American Presidents' Nuclear Doctrines -Kalki Gaur
Wednesday, September 6, 2006 10:03:13 AM
Author: Kalki Gaur: American Nuclear Weapon Doctrine © 2006 Copyrights
American Presidents' Nuclear Doctrines -Kalki Gaur
MUTUAL DEFENSE TREATIES: The United States entered into a number of formal and informal mutual defense agreements during the cold War, but when they outlived their usefulness they were quietly abandoned. The mutual defense treaty with the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan was unilaterally abrogated by the United States. India should not worry about hostile treaties signed by the United States. Indian diplomacy shall sabotage these hostile treaties, so that the United States abandon them.
ABANDONMENT OF SOUTH VIETNAM: The United States had promised, that United States would militarily intervene if North Vietnam renewed its aggression. It was a precondition for South Vietnamese agreement to the 1973 Paris Peace Accord. It was officially the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam. However, when two years later in 1975, in a flagrant violation of those accords, North Vietnam launched its multi-division cross-border invasion of the South, the United States shamefully abandoned its ally.
EISENHOWER DOCTRINE: In 1953, President Eisenhower announced the Eisenhower Doctrine. With the Eisenhower doctrine, the US pledged help to any Middle East country in defending against outside aggression. President Eisenhower sent 14,000 U.S. troops into Lebanon in 1958 to defend against Iraqi-sponsored aggression. President Eisenhower even threatened the use of nuclear weapons against Iraq.
NIXON DOCTRINE: In 1969 President Nixon established Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia as the “twin pillars” of U.S. security interests in the Middle East. The Shiite Iranian pillar collapsed in 1979. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and fundamentalist Mullahs overthrew shah of Iran. France and the CIA engineered the fall of Shah of Iran. President Carter ordered the overthrowing of the Shah of Iran because Shah had planned to industrialize Iran. Then the GNP of Iran would have surpassed the GNP of France and Britain in next 3 years. Iran was also promoting Asian Common Market that included Iran, India, and Pakistan. Shah of Iran was the most enlightened Islamic ruler of the world. Tehran was as modern as Paris was, during the times of Shah of Iran. Shah promoted the pre-Islamic Persian heritage. Without the direct involvement of President Carter, Ayatollah Khomeini could not become the ruler of Iran. President Carter scuttled all democratic alternatives to the Monarchy, and scuttled the conspiracy of the Generals to capture power. It was a long-term policy of President Carter to undermine the leading Aryan power in South Asia. It was a Vatican’s conspiracy to overthrow a liberal Islamic regime in Iran. The fall of the Shah of Iran was the most important event in the Islamic world that gave rise to Islamic Fundamentalism, and President Carter and the Vatican were responsible for it. By engineering the fall of Shah of Iran, President Carter and the Holy Pope became the founding fathers of the Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic terrorism in the 1980s and 1990s. Because of the fall of enlightened Shah of Iran, and the failure of Indira Gandhi to support him in the times of his dire need, that the world is entering into the age of civilizational wars and religious wars. President Carter implemented the policy to overthrow Shah of Iran. Ayatollah Khomeini was a CIA spy. Ayatollah Khomeini reminds about Osama Bin Ladin, the Saudi billionaire who had been trained by CIA and who is determined to overthrow the Saudi Arabian monarchy. Just as President Nixon promoted China as the world power, similarly President Carter laid the foundation of the Islamic fundamentalism. Ayatollah Khomeini ordered the occupation of American Embassy in Tehran to destroy the evidence of his being a CIA spy. President Carter did not use force to force the release of embassy personnel, because it would have harmed his protégé Ayatollah Khomeini.
CARTER DOCTRINE: In December 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. In January 1980, President Carter announced the Carter Doctrine. It stated, “An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region, will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States.” To implement his doctrine, the US forced the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF) to coordinate, command and control any military action required. On 1983, President Ronald Reagan renamed the RDJTF as the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), on a par with the European Command (EUCOM) and the Pacific Command (PACOM) as one of the several geographic commands under which US military is organized. President Bush ordered CENTCOM in August 1990 to turn back Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The Carter Doctrine is a proof that President Carter had ordered the overthrow of Shah of Iran. Carter Doctrine laid the foundation of the alliance of the United States, CIA, the Vatican and Islamic Fundamentalism.
Wars of National Liberation
THIRD WORLD IN AMERICAN STRATEGY: In January 1961 Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev shifted the venue of great power rivalry to the Third World, seeking to counter US nuclear superiority at the time. Khrushchev announced Soviet support for Wars of National Liberation. President Kennedy bought the challenge. The great power rivalry played out, in Vietnam, Angola, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. The 1994 Army War College study states, with the collapse of Communism in Europe and the demise of the Soviet Union, the Second World has ceased to exist. With the end of the Cold War, the Third World became the centerpiece of American security strategy. The United States was involved in the following Third World problems in Haiti, Somalia, Iraq, and North Korea. India shall again re-invent the alliance of the Non-Aligned Nations Movement counter the military superiority of the United States. The collapse of the East Asian and South East Asian Economies enhances the geopolitical role of the Non-Aligned Nations of Africa and South America.
THEORY OF ESCALATION DOMINANCE: The mission of the Armed Forces is to fight and win the nation’s war. The armed forces must maintain escalation dominance. War is an act of force, and there is no logical limit to the application of that force. Each side, therefore, compels its opponent to follow suit; a reciprocal action starts, which must lead in theory to extremes. The combat power has two interlocking dimensions, physical strength, and political will. If escalation dominance is to be effective, the adversary must be convinced that we not only have the physical means to escalate the conflict but also the political will to do so. India should maintain escalation dominance over Pakistan. India should threaten to occupy Gwadhar Island.
Nuclear Escalation Dominance
NUCLEAR ESCALATION DOMINANCE IN KOREAN WAR: There is now extensive documentary evidence to show that the use of atomic weapons became an integral part of the Eisenhower administration’s planing designed to force a military solution in Korea. The Chinese and North Koreans were intimidated by the threatened use of atomic weapons, leading to their capitulation in June 1953, and their signing of the Armistice Agreement the following month, said Rosemary Foot in The Wrong War (1985). Eisenhower was able to muster the political will to threaten escalation to nuclear war because in 1953 the moral revulsion against the use of nuclear weapons was not as strong as it is today. The US government and military view the Nuclear weapon as usable tools of war. Another major reason was that the United States had clear escalation dominance over North Korea and China, which at that time did not have the nuclear capability to respond in kind. (New World Strategy, p.87) North Korea learnt the lesson, that it should not fight a war with the United States unless it has Atom Bombs. Korean peninsula would be theater of a major war in the first half of the next decade.
Bush's Nuclear Threat
PRESIDENT BUSH USED NUCLEAR THREAT: In the Persian Gulf War, President Bush warned that the United States would escalate that conflict to the nuclear level if the Iraqis used chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons against the allied coalition. It proved to be an effective deterrent. Bush was able to override the public aversion to the use of nuclear weapons because Saddam Hussain had threatened the first use of such weapons of mass destruction. If the enemy breaches the nuclear, biological, chemical thresh-hold, the United States will respond in kind.
CLINTON’S NUCLEAR THREAT TO N. KOREA: In July 1993, President Clinton threatened to respond with all means necessary (the generally understood euphemism for nuclear weapons) against North Korea, if that country breached the nuclear thresh-hold. In 1994, North Korea issued a veiled threat to turn the South Korean capital of Seoul into a sea of flames, then the United States promised certain retaliation. India should develop military and economic relations with North Korea, whenever the North Korea’s relationship with China becomes sour. Indian military bases in North Korea will reestablish Buddhism in Korea.
NUCLEAR THREAT IN VIETNAM WAR: A nuclear planning group was organized by the Military Assistance Command Vietnam in 1967 to explore the use of nuclear weapons to break the North Vietnamese siege of Khe Sanh. As early as 1954, the US ruled out the use of nuclear weapons in Indochina to break the siege of Dien Bien Phu. Senator Barry Goldwater suggested the first use of nuclear weapons in Vietnam during his 1964 bid for the presidency.
ESCALATION OF DEFENSIVE NUCLEAR CAPABILITY: It was the escalation dominance not of offensive nuclear capabilities but of U.S. defensive nuclear capabilities, that the Soviet Union became overextended to the point of practical bankruptcy. The Strategic Defensive Initiative (SDI) enhanced deterrence by injecting greater uncertainties into Soviet estimates of their ability to achieve their military objectives should they attempt a first strike. The Soviet attempts to counter the Star Wars initiatives were a major factor in their dissolution.
DOCTRINE OF MUTUAL ASSURED DESTRUCTION (MAD): After the 1962, Cuban Missile Crisis, the United States adopted the Cold War doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Both the United States and the USSR maintained sufficient nuclear weapons to ensure that they could ride out a first strike by the other side and still have enough remaining strength to respond in kind. The fact is that MAD worked and it avoided the nuclear war. Even with the START I & II and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the fact of Nuclear Russia remains as relevant as before. Russia remains one country in the world with the means to destroy the United States in 30 minutes in a single devastating attack. As a result of January 1994 agreement, between President Clinton and President Boris Yeltsin, both United States and Russia have completed the re-targeting of strategic missiles away from points inside Russia and United States respectively. However, it can not be actively verified. In any case re-targeting by either side can take place quickly.
FLAWS OF MASSIVE RETALIATION DOCTRINE: The MAD doctrine could offer the both leader only two choices, either the initiation of a general nuclear War or compromise and retreat. The true course of future war was the Eisenhower administration’s strategy of “Massive Retaliation, in which almost total reliance for national security was placed on nuclear weaponry. This nuclear strategy left the U.S. Army uncertain of its place in the policy and strategy, uncertain that civilians recognized a need even for Army’s existence. Army was therefore uncertain of the service’s whole future. The MAD doctrine fails to deter Pakistan.
Usable Nuclear Weapons
NUCLEAR WEAPONS USABLE INSTRUMENTS OF WAR: The 1954 edition of United States Army Manual FM 100-5 stated Army’s nuclear doctrine, that nuclear weapons represented “additional firepower of large magnitude.” That was the way Eisenhower evidently saw them when he threatened their use in North Korea and against Iraq in Lebanon. Indian Nuclear Doctrine states that the tactical nuclear weapons, nuclear Nukes, nuclear torpedoes are usable instruments of war against hostile aircraft carriers and military bases. India should adopt the 1954 edition of US Field Manual, FM 100-5 version. It states that tactical nuclear weapons represented additional firepower of large magnitude for use against hostile aircraft carriers in the high seas to prohibit their entry into the territorial waters in the times of war. India is a land power, and it can not allow the hostile aircraft carriers, the opportunity to bombard India’s coastal towns. India would use nuclear nukes against Diego Garcia, Guam, Puerto Rico, or Hawaii in case of a threatened NATO bombing raids against Indian targets. India shall reserve its rights to use tactical nuclear weapons against hostile Navy. India will respond by nuclear torpedoes for any threatened Naval or air invasions of mainland India.
FLEXIBLE RESPONSE DOCTRINE: In 1961, the United States Nuclear Strategy changed to the “Strategy of Flexible Response.” Conventional forces were increased, but it still placed reliance on nuclear weapons at both the strategic and tactical levels.
A-BOMBS AS INSTRUMENTS OF DIPLOMACY: Distracting the United States with its sponsorship of “Wars of National Liberation.” The Soviets reached and then exceeded nuclear parity with the United States. A Mexican standoff ensued when one side’s nuclear arsenal cancelled out the other. Then atom bombs evolved from weapons of war to the instruments of diplomacy. The nuclear weapons are useful primarily to deter their use by other nuclear-armed nations. Now the Russian nuclear Sword of Damocles no longer hangs over America’s head. In case of any NATO threats to India, Indian nuclear sword of Damocles will start hanging over American head, to deter United States.
GENERAL CONVENTIONAL WAR: The General conventional wars are marked by the total destruction of the enemy’s armed forces, the occupation of his homeland, his unconditional surrender, and the trial and execution of his leaders. Final Punic war was a general conventional war. Rome defeated Carthage, slaughtered the population, razed the city, plowed under the ruins, and sowed the furrow with salt. Spanish invasions of North and south America was a general convention war, as white Christians slaughtered the native Indian population, destroyed Indian civilization, culture, religion, languages and imposed Christianity and Spanish language on them.
JEWS WARS OF EXTERMINATION: “Milchemet Mitzvah was a war of extermination in the fullest sense of the term. The Israelites who engaged in it were put under strict obligation to spare nobody and nothing. Men, women, and children as even non-human living being such as asses and cattle were put to sword. Prophet Moses defeated and killed Midjanite kings together with all other adult males, and their cities burnt. All male children and all women other than virgins were also killed. Prophet Moses, Joshua, and David massacred the defeated peoples. Christians also believed in the extermination of the entire communities, as happened during thirteenth-century Albigensian Crusade. When the Christians took Jerusalem in 1099, they massacred the population until the streets ran with blood and the horses waded in gore up to their ankles. Richard Lionheart had the garrison of Saint Jean d’Acre massacred in 1191. Campaigning in South and Central America Spaniards and Portuguese acted in the name of Cross, they gave the Indians the option to converting to Christianity, exterminating them when they failed to understand or comply.
Slaughters in Holy Wars
For almost a century and a half after Luther first nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the Church door at Wittenberg, Catholics and Protestants vied each other in their calls for Holy War. They were often slaughtering such populations as happened to disagree with their respective views of Christ’s nature. Whatever we think of the American attempt to save democracy in Vietnam, probably it was not so different from King Philip II of Spain’s attempt to save the souls of his Dutch subjects from the Protestant heresy infecting them.” (M.V. Creveld: The Transformation of War. 1991, p 137-39). The Catholic Croatia used military force to expel all Orthodox Serbs. The NATO invasions of Kosovo, was a Conventional General War. It resulted in the ethnic cleansing and the indictment of the defeated enemy as the war criminal. In the coming age of civilizational wars, most of the wars will be general conventional wars. The Doctrine of Depopulation of Nuclear Aggressor (DNA) will respond to any preemptive nuclear strike against India, as general conventional war, that will result in the mandatory execution of the entire male population of the aggressor.
LIMITED WARS: The US Army’s 1954 doctrinal manual, defines Limited War as a war of limited objective, that did not require total submission of the enemy. Limited War seeks to realize the objectives the war set out to achieve and a return of peace. The nuclear–era Army’s 1962 manual dropped the concept of “Wars of Limited Objectives” and introduced instead the concept of “Wars of Limited Means.” In the Wars of Limited Means, the essential objective of the military forces is to end the conflict rapidly and decisively in a manner best calculated to avert general nuclear war. The Wars of limited means surrenders the advantage of escalation dominance.
The 1986 edition of the army’s strategic doctrinal manual, Field Manual 100-1, The Army, defined limited War as armed conflict between two or more nations, at an intensity below that of general war, where means and/or ends are constrained. There was a major emphasis on war’s political ends. Since war is primarily a politically directed act for political ends. The political objectives define the conduct of war, in terms of strategy and constraints. The political purposes and military goals define and limit the scope and intensity of war. India should not fight the wars of Islamic fundamentalism as a limited War. India should fight the wars of Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan, Algeria, Lebanon, and Central Asia as general conventional wars.
Using Tactical Nuclear Weapons
USE OF TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS: When the Cold War drew to an end, in 1989, the United States Army discarded the fallacious idea that the purpose of Limited war is to avoid nuclear war. This fallacious idea had led to the U.S. loss of escalation dominance. The manual FM 100-1, The Army (1986) states, “the restrained use of nuclear or chemical weapons, or enemy use of biological weapons, is possible in limited wars.” The United States did indeed threaten escalation to the nuclear level during the 1990-91 limited war in the Persian Gulf. Indian nuclear weapons doctrine will state that “the restrained use of tactical nuclear weapons or tactical chemical and biological weapons is possible against enemy aircraft carriers, naval fleets, and military bases, in limited wars”.
THE PEOPLE’S WAR: Lin Piao used the Chinese civil war strategy of encirclement of the cities from the countryside. People’s war waged by the world countryside in the third world can destroy the world cities of the industrialized world. It can destroy the United States and Western Europe. During the 1960s, the Communist battle cry was “One, Two, Three, Many Vietnams!” India should flare up two or more regional wars in case of India’s confrontations with the United States and NATO.
REVERSAL OF THE DOMINOES: In the final years of the Cold War the communist concepts of wars of national liberation and people’s war were turned against their creators. President Ronald Reagan pledged assistance to freedom fighters in Third World nations seeking to overthrow Marxist governments who were allies of the Soviet Union. United States backed successful insurgencies in Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, and Nicaragua. This reversal of dominoes resulted in the demise of the Cold War. This reversal proved to be containment’s final form. India should destabilize the allies of the United States in Africa, Asia, and South America. India should destabilize Turkey, Indonesia, South Africa, Nigeria, Uganda, Mexico, and Brazil.
FLEXIBLE RESPONSE DOCTRINE: In 1961, the United States Nuclear Strategy changed to the “Strategy of Flexible Response.” Conventional forces were increased, but it still placed reliance on nuclear weapons at both the strategic and tactical levels. United States was ready to use nucldear weapons against the Soviet Union in the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. British nuclear weapon arsenal in 1962 matched the Soviet arsenal of 1956, on the eve of Suez Canal Crisis. It is no accident that Indian astronomers had predicted the threat of destruction of the world in 1962, as the Seven Star System became a single line in October 1962
Author: Kalki Gaur: American Nuclear Weapon Doctrine © 2006 Copyrights