A Less than Grand Strategy: NATO's New Vision, The Preemptive Use of Nuclear Weapons
Written by Spencer Spratley
Sunday, 30 March 2008
A few months ago, a report was published entitled "Towards a Grand Strategy
for an Uncertain World: Renewing Transatlantic Partnership". It was written by
five generals and it proposes a new vision for the NATO alliance and a
strengthening of ties between the United States and the European Union. The
report outlines the major security threats facing the world today and it asserts
that NATO, in spite of its shortcomings, remains the most effective body for
confronting these threats. The five generals outline a strategy for NATO to
adopt in its effort to make the world a more "certain" place and for ensuring
the dominance of the Western world in global security matters.
The report contains some shocking and alarming statements which demand further
attention and analysis. The most unnerving idea put forth is that the preemptive
use of nuclear weapons must remain in the NATO toolkit as a viable option for
confronting entities which pose an "imminent threat" to global security. The
following passages taken from the report clearly illustrate this point:
"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, in
order to avoid truly existential dangers."
"What is needed is a policy of deterrence by proactive denial, in which
preemption is a form of reaction when a threat is imminent, and prevention is
the attempt to regain the initiative in order to end the conflict."
"Regrettably, nuclear weapons – and with them the option of first use – are
indispensable, since there is simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free
world. On the contrary, the risk of further proliferation is imminent and, with
it, the danger that nuclear war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become
possible. This development must be prevented. It should therefore be kept in
mind that technology could produce options that go beyond the traditional role
of nuclear weapons in preventing a nuclear armed opponent from using nuclear
weapons. In sum, nuclear weapons remain indispensable, and nuclear escalation
continues to remain an element of any modern strategy."
In short, the publication suggests that NATO should adhere to the Bush
administration's credo of "strike first" and that the definition of
"proportional" can, and must, include the use of tactical nuclear weapons. The
flawed logic is that the Western world should be prepared to use nuclear weapons
in order to prevent their "enemies" from developing and/or using those same
weapons. It goes without saying that that this position carries with it a whole
host of problems. The following issues immediately spring to mind:
1) The naive belief that "mini-nukes" are somehow a safe and proportional
response to perceived threats is an unproven and frightening proposition which
contains the potential to plunge the world into a nuclear holocaust. Reducing
parts of the world to a massive laboratory where NATO will bomb first and asses
the accuracy of their beliefs in retrospect is frightening indeed. It's hard to
imagine a scenario in which the use of nuclear weapons would not have grave
implications for civilian casualties and massive environmental contamination.
The report also offers no comforting assurances that other nations who are
"allies" of the targeted country would not respond to the use of nuclear weapons
by retaliating in kind.
2) A policy of preemptive use eliminates any real notion of deterrence. If a
government felt it was being targeted for attack or regime change, what
incentive would there be for that nation to refrain from striking first with
WMD's or any other means at their disposal? In addition, what incentive would
there be for these nations to refrain from forming strategic alliances with
terrorist organizations which may help them retaliate in the event of an attack?
If anything, the whole notion of preemptive strikes serves to make the world a
less certain and stable place.
3) It's difficult to imagine a scenario where this policy would not, in fact,
encourage the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (and weapons of all
kinds). Common sense suggests that nations who feel cornered would likely adopt
an attitude of, "If we're gonna be hit, lets make sure we can hit back."
4) The publication does not address the long-term implications of a preemptive
attack. Decapitating the leadership of a nation and laying waste to its terrain
does not provide any reason to hope that from the ashes of such a calamity would
emerge a model state which would pose no further threat to the Western world.
The American invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, without the use of
nuclear weapons, should illustrate the dangers inherent in this philosophy.
Would a nuclear attack on Iran, for example, be based on "intelligence" that was
also completely erroneous and deceptive? The world is not any safer as a result
of the invasion of Iraq. Adding nuclear weapons to the mix would only make the
situation worse from a humanitarian and security perspective.
These issues are only those that spring to mind from a "layperson's"
perspective. Other analysts with a more sophisticated understanding of the issue
could likely demonstrate innumerable problems with the doctrine of preemptive
use. At a basic level, the idea is simply counter intuitive and seemingly
immoral. The argument seems devoid of all reason and logic and carries with it
some very grave risks for the future of humanity.
The report itself contains other flaws and arguments which only serve to
polarize groups and nations and move us further from a spirit of co-operation
and understanding. The publication also contains messages that wreak of cultural
superiority and arrogance. For example, the report states that, "In some Western
societies, faith in purely irrational belief systems has overtaken belief in
religions that have moral and rational substance, as well as cultural roots. But
symptoms such as the decline of interest in science reflect an intellectual
decline that might have more immediately palpable social consequences in areas
such as journalism, law, and even public health. It reflects a more general loss
of respect for the value of evidence and argument. As a direct consequence of
the globalisation of information flows, all kinds of irrational belief or
political fanaticism circulate freely in the public domain." Have the generals
who prepared this report elevated themselves to the status of experts on which
religions are moral and contain "rational substance"? Are they suggesting that
religions that are not homogeneous with "traditional" Western belief systems are
somehow inferior and contributing to "intellectual decline"? The suggestion,
only slightly veiled, is clear and it's obnoxious.
The report further states that, "If the irrational and fanatical get out of
hand, there is a risk that, in the long term, the instability of uncertainties,
the rise of fundamentalisms and despotisms will usher in a new, illiberal age,
in which the liberties that Western societies enjoy – but will not defend – are
seriously jeopardised". If the authors had not displayed a clear bias in this
report, the reader might be tempted to imagine that they are referring to
neo-conservatism and not the Islamic faith.
The author's of the report explore, at great length, the challenges that they
perceive as constituting the greatest threats to global security. Unfortunately,
they completely ignore the greatest threat to stability and harmony on the
planet: poverty. Their complete failure to address this issue in any depth makes
it difficult to give the report, as a whole, any credibility. Any discussion of
global security must take poverty into account. The widening gap between those
who have more than enough and those who have less than they need must be central
to any discussion on global security and making the world a safer place for
everyone.
On the whole, the report contains an unabashed support for increased militarism
and an arrogant endorsement of continuing Western hegemony throughout the world.
The "Western way of life" must be preserved at all costs and those groups and/or
nations which pose a threat to Western dominance must be wiped off the face of
the earth. For these, and other reasons, the report is disturbing and presents a
strategy which is something far less than grand. It is time for military
leaders, security elites, and Western governments to engage in a level of
thoughtfulness, creativity, consultation, and broad-mindedness which might
result in perspectives that truly serve to unify the nations of the world and
create greater harmony among its populations. No-one likes a bully and this
report simply encourages the Western world to continue to threaten other nations
into submission and to destroy them when they will not bow down. For the rest of
the world, these bullies are not just after your lunch money. They are after
your culture, your beliefs, your resources, your right to self-determination,
your territory, and, ultimately, your life.
Source: Global Research
Comments (3)
1. Written by Mohamedtufayl Mohamedali on 01-04-2008 20:21
Bullies in the school play ground and bullies in the political arena of the world - both have one thing in common - they are both insecure!
2. Written by Pesh on 02-04-2008 15:36
Nice analysis!
3. Written by JAM on 02-04-2008 18:29
Thank you for bringing this to my attention and explaining your thought processes so clearly.
An atheist.
Write Comment
Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article.
Comments posted are the sole opinion of the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of AIM.
