According to the Washington Post, Pentagon planners have drafted a revised policy doctrine which allows for pre-emptive nuclear strikes against non-nuclear states or terrorist groups as an integral part of its global military strategy.

While clearly opposed to the war in Iraq, I am not a pacifist. I’ve never supported unilateral nuclear disarmament, as I believe there may be some (albeit unlikely) scenarios when nuclear weapons might be required for valid self-defense measures. However, this policy proposal scares me, and I’ll tell you why.

The key thrust of the proposal is found on page 47 of the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations [link is to a PDF file].

1) If approved, nuclear weapons may be used against an “adversary using or intending to use WMD (emphasis added) against US, multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations.” We all know the current threshold for WMD allegations, and we also know the lack of any burden of proof provided in their wake.

2) Nuclear weapons may also be used before an “imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy.” This means there would likely be no proof remaining to convince the world that the use of nuclear force was necessary in the first place.

3) Other provisions provide for such use for “rapid and favorable war termination on US terms” or “to ensure success of US and multinational operations.” Such loosely defined terms render controversy over an Iraq Exit Strategy obsolete.

In a nutshell, this would have allowed the US to pre-emptively attack Iraq with nuclear weapons based on Bush’s fabricated claims of terrorist ties and weapons of mass destruction. Future applications will allow for us to strike Iran (or a host of other countries) with no legitimate casus belli other than claims of threat spewing from the executive branch.

The Wolfowitz Doctrine of the early nineties turned into the Bush Doctrine which placed us in the current quagmire in Iraq. If approved, this revision of the current nuclear doctrine places atomic teeth into an already failed foreign policy. Antiwar.Com reports that the next step is for this policy proposal to be approved by the Secretary of Defense.

The policy would likely be reviewed by Congress after approval from Donald Rumsfeld. Whether certain members of the Senate are well enough informed to make such an important policy decision is up for debate. While we had no problem finding the document, the Washington Post reported: “A spokesman for Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said yesterday the panel has not yet received a copy of the draft.” If the Senate Armed Services Committee isn’t capable of using Google and downloading a PDF file, what business do they have dealing with policy which affects the lives of millions of people?