Going it alone: Bush Doctrine gives any nation war power
When you consider the following list of countries with nuclear capabilities and take into consideration the Bush doctrine's policy of pre-emptive war gives any nation war power and that Bush very much wants a World War that will last for decades do you really think there is going to be a planet left? See also: #msg-3969668
How many countries involved in World War II had nuclear weapons?
-Am
Going it alone: Bush Doctrine gives any nation war power
September 13, 2004
Set aside for a moment the ethical debate about the Bush Doctrine's policy of pre-emptive war and focus instead on its logical consequence: Any nation threatened by terrorists or "rogue states" can claim a similar right to wage pre-emptive attacks in self defense.
In the wake of the massacre by suspected Chechen terrorists of 335 Russian children and their parents in School No. 1 in Beslan, Russia has invoked its right to launch pre-emptive strikes against terrorist bases in "any region of the world." The world's second-largest nuclear power has joined the ranks of Bush Doctrine believers, and that should alarm people who wonder how the notoriously brutal Russian military will exercise its "right."
President Bush's pronouncements in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks have produced an ominous echo in Moscow. Russian President Vladimir Putin said U.S. and European demands for the Kremlin to negotiate with Chechen rebels were akin inviting Osama bin Laden to the White House for dialogue.
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned the West not to meddle with Russia's Chechnya policy. Shades of Bush's declaration: "You are either with us or against us in the fight against terror."
The leverage the U.S. could have had to temper Moscow's response to the Beslan horror disappeared when Bush ordered American troops to overthrow Saddam Hussein and occupy Iraq. Russia's options are broadened by the fact that Bush has steadfastly defended his decision to invade Iraq even though his original justifications for the war failed to materialize.
Bush's defense is directly linked to his doctrine, which couldn't have been more adroitly crafted to support the Iraq war.
The Bush Doctrine contains four elements: In addition to the policy of pre-emptive war, the doctrine gives the U.S. the right to take unilateral military action when acceptable multilateral solutions cannot be found, the right to take whatever actions might be necessary to maintain its status as the world's sole military superpower, and the objective to promote democracy and freedom throughout the world.
The qualified support the Bush Doctrine enjoys in the rest of the world rests on other nations' assumption that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. But the can that contains the sauce is filled with worms.
In the post-Sept. 11 New World Order, the roster of nations with active or emerging nuclear weapons programs includes much more than the traditional nuclear powers of the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France. Some newly independent former Soviet republics (Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Georgia) retain some of the weapons systems from the old Soviet Union.
Four other countries are widely believed to have tactical nuclear weapons: Israel, India, Pakistan and South Africa. Seven countries - Argentina, Brazil, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea and Taiwan - have active nuclear development programs and may possess nuclear weapons manufacturing capabilities.
Israel, with substantial U.S. support, has long exercised the right to pre-emptive attacks on its enemies. In fact, Israel's attack on Egypt and Syria in the 1967 Six Day War is often used as an example of a "justifiable" pre-emptive war. Though Israel struck first, Egyptian and Syrian troops were massing on the border and both Arab nations had mobilized for war.
Israel also invoked self-defense for its 1981 pre-emptive attack on Iraqi nuclear facilities at Osirak.
Recently, Iranian officials declared that Iran reserves the right to pre-emptively attack Israel if it discovers that Israel plans an Osirak-style bombing raid on Iran's nuclear facilities. The same saber-rattling rhetoric infuses the hostilities between India and Pakistan, and North and South Korea.
Given the risk that other nations will be emboldened to pre-emptively defend themselves, has the Bush Doctrine made the United States and the world safer? Yes and no. Al-Qaeda has been weakened, Afghanistan no longer openly harbors terrorist training facilities, Libya has had a change of heart and Saddam Hussein is a U.S. prisoner.
But those gains are tempered by two sobering realities: First, terrorist attacks worldwide since Sept. 11, 2001, have claimed many hundreds of lives and thousands of casualties in Russia, Spain, Israel, Indonesia and Iraq. Terrorism isn't vanquished solely by regime changes.
Second, with tensions rising at every global pressure point, the Bush Doctrine's implications for the future stability of the world are far from encouraging.
Abandoning the long-standing policies of deterrence and international cooperation that effectively ended the Cold War opens the door to an era of potentially unrestrained acts of "self defense" by nations with nuclear weapons. The only safe nation in that world is the last one left.
"To initiate a war of aggression," said the judges in the Nuremberg trial of the Nazi leadership, "is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." In stating this guiding principle of international law, the judges specifically rejected German arguments of the "necessity" for pre-emptive attacks against other countries. – Pilger
U.S. pre-emptive policy The true horror of this administration’s pre-emptive policy is that it is based on SUSPICION. Suspicion is the act or an instance of suspecting something wrong without proof or on slight evidence No proof is required. In the wake of Sept. 11, we are told, a preemptive strike against Iraq (or any other unfriendly government or suspected terrorist state) is our absolute right as an aggrieved nation. Proof of hostile actions or evil intentions directed against the US is not necessary, just a reasonable suspicion that the bad actor in Baghdad wishes us ill and might, at some future date, act out his aggressive fantasies
Even more disturbing, however, the doctrine of preemption threatens not only to extend American hyperpower across the globe without limits, but to legitimize any nation's attack on any other based not on existing but on perceived threat. It vastly expands the scope of legitimate state-to-state combat. Such a change could redound against the United States should other beleaguered nations facing the specter of weapons of mass destruction-India, once again, could be a case in point-apply the administration's preemptive framework and let loose the dogs of war. The commentariat has debated ad nauseum exactly what “proof” George Bush and Tony Blair have of Iraq's misdeeds, but this line of questioning misses the point: for a preemptive strike, they need not proof but merely suspicion. http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/~perspy/issues/2002/oct/editorial1.html
On Sept. 14, 2002, President Bush signed a secret document, National Security Presidential Directive 17, which stated, in part: "The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force—including potentially nuclear weapons—to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies." http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2003/030224nukefirst.html
We note with grave concern the Los Angeles Times report of Jan. 25 and 26 that your administration is actively considering the use of U.S. nuclear weapons in the event that Iraq attacks with chemical or biological weapons, or to preemptively strike sites believed to store or manufacture chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.
Sincerely,
Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) Jon S. Corzine (D-N.J.) Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) Patty Murray (D-Wash.) Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) Jack Reed (D-R.I.) Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii) Tim Johnson (D-S.D.)
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
