原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.5m4n.com 翻译:云飞扬h 转载请注明出处

The Pentagon’s new nuclear doctrine is scary as hell

The Pentagon is actively contemplating the use of nuclear weapons to win wars that need not be fought in the first place. As expected, opposition to the US nuclear doctrine is almost non-existent in the mainstream media.


It used to be the case that the idea of using nuclear weapons in a real-world conflict was such a taboo idea that no one was ever openly to contemplate it. We need only look back to the end of World War II to realize how catastrophic and harmful nuclear weapons can be on civilian populations; yet we shouldn’t have had the blueprint of Nagasaki and Hiroshima to know that the use of nuclear weapons would be a frightening and criminal act. They are deadly and unnecessary, end of story. You can all save me the cliched response “But they ended a war.”


“Nuclear weapon capabilities constitute a vital element of national defense,” the document states. “Nuclear operations are those activities within the range of military operations, to include deterrence, crisis response, strike assessment and return to stability.”


The Pentagon apparently believes that it is “necessary” and “prudent” to “preplan nuclear employment options for contingencies prior to a crisis,” which includes “a means to assess the anticipated effectiveness of options prior to execution,” as well as a “means to assess the nature and extent of unintended consequences.”


Having executed an option, the US military is unlikely to stop there. According to the document, “planning and operations must not assume use in isolation but must plan for strike integration into the overall scheme of fires.” The document also states that “there may be a requirement to strike additional (follow on and/or emerging) targets in support of war termination or other strategic obxtives.” Commanders must “maintain the capability to rapidly identify and strike previously unidentified or newly emerging targets.”


The urge to deploy the use of nuclear weapons only makes sense if you live in a world in which you must always be prepared to win a war against every potential adversary. Americans amongst you reading this may be thinking: “Yeah, so what?” But take it from the rest of us who don’t wake up every morning swearing allegiance to a flag that to many others represents death and destruction, that winning wars tends to be less of a focus when compared to other issues such as healthcare, housing, climate change, and the list goes on.

如果你生活在一个你必须随时准备赢得对抗每一个潜在对手的战争的世界,那么部署使用核武器的冲动才有意义。你读这篇文章的美国人可能在想:“ 是的,那是又怎么样?[size=15.0015px]“但是,从我们其他人每天早上醒来宣誓效忠于其他许多人代表死亡和毁灭的旗帜(美国国旗),与其他问题(如医疗保健)相比,赢得战争往往不那么重要了。住房,气候变化,名单还在继续。

Perhaps if the US gave up on the idea that it needs to fight wars in order to predicate its survival in the first place, it wouldn’t need to contemplate such a catastrophic doctrine.


Prosecuting wars on this basis also assumes that these wars are unavoidable and must be fought. In hindsight, did the wars in Vietnam, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, and co., really need to be fought? Will the wars the US cooks up in the next few decades similarly and inescapably need to be fought? (Not to mention that, if we are being honest, the US military has barely won a war since World War II anyway.)


Prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall, every US artillery unit in Europe was nuclear-ready. Post-1991, this had supposedly all changed. However, a recently released (and then amended) document published by a NATO affiliated body has finally admitted what we all suspected anyway: that American nukes are being stored in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey (approximately 150 in total).


Whoever pulls the trigger on this nuclear holocaust will ultimately bear the blame for what’s to come, but in my estimation, history (what’s remaining of it anyway) will recall the recklessness of the Trump administration and those administrations that served the American empire before it.