which would ensue? It is not rational, if your
goal is to protect the American public. The decision
to launch these weapons is fundamentally a political one, and only the NCA can
take it.
Of course, today, we have to wait until nuclear weapons actually start
destroying parts of our country before we can launch a counterattack - but
that will be difficult to do when what was once large areas of missile
fields is now a lunar landscape...
You seems to neglect the possibility of errors in the detection of an attack.
If you launch under warning, you cannot be
absolutely sure you are really going to be hit and that you are therefore
taking the right decision. The terrible consequences of
launching in the mistaken belief that the adversary has launched a strike
against you dictates a more prudent approach. Launch
under attack is precisely such a prudent approach. American C3I is robust
enough to withstand a first strike and leave the
NCA in contact with sufficient numbers of nukes to launch a retaliatory strike
strong enough to be an efficient deterrent in the
first place. Anyway, uncertainty regarding this last point is sufficient for
deterrent purposes.
--
Slavery still exists.
Visit http://www.antislavery.org
today and find out more.
Remove the [no spam] when replying.
"Joseph S. Powell,III" wrote:
Makes sense to me- it you're under nuclear attack, you should initiate a
nuclear counteroffensive- if the CINC isn't available, you shouldn't just
sit there and get nuked....
Why not? If the strike is limited in nature, let's say it only targets
overseas forces, why risking all-out nuclear war, with all the
American civilian casualties which would ensue? It is not rational, if your
goal is to protect the American public. The decision
to launch these weapons is fundamentally a political one, and only the NCA can
take it.
Of course, today, we have to wait until nuclear weapons actually start
destroying parts of our country before we can launch a counterattack - but
that will be difficult to do when what was once large areas of missile
fields is now a lunar landscape...
You seems to neglect the possibility of errors in the detection of an attack.
If you launch under warning, you cannot be
absolutely sure you are really going to be hit and that you are therefore
taking the right decision. The terrible consequences of
launching in the mistaken belief that the adversary has launched a strike
against you dictates a more prudent approach. Launch
under attack is precisely such a prudent approach. American C3I is robust
enough to withstand a first strike and leave the
NCA in contact with sufficient numbers of nukes to launch a retaliatory strike
strong enough to be an efficient deterrent in the
first place. Anyway, uncertainty regarding this last point is sufficient for
deterrent purposes.
--
Slavery still exists.
Visit http://www.antislavery.org
today and find out more.
Remove the [no spam] when replying.
spam]@sympatico.ca Louis-Blaise Dumais-Lévesque
numerous problems with my connection tonight, and I posted my message three times
because I wasn't sure it was really sent.
> "Joseph S. Powell,III" wrote:
>
> Makes sense to me- it you're under nuclear attack, you should initiate a
> nuclear counteroffensive- if the CINC isn't available, you shouldn't just
> sit there and get nuked....
>
> Why not? If the strike is limited in nature, let's say it only targets
> overseas forces, why risking all-out nuclear war, with all the
> American civilian casualties which would ensue? It is not rational, if your
> goal is to protect the American public. The decision
> to launch these weapons is fundamentally a political one, and only the NCA can
> take it.
I have to be more precise. American overseas forces are legitimately protected by
US nuclear forces. The problem arises when the local commander takes decisions
that can have an impact that goes beyound his theater. They do not have the
necessary information to take the decision to use nuclear weapons above the
tactical level, on their own. It is a little like the "doomsday machine" of Dr
Strangelove. It is highly risky to have someone -or a machine- to automatically
launch a nuclear strike without context. Only the highest levels of authority can
provide such context. Pre-delegation makes sense only with tactical nukes, and
within very strict guidelines, acknowledged by many in the chain of command.
spam]@sympatico.ca Louis-Blaise Dumais-Lévesque
I have to be more precise. American overseas forces are legitimately protected by
US nuclear forces. The problem arises when the local commander takes decisions
that can have an impact that goes beyound his theater. They do not have the
necessary information to take the decision to use nuclear weapons above the
tactical level, on their own. It is a little like the "doomsday machine" of Dr
Strangelove. It is highly risky to have someone -or a machine- to automatically
launch a nuclear strike without context. Only the highest levels of authority can
provide such context. Pre-delegation makes sense only with tactical nukes, and
within very strict guidelines, acknowledged by many in the chain of command.
--
Slavery still exists.
Visit http://www.antislavery.org
today and find out more.
"The higher the echelon of command, the more likely the impact of media coverage."
Quoted from the Field Manual FM 100-5, US Army, June 1993
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/100-5/100-5c1.htm
spam]@sympatico.ca Louis-Blaise Dumais-Lévesque
> "Joseph S. Powell,III" wrote:
>
> Makes sense to me- it you're under nuclear attack, you should initiate a
> nuclear counteroffensive- if the CINC isn't available, you shouldn't just
> sit there and get nuked....
>
> Why not? If the strike is limited in nature, let's say it only targets
> overseas forces, why risking all-out nuclear war, with all the
> American civilian casualties which would ensue? It is not rational, if your
> goal is to protect the American public. The decision
> to launch these weapons is fundamentally a political one, and only the NCA can
> take it.
I have to be more precise. American overseas forces are legitimately protected by
US nuclear forces. The problem arises when the local commander takes decisions
that can have an impact that goes beyound his theater. They do not have the
necessary information to take the decision to use nuclear weapons above the
tactical level, on their own. It is a little like the "doomsday machine" of Dr
Strangelove. It is highly risky to have someone -or a machine- to automatically
launch a nuclear strike without context. Only the highest levels of authority can
provide such context. Pre-delegation makes sense only with tactical nukes, and
within very strict guidelines, acknowledged by many in the chain of command.
spam]@sympatico.ca Louis-Blaise Dumais-Lévesque
Makes sense to me- it you're under nuclear attack, you should initiate a
nuclear counteroffensive- if the CINC isn't available, you shouldn't just
sit there and get nuked....
Of course, today, we have to wait until nuclear weapons actually start
destroying parts of our country before we can launch a counterattack - but
that will be difficult to do when what was once large areas of missile
You seems to neglect the possibility of errors in the detection
of an attack. If you launch under warning, you cannot be absolutely
sure you are really going to be hit and that you are therefore taking the
right decision. The terrible consequences of launching in the mistaken
belief that the adversary has launched a strike against you dictates a
more prudent approach. Launch under attack is precisely such a prudent
approach. American C3I is robust enough to withstand a first strike
and leave the NCA in contact with sufficient numbers of nukes to launch
a retaliatory strike strong enough to be an efficient deterrent in the
first place. Anyway, uncertainty regarding this last point is sufficient
for deterrent purposes.
--
Tim
>
> "Joseph S. Powell,III" wrote:
>
> > Makes sense to me- it you're under nuclear attack, you should
> > initiate a
> > nuclear counteroffensive- if the CINC isn't available, you shouldn't
> > just
> > sit there and get nuked....
> >
>
> Why not? If the strike is limited in nature, let's say it only
> targets overseas forces, why risking all-out nuclear war, with all the
> American civilian casualties which would ensue? It is not rational,
> if your goal is to protect the American public. The decision to
> launch these weapons is fundamentally a political one, and only the
> NCA can take it.
It's moronic to just sit back & watch to see if it is going to be
"limited." Targeting US overseas forces -- Korea, Germany, Japan,
United Kingdom, et. al. isn't exactly much of a limit, plus of course
there's our participation in that little NATO thing... And the Soviets
wouldn't have much fanciful thoughts of "limits" when warheads start
popping off over/in their territory to negate the offensive actions.
Or should the USA not retaliate at all, because the Soviets had
apparently "limited" their strikes to US forces outside the continental
United States?
If you familiarize yourself with the NCA chain of succession, you'll
see that many of the successors aren't exactly "politicians" like the
primary ones are, and a POTUS successor isn't necessarily an NCA,
either.
> > Of course, today, we have to wait until nuclear weapons actually
> > start
> > destroying parts of our country before we can launch a counterattack
> > - but
> > that will be difficult to do when what was once large areas of
> > missile
> > fields is now a lunar landscape...
> >
>
> You seems to neglect the possibility of errors in the detection of an
> attack. If you launch under warning, you cannot be absolutely sure
> you are really going to be hit and that you are therefore taking the
> right decision. The terrible consequences of launching in the
> mistaken belief that the adversary has launched a strike against you
> dictates a more prudent approach. Launch under attack is precisely
> such a prudent approach. American C3I is robust enough to withstand a
> first strike and leave the NCA in contact with sufficient numbers of
> nukes to launch a retaliatory strike strong enough to be an efficient
> deterrent in the first place. Anyway, uncertainty regarding this last
> point is sufficient for deterrent purposes.
Funny how you claim C3,I is robust enough to withstand an initial
attack, yet you assert that a component (ITW&AA) of that C3,I system
could provide errors.
If you smell smoke in your home, do you wait until you actually see
flames before deciding to call the fire department?
Trakar
> If you smell smoke in your home, do you wait until you actually see
>flames before deciding to call the fire department?
Well,..yes. If I called the fire department every time one of my son's
friends let a filter burn in the ashtray, my daughter burned some
toast, my wife put out a candle, the nieghbors burned some lawn
debris, or I just thought I caught a whiff of some other indeterminate
source of smoke, the fines for false calls would quickly out race my
fire insurance costs.