SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
An F/A-18E Super Hornet from the "Sidewinders" of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 86 launches from the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) May 10, 2019 in the Red Sea. (Photo: Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Michael Singley/U.S. Navy via Getty Images)
Pentagon Releases, Then Deletes, Document Detailing Use of Nuclear Weapons to Restore 'Strategic Stability' for US Military
"At a time of rising nuclear tensions, casually postulating about the potential upsides of a nuclear attack is obtuse in the extreme."
Jun 20, 2019
The U.S. military appears to believe it can somehow prevail in a nuclear war, according to a Pentagon document that was briefly made public, and has plans for using atomic weapons in "small and limited" capacities in order to create "strategic stability" for itself in the world.
The document, Nuclear Operations (pdf), describes the current political and military environment and the challenges faced by the Pentagon in strategizing how to most effectively deploy nuclear weapons in war. It was first reported on by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), which downloaded and released the document on June 19.
The Pentagon published the document on June 11 and removed it earlier this week. In a statement to The Guardian, a Defense Department official said the document was made private "because it was determined that this publication, as is with other joint staff publications, should be for official use only."
"Using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability," the document reads. "Specifically, the use of a nuclear weapon will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and create conditions that affect how commanders will prevail in conflict."
That passage was referred to as "Strangelovian" by FAS government secrecy project director Steven Aftergood. It's an appropriate descriptor given the report's third chapter, "Planning and Targeting," opens with a quote from cold war theorist Herman Kahn:
My guess is that nuclear weapons will be used sometime in the next hundred years, but that their use is much more likely to be small and limited than widespread and unconstrained.
Kahn was an inspiration for the title character in Stanley Kubrick's classic film Dr. Strangelove.
In comment to The Guardian, Aftergood said that the document is "unsettling" in its approach to nuclear weapons because the language of the report indicates the Pentagon is treating nuclear weapons as an offensive tactical advantage, not simply as a deterrent.
"That kind of thinking itself can be hazardous," said Aftergood. "It can make that sort of eventuality more likely instead of deterring it."
FAS's publication of the Pentagon document comes just days after the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) released a report (pdf) on the state of military armaments and weaponry across the world. SIPRI found that "despite an overall decrease in the number of nuclear warheads in 2018, all nuclear weapon-possessing states continue to modernize their nuclear arsenals," making nuclear conflict more likely than than the year before.
"We are no longer in the classic strategy of deterrence by the accumulation of nuclear warheads," SIPRI fellow Hans M. Kristensen told Euronews.
In his comments to the continental news outlet, Kristensen ticked off a number of threats to world peace presented by nuclear weapons:
The US withdrawal from the Middle East Non-Proliferation Treaty and the new plans for the renewal of the nuclear arsenal that President Donald Trump has brought to Congress, as well as the conflict between Washington and Iran, are mentioned as other elements of instability in the global balance, prompting Kristensen to believe that the risk of a potential nuclear conflict has increased.
In remarks to The Guardian, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation senior policy director Alexandra Bell said the document's publication was "both tone-deaf and disorganized" and that the current climate of tension between the U.S. and Iran made the release of the report potentially dangerous and destabilizing.
"Posting a document about nuclear operations and then promptly deleting it shows a lack of messaging discipline and a lack of strategy," said Bell. "Further, at a time of rising nuclear tensions, casually postulating about the potential upsides of a nuclear attack is obtuse in the extreme."
In a tweet, GrayZone founder and journalist Max Blumenthal sarcastically reflected on what the document revealed about U.S. foreign policy.
"Very reassuring that the Pentagon thinks it could win a nuclear war," Blumenthal wrote.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The U.S. military appears to believe it can somehow prevail in a nuclear war, according to a Pentagon document that was briefly made public, and has plans for using atomic weapons in "small and limited" capacities in order to create "strategic stability" for itself in the world.
The document, Nuclear Operations (pdf), describes the current political and military environment and the challenges faced by the Pentagon in strategizing how to most effectively deploy nuclear weapons in war. It was first reported on by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), which downloaded and released the document on June 19.
The Pentagon published the document on June 11 and removed it earlier this week. In a statement to The Guardian, a Defense Department official said the document was made private "because it was determined that this publication, as is with other joint staff publications, should be for official use only."
"Using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability," the document reads. "Specifically, the use of a nuclear weapon will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and create conditions that affect how commanders will prevail in conflict."
That passage was referred to as "Strangelovian" by FAS government secrecy project director Steven Aftergood. It's an appropriate descriptor given the report's third chapter, "Planning and Targeting," opens with a quote from cold war theorist Herman Kahn:
My guess is that nuclear weapons will be used sometime in the next hundred years, but that their use is much more likely to be small and limited than widespread and unconstrained.
Kahn was an inspiration for the title character in Stanley Kubrick's classic film Dr. Strangelove.
In comment to The Guardian, Aftergood said that the document is "unsettling" in its approach to nuclear weapons because the language of the report indicates the Pentagon is treating nuclear weapons as an offensive tactical advantage, not simply as a deterrent.
"That kind of thinking itself can be hazardous," said Aftergood. "It can make that sort of eventuality more likely instead of deterring it."
FAS's publication of the Pentagon document comes just days after the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) released a report (pdf) on the state of military armaments and weaponry across the world. SIPRI found that "despite an overall decrease in the number of nuclear warheads in 2018, all nuclear weapon-possessing states continue to modernize their nuclear arsenals," making nuclear conflict more likely than than the year before.
"We are no longer in the classic strategy of deterrence by the accumulation of nuclear warheads," SIPRI fellow Hans M. Kristensen told Euronews.
In his comments to the continental news outlet, Kristensen ticked off a number of threats to world peace presented by nuclear weapons:
The US withdrawal from the Middle East Non-Proliferation Treaty and the new plans for the renewal of the nuclear arsenal that President Donald Trump has brought to Congress, as well as the conflict between Washington and Iran, are mentioned as other elements of instability in the global balance, prompting Kristensen to believe that the risk of a potential nuclear conflict has increased.
In remarks to The Guardian, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation senior policy director Alexandra Bell said the document's publication was "both tone-deaf and disorganized" and that the current climate of tension between the U.S. and Iran made the release of the report potentially dangerous and destabilizing.
"Posting a document about nuclear operations and then promptly deleting it shows a lack of messaging discipline and a lack of strategy," said Bell. "Further, at a time of rising nuclear tensions, casually postulating about the potential upsides of a nuclear attack is obtuse in the extreme."
In a tweet, GrayZone founder and journalist Max Blumenthal sarcastically reflected on what the document revealed about U.S. foreign policy.
"Very reassuring that the Pentagon thinks it could win a nuclear war," Blumenthal wrote.
The U.S. military appears to believe it can somehow prevail in a nuclear war, according to a Pentagon document that was briefly made public, and has plans for using atomic weapons in "small and limited" capacities in order to create "strategic stability" for itself in the world.
The document, Nuclear Operations (pdf), describes the current political and military environment and the challenges faced by the Pentagon in strategizing how to most effectively deploy nuclear weapons in war. It was first reported on by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), which downloaded and released the document on June 19.
The Pentagon published the document on June 11 and removed it earlier this week. In a statement to The Guardian, a Defense Department official said the document was made private "because it was determined that this publication, as is with other joint staff publications, should be for official use only."
"Using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability," the document reads. "Specifically, the use of a nuclear weapon will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and create conditions that affect how commanders will prevail in conflict."
That passage was referred to as "Strangelovian" by FAS government secrecy project director Steven Aftergood. It's an appropriate descriptor given the report's third chapter, "Planning and Targeting," opens with a quote from cold war theorist Herman Kahn:
My guess is that nuclear weapons will be used sometime in the next hundred years, but that their use is much more likely to be small and limited than widespread and unconstrained.
Kahn was an inspiration for the title character in Stanley Kubrick's classic film Dr. Strangelove.
In comment to The Guardian, Aftergood said that the document is "unsettling" in its approach to nuclear weapons because the language of the report indicates the Pentagon is treating nuclear weapons as an offensive tactical advantage, not simply as a deterrent.
"That kind of thinking itself can be hazardous," said Aftergood. "It can make that sort of eventuality more likely instead of deterring it."
FAS's publication of the Pentagon document comes just days after the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) released a report (pdf) on the state of military armaments and weaponry across the world. SIPRI found that "despite an overall decrease in the number of nuclear warheads in 2018, all nuclear weapon-possessing states continue to modernize their nuclear arsenals," making nuclear conflict more likely than than the year before.
"We are no longer in the classic strategy of deterrence by the accumulation of nuclear warheads," SIPRI fellow Hans M. Kristensen told Euronews.
In his comments to the continental news outlet, Kristensen ticked off a number of threats to world peace presented by nuclear weapons:
The US withdrawal from the Middle East Non-Proliferation Treaty and the new plans for the renewal of the nuclear arsenal that President Donald Trump has brought to Congress, as well as the conflict between Washington and Iran, are mentioned as other elements of instability in the global balance, prompting Kristensen to believe that the risk of a potential nuclear conflict has increased.
In remarks to The Guardian, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation senior policy director Alexandra Bell said the document's publication was "both tone-deaf and disorganized" and that the current climate of tension between the U.S. and Iran made the release of the report potentially dangerous and destabilizing.
"Posting a document about nuclear operations and then promptly deleting it shows a lack of messaging discipline and a lack of strategy," said Bell. "Further, at a time of rising nuclear tensions, casually postulating about the potential upsides of a nuclear attack is obtuse in the extreme."
In a tweet, GrayZone founder and journalist Max Blumenthal sarcastically reflected on what the document revealed about U.S. foreign policy.
"Very reassuring that the Pentagon thinks it could win a nuclear war," Blumenthal wrote.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.