Pentagon reports 7 nuclear targets

alledan

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration listed seven countries as possible targets for nuclear attacks in a military contingency plan, according to a report provided to Congress in January, the Los Angeles Times reported Saturday. The classified Pentagon information says nuclear weapons could be used against Libya, Syria, China, Russia, Iran, Iraq and North Korea in certain situations, the Times said. Nuclear targeting discussions have been a part of U.S. military strategy for some time, but analysts told CNN that the Times list, if accurate, would be the first official one to come to light. According to the Times report, nuclear weapons could be used against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack, in retaliation for attacks by nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, or "in the event of surprising military developments." President Bush also has directed the military to build smaller nuclear weapons for use in some instances, the Times reports. Arms-control advocates told the Times that the development of smaller nuclear weapons may signal that the Bush administration is leaning toward overlooking a long-standing policy against the use of nuclear weapons except as a last resort. Conservative observers have said they believe the U.S. military should be prepared to use nuclear weapons if necessary. Others believe any plans for possible nuclear attacks will have destabilizing global effects. There was no response on the newspaper's report from the Pentagon or the White House, and no indication if the copy of the report obtained by the Times was a final or a draft version. The report, a congressionally mandated "nuclear posture review," is conducted every six years. Pentagon officials briefing reporters on the review in January indicated a lessening reliance on the massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons as a deterrent to attack. They said that findings called for increasing reliance on precision-guided weapons to deter attacks. They said the classified nuclear posture review showed that because of improvements in precision-guided weaponry -- as demonstrated in the Afghan war -- the U.S. military can now rely more on powerful, highly accurate conventional bombs and missiles. Increased missile threat predictedAlso in January, the U.S. intelligence community issued a report projecting that before 2015, the United States most likely would face intercontinental ballistic missile threats from North Korea, Iran and possibly Iraq, barring significant changes in their politics. Bush named those three nations as an "axis of evil" during his State of the Union address earlier this year. The unclassified report by the National Intelligence Council also predicted that Chinese ballistic missile forces would increase sevenfold by 2015, rising to between 75 and 100 warheads deployed. Pentagon officials said the classified review showed that because of improvements in precision-guided weaponry -- as demonstrated in the Afghan war -- the U.S. military can now rely more on powerful, highly accurate conventional bombs and missiles to deter an enemy strike. J.D. Crouch, assistant secretary of defense for International Security Policy, said in January that the end of the Cold War and the improving relationship with Russia made the change in strategy possible, but that it was also guided by an analysis of potential future threats to national security. Crouch said many of the nuclear warheads the administration planned to remove from operational deployment would not be destroyed, but would be kept in an "active stockpile," which some future president could redeploy in the event of a major nuclear threat to this country. President Bush has said he wants to reduce the U.S. arsenal of deployed nuclear weapons from more than 6,000 to between 1,700 and 2,200.

offeror

I'm surprised, but not shocked, that anyone is willing to leak this kind of information. Apparently somebody wants somebody else to know for sure that the nuclear "card" is not off the table. Of course they've been intimating since the beginning of the 9/11 response that absolutely all options were left open. Obviously, a superpower can afford to rattle its sabre a little harder when it's the only one. Realistically, though, while I doubt the US would repeat its first use (and second use) of nuclear weapons without a clear precipitating event as it did at the end of WWII, I have no doubt there is strategic planning going on for a response to a weapon of mass destruction being deployed against us. Another large terrorist attack would be sufficient provocation, just as the Twin Towers were the provocation for the invasion of Afghanistan. The government would not be trumpeting the word "nuclear" unless they thought it might have some deterrent effect on those who consider using (or selling to be used) any significant weapon of mass destruction, nuclear, biological, or gas. While some may view this kind of language from the government as irresponsible sabre-rattling, I tend to take it as a sign that there is sufficient information being gathered by our intelligence agencies to warrant an explicit warning. We've gotten in trouble before by making our enemies second guess how far we will or will not go. Now, at least they will have no illusions.

---

"The 2nd Amendment is about defense, not hunting. Long live the gun shows, and reasonable access to FFLs. Join the NRA -- I'm a Life Member."

Pelican

Ought to add Cuba, just make sure the breeze is out of the north.

alledan

I believe that Cuba has been a nuke target for many decades. Most probably since the cuban missile crisis.After that I am sure that the government has minus zero trust for them. I for one am not completely sure all the russian missiles were removed.

badboybob

This is reported in the Los Angeles Times. Does this give any of you a clue?

Submariner .

WHEN I WAS STILL A SUBMARINER AND NOT JUST "THE"SUBMARINER I SAWE THE PROJECTED FOOTPRINTS.THIS IS NOT A NEW THING

---

Truck Driver,Submarine Veteran,Rusty Wallace fan,and piss poor typist

royc38

As was stated above it came from Los Angeles Kalifornia. (hhmmmmm) Well as everything else that the Democrats have tried to do this will backfire also. I am glad it came out. This list is NOT new and it will in time reaffirm that we are not messing around. You can call it sabre rattling if you will, I call it showing the bad guys what they will get if they don't behave. The building of smaller nukes was a nice touch too. I know I sound like a crazy warmonger but if you think it through this will make the other crazies out there think twice before they try something.

offeror

Sabre-rattling does not necessarily imply bluffing, even though it's often used as a mild form of insult. I was not using the term that way. Colin Powell appeared on the Sunday morning news shows to say the LA Times report was much ado about nothing, that it's all just standard war game stuff and has no special significance. I guess he was tapped to throw cold water on the news report, particularly since it included Putin's Russia, our "new friend."

---

"The 2nd Amendment is about defense, not hunting. Long live the gun shows, and reasonable access to FFLs. Join the NRA -- I'm a Life Member."