The US-NATO Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine
Trigger a Middle East Nuclear Holocaust to
Defend "The Western Way of Life"
By Michel Chossudovsky
Western allies face is a long, sustained and
proactive defence of their societies and way of life.
To that end, they must keep risks at a distance, while
at the same time protecting their homelands.
International terrorism today aims to disrupt and
destroy our societies, our economies and our way of
different sources of [Islamist] propaganda and/or
violence vary in their intellectual underpinnings,
sectarian and political aims, ... . But what they have
in common is an assault on the values of the
West – on its democratic processes and its
freedom of religion...
Notwithstanding the common perception in the West, the
origin of Islamist terrorism is not victimhood, nor an
inferiority complex, but a well-financed superiority
complex grounded in a violent political ideology.
irrational and fanatical [Islamist organizations] get
out of hand, there is a risk that, ... the rise of
fundamentalisms and despotisms will usher in a new,
illiberal age, in which the liberties that Western
societies enjoy are seriously jeopardized.
threats that the West and its partners face today are a
combination of violent terrorism against civilians and
institutions, wars fought by proxy by states that
sponsor terrorism, the behaviour of rogue states, the
actions of organised international crime, and the
coordination of hostile action through abuse of
Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World: Renewing
Group report by former chiefs of staff General John
Shalikashvili, (US), General Klaus Naumann (Germany),
Field Marshal Lord Inge (UK), Admiral Jacques Lanxade
(France) and Henk van den Breemen (The
Netherlands), published by the Netherlands based
Noaber Foundation, December 2007, (emphasis added)
The controversial NATO sponsored report entitled
“Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World:
Renewing Transatlantic Partnership". calls for a
first strike use of nuclear weapons. The preemptive use of nukes
would also be used to undermine an "increasingly brutal
World" as a means to prevent the use of weapons of mass
authors of the report] consider that nuclear war might
soon become possible in an increasingly brutal world. They
propose 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". (Paul Dibb,
Sidney Morning Herald, 11 February 2008)
The group, insists
that the option of first strike of nuclear
weapons is "indispensable, since there is simply no
realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world." (Report, p. 97,
weapons are the ultimate instrument of an asymmetric
response – and at the same time the ultimate tool of
escalation. Yet they are also more than an instrument, since
they transform the nature of any conflict and widen its
scope from the regional to the global. ...
...Nuclear weapons remain indispensable, and nuclear
escalation continues to remain an element of any modern
escalation is the ultimate step in responding
asymmetrically, and at the same time the most powerful way
of inducing uncertainty in an opponent’s mind. (Ibid,
The Group's Report
identifies six key "challenges", which may often result
as potential threats to global security:
Demography. Population growth and change across the
globe will swiftly change the world we knew. The challenge
this poses for welfare, good governance and energy security
(among other things) is vast.
change. This greatly threatens physical certainty, and
is leading to a whole new type of politics – one predicated,
perhaps more than ever, on our collective future.
security continues to absorb us. The supply and demand
of individual nations and the weakening of the international
market infrastructure for energy distribution make the
situation more precarious than ever.
• There is
also the more philosophic problem of the rise of the
irrational – the discounting of the rational. Though
seemingly abstract, this problem is demonstrated in deeply
practical ways. [These include] the decline of respect for
logical argument and evidence, a drift away from science in
a civilization that is deeply technological. The ultimate
example is the rise of religious fundamentalism, which,
as political fanaticism, presents itself as the only source
weakening of the nation state. This coincides with the
weakening of world institutions, including the United
Nations and regional organizations such as the European
Union, NATO and others.
• The dark
side of globalization ... These include
internationalized terrorism, organized crime and the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but also
asymmetric threats from proxy actors or the abuse of
financial and energy leverage. (Ibid)
Deterrence and Pre-emptionnon-state actors, This "new
deterrence" is based on pre-emption as well as on the ability
to "restore deterrence through [military] escalation". In this
context, the Report contemplates, what it describes as:
According to the Report, a new concept of
deterrence is required directed against both State and
dominance, the use of a full bag of both carrots and
sticks—and indeed all instruments of soft and hard power,
ranging from the diplomatic protest to nuclear weapons.” (Report,
op city, emphasis added).
In much the same
terms as the Bush administration, the NATO sponsored report
states, without evidence, that Iran constitutes "a major
nuclear weapons capability would pose a major strategic
threat – not only to Israel, which it has threatened to
destroy, but also to the region as a whole, to Europe and to
the United States. Secondly, it could be the beginning of a
new multi-polar nuclear arms race in the most volatile
region of the world." (Report, op. cit., p. 45)
Careful timing? The
controversial NATO sponsored report calling for a preemptive
nuclear attack on Iran was released shortly after the
publication of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report
Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities. The latter denies
Iran's nuclear capabilities. The NIE report, based on the
assessments of sixteen US intelligence agencies, refutes the
Bush administration's main justification for waging a preemptive
nuclear war on Iran. The NIE report confirms that Iran “halted
its nuclear weapons program in 2003.”
constitute a damning indictment of the Bush administration’s
relentless fear-mongering in relation to an alleged nuclear
threat from Iran. They demonstrate that just as in the
buildup to the war against Iraq five years ago, the White
House has been engaged in a systematic campaign to drag the
American people into another war based on lies." (See
Bill van Auken, 24 January 2008)
It should be noted
that this recently declassified intelligence ( pertaining to
Iran contained in the 2007 NIE report) was known by the White
House, the Pentagon and most probably NATO since September 2003.
Ironically, US military documents confirm that the Bush
Administration initiated its war preparations against Iran in
July 2003, two months prior to the confirmation by US
intelligence that Iran did not constitute a nuclear threat.
The July 2003 war
scenarios were launched under TIRANNT: Theater Iran Near Term.
for TIRANNT as well as for subsequent US war plans directed
against Iran ( which as of 2004 included the active
participation of NATO and Israel), has always been that Iran is
developing nuclear weapons and plans to use them against us.
publication of the 2007 NIE in early December, there has been an
avalanche of media propaganda directed against Tehran,
essentially with a view to invalidating the statements of the
NIE concerning Tehran's nuclear program.
Moreover, a third
sanctions resolution by the UN Security Council, was initiated
with a view to forcing Iran to halt uranium enrichment. The
proposed UNSC resolution, which is opposed by China and Russia
includes a travel ban on Iranian officials involved in the
country's nuclear programs, and inspections of shipments to and
from Iran "if there are suspicions of prohibited goods" (AFP, 11
February 2008). Meanwhile, French President Nicolas Sarkozy
together with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, have been
calling for a unified EU sanctions regime against Iran.
US national intelligence estimate (NIE), Bush's most recent
speeches continue to portray Iran as a nuclear threat:
"I feel pretty
good about making sure that we keep the pressure on Iran to
pressure them so they understand they're isolated, to
pressure them to affect their economy, to pressure them to
the point that we hope somebody rational shows up and says,
okay, it's not worth it anymore," Bush said.
Threat to "The
Western Way of Life"
The Western media
is involved in a diabolical disinformation campaign, the purpose
of which is to persuade public opinion that the only way to
"create a nuclear free World" is to use nuclear weapons on a
preemptive basis, against countries which "threaten our Western
Way of Life."
The Western world
is threatened. The NATO sponsored report, according to Paul
Dibb: "paint(s) an alarming picture of the threats
confronting the West, arguing that its values and way of life
are under threat and that we are struggling to summon the will
to defend them."(Dibb, op cit)
nuclear attack -- geographically confined to Middle East (minus
Israel?)-- is the proposed end-game. The attack would use US
tactical nuclear weapons, which, according to "scientific
opinion" (on contract to the Pentagon) are "harmless to the
surrounding civilian population because the explosion is
Michel Chossudovsky The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear
Holocaust, Global Research, 17 February 2006)
buster bombs with nuclear warheads Made in America, with an
explosive capacity between one third to six times a Hiroshima
bomb, are presented as bona fide humanitarian bombs, which
minimize the dangers of "collateral damage".
"scientific" Pentagon assessments regarding the mini-nukes are
refuted by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS):
Any attempt to
use a [B61-11 bunker buster nuclear bomb] in an urban
environment would result in massive civilian casualties.
Even at the low end of its 0.3-300 kiloton yield range, the
blast will simply blow out a huge crater of radioactive
material, creating a lethal gamma-radiation field over a
large area " (Low-Yield
Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons by Robert W. Nelson,
Federation of American Scientists, 2001 ).
Professor Paul Dibb
is a former Australian Deputy Secretary of Defense, who has over
the years also occupied key positions in Australia's defense and
intelligence establishment. Dibb carefully overlooks the
consequences of the use of nuclear weapons in a conventional war
theater. According to Dibb, NATO's preemptive nuclear doctrine,
which replicates that of the Pentagon, constitutes a
significant and positive initiative to "halt the imminent spread
of nuclear weapons". .
group] believe that the West must be ready to resort to a
pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the imminent
spread of nuclear weapons."
Never mind the
nuclear holocaust and resulting radioactive contamination, which
would spread Worldwide and threaten, in a real sense, the "way
There is no "way of
life" in a World contaminated with deadly radioactive material.
But this is something that is rarely discussed in the corridors
of NATO or in strategic studies programs in Western
What is frightening
in Professor Dibb's article is that he is not expressing an
opinion, nor is he analyzing the use of nuclear weapons from an
academic research point of view.
In his article,
there is neither research on nuclear weapons nor is there an
understanding of the complex geopolitics of the Middle East
war. Dibb is essentially repeating verbatim the statements
contained in NATO/Pentagon military documents. His article is a
"copy and paste" summary of Western nuclear doctrine, which in
practice calls for the launching of a nuclear holocaust.
objective of a Middle East nuclear holocaust is "to prevent the
occurrence of a nuclear war". An insidious logic which certainly
out- dwarfs the darkest period of the Spanish inquisition...
Neither NATO nor
the Pentagon use the term nuclear holocaust. Moreover, they
presume that the "collateral damage" of a nuclear war will in
any event be confined geographically to the Middle East and that
Westerners will be spared...
But since their
in-house scientists have confirmed that tactical nuclear weapons
are "safe for civilians", the labels on the bombs have been
switched much in the same way as the label on a packet of
cigarettes: "This nuclear bomb is safe for civilians"
Another Tool in the Military Toolbox
The new definition
of a nuclear warhead has blurred the distinction between
conventional and nuclear weapons:
'It's a package
(of nuclear and conventional weapons). The implication of
this obviously is that nuclear weapons are being brought
down from a special category of being a last resort, or sort
of the ultimate weapon, to being just another tool in the
toolbox," (Japan Economic News Wire, op cit)
re-categorization has been carried out. The " green light" for
the use of tactical nuclear weapons has been granted by the US
Congress. . " Let's use them, they are part of the military
We are a dangerous
crossroads: military planners believe their own propaganda. The
military manuals state that this new generation of nuclear
weapons are "safe" for use in the battlefield. They are no
longer a weapon of last resort. There are no impediments or
political obstacles to their use. In this context, Senator
Edward Kennedy has accused the Bush Administration for having
developed "a generation of more useable nuclear weapons."
Russia and China
constitutes a threat to " the Western way of life"?
Nukes are also
slated to be used against Russia and China, former enemies of
the Cold War era.
This post Cold War
logic was first revealed, when the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture
Review (NPR) was leaked to The Los Angeles Times in January
2002. The NPR includes China and Russia alongside the rogue
states as potential targets for a first strike nuclear attack.
According to William Arkin, the NPR "offers a chilling glimpse
into the world of nuclear-war planners: With a Strangelovian
genius, they cover every conceivable circumstance in which the
president might wish to use nuclear weapons-planning in great
detail." (Los Angeles Times, March 10, 2002)
Their Leadership and Destroy their Countries as Functioning
The use of nukes
against "rogue states", including Iran and North Korea (which
lost more than a quarter of its population in US bombings during
the Korean war) is justified because these countries could act
in an "irrational" way. It therefore makes sense to "take em
out" before they do something irrational. The objective is:
"decapitate their leadership and destroy their countries as
"One line of
reasoning is that so-called rogue states, such as Iran
and North Korea, are sufficiently irrational to risk a
pre-emptive nuclear strike on the US or its allies, such
as Israel and South Korea.
here is that deterrence - that is, threatening the other
side with obliteration - no longer works. But even the nasty
regimes in Tehran and Pyongyang must know that the US
reserves the right to use its overwhelming nuclear force to
decapitate the leadership and destroy their countries as
modern functioning societies. (Dibb, op cit., emphasis
Use nuclear weapons
to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction.
But of course, lest
we forget, America's nuclear arsenal as well as that of France,
Britain and Israel are not categorized as "weapons of mass
destruction", in comparison with Iran's deadly nonexistent
nuclear weapons program.
Now comes the
authoritative part of the Pentagon-NATO preemptive doctrine: We
need to use nukes against bin Laden, because Islamic "fanatics"
can actually make a nuclear weapons or buy them from the
Russians on the black market.
The Report calls
for a first strike nuclear attack directed against Osama bin
Laden's Al Qaeda, which has the ability, according to expert
opinion, of actually producing small nuclear bombs, which could
be used in a Second 9/11 attack on America: .
The second line
of reasoning [contained in the NATO sponsored report] is
more difficult to refute. It argues that extreme
fanatical terrorists, such as al-Qaeda, cannot be deterred
because (a) they do not represent a country and therefore
cannot be targeted and (b) they welcome death by suicide.
So, we have to shift the concept of nuclear deterrence to
the country or regime supplying the terrorists with fissile
require materials that can be made only with difficulty.
Once these materials are obtained by terrorists, however,
the barriers to fabricating a weapon are much lower. In that
sense the nuclear threat today is greater than it was in the
Cold War and it seems the terrorists cannot be deterred.(
Dibb, op cit, emphasis added)
The alleged nuclear
threat by Al Qaeda is taken very seriously. The Bush
administration has responded with overall defense spending
(budget plus war theater) in excess of one trillion dollars.
This massive amount of public money has been allocated to
financing the "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT).
Pentagon documents, this military hardware including aircraft
carriers, fighter jets, cruise missiles and nuclear bunker
buster bombs, is slated to be used as part of the "Global War on
Terrorism". In military jargon the US is involved in asymmetric
warfare against non-State enemies. ( The concept of Asymmetric
Warfare was defined in
The National Defense Strategy of the United States of America
The US media has
the distinct ability to turn realities upside down. The lies are
upheld as indelible truths. The "Islamic terrorists" have
abandoned their AK 47 kalashnikov rifles and stinger missiles;
they are not only developing deadly chemical and biological
weapons, they also have nuclear capabilities.
The fact, amply
documented, that Al Qaeda is supported by the CIA and Britain's
MI6 is beside the point.
The nuclear threat
is not directed against the Middle East but against the USA, the
perpetrators and architects of nuclear war are bin Laden's Al
Qaeda, which is planning to launch a nuclear attack on an
government officials are contemplating what they consider to
be an inevitable and much bigger assault on America, one
likely to kill millions, destroy the economy and
fundamentally alter the course of history,...
According to captured al-Qaida
leaders and documents, the plan is called the "American
Hiroshima" and involves the multiple detonation of nuclear
weapons already smuggled into the U.S. over the Mexican
border with the help of the MS-13 street gang and other
organized crime groups. (World
Net Daily, 11 July 2005, emphasis added)
The New York
Times confirms that an Al Qaeda sponsored "American
Hiroshima" "could happen" .
that such an attack, somewhere, is likely." (NYT, 11 August
According to the
Aspen Strategy Group which is integrated among others, by
Madeleine Albright, Richard Armitage, Philip D. Zelikow, Robert
B. Zoellick, "the danger of nuclear terrorism is much greater
than the public believes, and our government hasn't done nearly
enough to reduce it.":
10-kiloton nuclear weapon, a midget even smaller than the
one that destroyed Hiroshima, exploded in Times Square, the
fireball would reach tens of millions of degrees Fahrenheit.
It would vaporize or destroy the theater district, Madison
Square Garden, the Empire State Building, Grand Central
Terminal and Carnegie Hall (along with me and my building).
The blast would partly destroy a much larger area, including
the United Nations. On a weekday some 500,000 people would
be killed. (NYT, 11 August 2004)
with a devastating [nuclear] attack"
professor Dibb, nuclear deterrence should also apply in relation
to Al Qaeda, by holding responsible the governments which help
the terrorists to develop their nuclear weapons capabilities:
a former US assistant secretary for defense, has recently
argued, the realistic response is to hold responsible, as
appropriate, the government from which the terrorists
obtained the weapon or fissile materials and threaten
them with a devastating [nuclear] strike. In other
words, deterrence would work again. (Dibb, op cit)
The real nuclear
threat is coming from bin Laden. The objective is to "to do away
with our way of life":
None of this
is to underestimate the impact of a nuclear weapon being
detonated in an American city. It could be catastrophic,
but it is highly unlikely to threaten the very survival of
the US. To believe otherwise risks surrendering to the fear
and intimidation that is precisely the terrorists' stock in
Myers, another former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff,
has claimed that if [Islamic] terrorists were able to
kill 10,000 Americans in a nuclear attack, they would "do
away with our way of life". But Hiroshima and
Nagasaki incurred well over 100,000 instant deaths and that
did not mean the end of the Japanese way of life. (Ibid,
In an utterly
twisted and convoluted argument, professor Dibb transforms the
US-NATO threat to wage a nuclear war on Iran into an Al Qaeda
operation to attack an American city with nuclear weapon.
Dibb presents the
US-NATO menace to trigger what would result in a Middle East
nuclear holocaust as a humanitarian operation to save American
lives. By implication, the Al Qaeda sponsored "American
Hiroshima" would be supported by Iran's president Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad. and this in turn would immediately provide a juste
cause (casus belli) for retaliation against Iran
nuclear attack on a US city would mean, however, is an
understandable American retaliation in kind. So, those
countries that have slack control over their fissile nuclear
materials and cozy relations with terrorists need to watch
out. A wounded America would be under enormous pressure to
respond in a wholly disproportionate manner.
And then we
would be in a completely changed strategic situation in
which the use of nuclear weapons might become
commonplace. Ibid, emphasis added).
that Al Qaeda is preparing an attack on America has been on the
lips of Vice President Dick Cheney for several years now. Cheney
has stated on several occasions since 2004, that Al Qaeda is
preparing a "Second 9/11": .
In August 2005,
Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed
USSTRATCOM, based at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska,
to draw up a "Contingency Plan", "to be employed in response
to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United
States". (Philip Giraldi,
Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War, The American
Conservative, 2 August 2005)
"Contingency Plan" was predicated on the preemptive war
doctrine. Implied in the "Contingency Plan" was the presumption
that Iran would be behind the attacks.
The Pentagon in a
parallel initiative has actually fine-tuned its military agenda
to the point of actually envisaging a Second 9/11 scenario as a
means to providing the US administration with a "credible"
justification to attack Iran and Syria:
[9/11 type terrorist] attack could create both a
justification and an opportunity that is lacking today to
retaliate against some known targets [Iran and Syria]"
(Statement by Pentagon official, leaked to the Washington
Post, 23 April 2006, emphasis added)
Meanwhile,. the US
Congress is concerned that an "American Hiroshima" could
potentially damage the US economy:
"What we do
know is that our enemies want to inflict massive casualties
and that terrorists have the expertise to invent a wide
range of attacks, including those involving the use of
chemical, biological, radiological and even nuclear weapons.
... [E]xploding a small nuclear weapon in a major city could
do incalculable harm to hundreds of thousands of people, as
well as to businesses and the economy,...(US Congress, House
Financial Services Committee, June 21, 2007).
As far as
sensitizing public opinion to the dangers of US sponsored
nuclear war, there is, with a few exceptions, a scientific and
intellectual vacuum: No research, no analysis, no comprehension
of the meaning of a nuclear holocaust which in a real sense
threatens the future of humanity. This detachment and lack of
concern of prominent intellectuals characterizes an evolving
trend in many universities and research institutes in the
strategic studies, the sciences and social sciences.
increasingly tow the line. They remain mum on the issue of a US
sponsored nuclear war. There is a tacit acceptance of a
diabolical and criminal military agenda, which in a very sense
threatens life on this planet. The US-NATO doctrine to use
nukes on a preemptive basis with a view to "saving the Western
World's way of life" is not challenged in any meaningful way
either by academics or media experts in strategic studies.
© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We encourage engaging, diverse
and meaningful commentary. Do not include
personal information such as names, addresses,
phone numbers and emails. Comments falling
outside our guidelines – those including
personal attacks and profanity – are not
See our complete
use this link to notify us if you have concerns
about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and remove any
Send Page To a Friend
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)