| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Europe | |
| Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told | |
| 2008-01-22 | |
Calling for root-and-branch reform of Nato and a new pact drawing the US, Nato and the European Union together in a "grand strategy" to tackle the challenges of an increasingly brutal world, the former armed forces chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands insist that a "first strike" nuclear option remains an "indispensable instrument" since there is "simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world". The manifesto has been written following discussions with active commanders and policymakers, many of whom are unable or unwilling to publicly air their views. It has been presented to the Pentagon in Washington and to Nato's secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, over the past 10 days. The proposals are likely to be discussed at a Nato summit in Bucharest in April. | |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #16 We'd be better off in the future with ad hoc bi-and multi-lateral coalitions of the willing than an ossified, inert, unguided Nato. It served well and was the longest and most successful alliance in history. But its duty is done and like other old soldiers, it should just fade away. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-01-22 16:55 |
| #15 Well, several eastern European countries sent troops to Iraq and many of them were in combat roles. On most days I despair about NATO, but *if* it can be turned around, it would help enormously in the tough years we have ahead of us. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-01-22 13:30 |
| #14 By insisting on "special rules" for its forces in Afghanistan, the Merkel government in Berlin was contributing to "the dissolution of Nato". NATO has already lost in Afghanistan. They criticized the US for going it alone, and said they would go in and help. They thought it would just be a reconstruction job and the Taliban were out of the picture. However with the failure to stop poppy production and the failure of Pakistan in the Tribal Area, the Taliban are now resurgent. Only Australia, Britain, Canadian, Holland and US troops are engaged in fighting . The rest may as well not be there. The recommendations in the "Manifesto" are not going to happen. The left would take to the barricades and most of the people in Europe don't want NATO to anything that might help the US, especially if it going to result in a loss of life. So the countries of the Baltic who have joined, or are considering joining NATO, such as the Ukraine (see posting above), may ask if NATO wont fight in Afghanistan, where will they fight? especially if Russia starts throwing their weight around. Would the Europeans just stand back and make the US do all the heavy lifting? |
| Posted by: tipper 2008-01-22 13:23 |
| #13 All together now - "Yoohoo, Dubya, can we have a draft now"!? I told you, Joe, you have to wait until Hillary becomes president. Yeah, I know, she's a dhimmicrat. But those are exactly the kind of careless, shaky, panicky people who will not think twice before imposing their will on young men and sending them into some misguided adventure. We've already seen that people like Clinton, Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, Kennedy and Kerry don't give a rat's ass about the troops. You think it's the party of peace? That's like calling Islam the Religion of Peace. The dhimmicrats care about power and nothing else. The peace through Wilson, WWI; Roosevelt, WWII; Truman, Korea; Kennedy/Johnson, Vietnam; Clinton, Bosnia and Kosovo. Some might even say it was Clinton who got us into Iraq and Afghanistan by paying more attention to Monica than he did to threats like Saddam and bin Laden. It was Eisenhower, a Republican, who ended the war in Korea. It was Nixon, a Republican, who got us out of Vietnam then turned around and negotiated SALT with Brezhnev. You know these guys weren't soft. Just a little smarter is all. But then, who was it who left Iran to the Mad Mullahs? Uh-huh. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2008-01-22 12:53 |
| #12 Note to Germany, Belgium, Italy et al - if you wanna play in the game, you gotta ante up. |
| Posted by: mojo 2008-01-22 12:13 |
| #11 AC, after having been in Iowa, they deserve to be oppressed. (re: your other nym). JFM, they Drills can no longer PT anyone until they drop. The days of "I will PT you unitl *I* get tired" are gone. And with it, the "wall to wall counseling" that such people needed as well. The military is set up only for peopel that asked to be and want to be there. To force people who do nto want to be there would break the system that has produced arguably the best military we have ever had. Why are the SF, Seals, Rangers, etc, looked up to? Because they go thru hell in training. Why do they do that? Because everyone there asked to be there, no backing down. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-01-22 10:43 |
| #10 Reserving the right to initiate nuclear attack was a central element of the west's cold war strategy in defeating the Soviet Union. Critics argue that what was a productive instrument to face down a nuclear superpower is no longer appropriate. No need to double-check whether these same critics used to argue deterrence against a nuclear superpower was inappropriate. "Critics". What a joke. And the press lets them get away with this lying rhetoric every single time. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2008-01-22 10:28 |
| #9 JFM... yes, but Bigeard came along well before ethnic street gang activity, "stress cards", grievances to the IG/legal offices, and sensing sessions. Reinstitution of mandetory military conscription in the United States would create a disaster and sea of draft dodgers and renegades. Jimmy Carter killed it, its dead. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-01-22 10:20 |
| #8 tell me whether you think 90 percent of the male specimens would be helpful to the armed forces. During the Algerian war French paratrooper colonel and former SAS Marcel Bigeard was handled a particularly mediocre regiment of draftees. First thing he did was making them physically fit ie sport, sport, sport. In no time the once mediocre draftees were getting better results against the Algerian FLN than even his former para regiments. (BTW Bigeard didn't stop his daily runs until eighty three or eighty four). |
| Posted by: JFM 2008-01-22 09:46 |
| #7 Welcome home Shiplord K.! |
| Posted by: Thomas Woof 2008-01-22 08:43 |
| #6 AC, on the same page. |
| Posted by: Spike Uniter 2008-01-22 07:13 |
| #5 Welcome home, Atomic Conspiracy. We missed you! |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-01-22 06:30 |
| #4 Just day before yesterday: Russia warns of 'preventative' nuclear strikes First-strike, pre-emptive, preventative: Whatever you want to call it, it has always been on the table, but there is almost certainly some specific reason that top brass on both sides are suddenly discussing it in public. I don't think these assertions are aimed at each other, either, but at the same mutually perceived threat. Something is up, and it has the strategy mavens rattled. Iran? the PRC? Pakistan? Something we don't know about? Just to pull one out of the hat, both NATO and Russian planners may have identified a potential need for an electro-magnetic pulse attack to essentially shut down a hostile country in a single blow. Another possibility is the need to destroy a cache of nasty bio-weapons with a virtual guarantee of 100% sterilization, something only a nuke could do. (As several have guessed, I have been posing as Gromomble Oppressor of the Iowans8916. Time to come out of the closet, I suppose). |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2008-01-22 03:03 |
| #3 Joe drive by a High School at about 3PM on a weekday and tell me whether you think 90 percent of the male specimens would be helpful to the armed forces. Vietnam got especially ugly once the people that shouldn't have been there took the field. The 101 airborne at Ripcord was not the same outfit as the one that held in Bastogne. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2008-01-22 01:25 |
| #2 We're gonna draft nuke weapons. Joe? |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-01-22 00:29 |
| #1 All together now - "Yoohoo, Dubya, can we have a draft now"!? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-01-22 00:22 |