I read the William Arkin piece in the LA Times (The Nuclear Option in Iraq), and while I've agreed with Mr. Arkin many times in the past, I think this is a case where he isn't quite on the mark. His assertion that there's been some sort of "policy firewall" about use of nuclear weapons is only generally true; for example, during Gulf War I, assurances were given to the Iraqis that use of biological or chemical weapons would be met with a nuclear response. There were circumlocutions, and it wasn't explicitly stated, but that was the gist of the threat.
I've also seen rumors floating around various unclassified sources in the last few years talking about nuclear weapons in other situations, such as deep penetration and bioweapon cleanup, which Arkin mentions, although he implies that it's only recently that official sources have started considering these things. That may be true, since I'm sure his sources beat the hell out of mine -- I'm just someone with an interest in the subject who pokes around the 'Net, where he's been writing on military issues for the LA Times and the Washington Post for years. Still, it seems odd to me that he's putting a spin on this that implies these ideas are recent, when they just aren't.
I personally don't believe that we'll ever see nukes used in those sorts of situations. I think that the political cost of resorting to the use of nuclear weapons is entirely too high to ever balance out their utility. I could certainly envision scenarios where we might retaliate to WMD usage with nukes, but even then, it would almost certainly be a response based on anger, and not battlefield necessity.
The USAF has studied the effectiveness of striking infrastructure targets during Gulf War I, and they've been very clear about the political downside caused by collateral damage. They're willing to consider strikes that might inflict terrible destruction, but only if the target is worth such a price. Our system is also set up so that there is civilian oversight of targeting, particularly anything that might cause widespread casualties. It's the planners' job to think about what might happen, no matter how unlikely, and come up with prospective responses. Some of those situations might indeed involve nukes, and while we might not be able to convince everyone not to strike first with WMD, we can at least hope to convince them that striking us is suicidal.
no subject
I've also seen rumors floating around various unclassified sources in the last few years talking about nuclear weapons in other situations, such as deep penetration and bioweapon cleanup, which Arkin mentions, although he implies that it's only recently that official sources have started considering these things. That may be true, since I'm sure his sources beat the hell out of mine -- I'm just someone with an interest in the subject who pokes around the 'Net, where he's been writing on military issues for the LA Times and the Washington Post for years. Still, it seems odd to me that he's putting a spin on this that implies these ideas are recent, when they just aren't.
I personally don't believe that we'll ever see nukes used in those sorts of situations. I think that the political cost of resorting to the use of nuclear weapons is entirely too high to ever balance out their utility. I could certainly envision scenarios where we might retaliate to WMD usage with nukes, but even then, it would almost certainly be a response based on anger, and not battlefield necessity.
The USAF has studied the effectiveness of striking infrastructure targets during Gulf War I, and they've been very clear about the political downside caused by collateral damage. They're willing to consider strikes that might inflict terrible destruction, but only if the target is worth such a price. Our system is also set up so that there is civilian oversight of targeting, particularly anything that might cause widespread casualties. It's the planners' job to think about what might happen, no matter how unlikely, and come up with prospective responses. Some of those situations might indeed involve nukes, and while we might not be able to convince everyone not to strike first with WMD, we can at least hope to convince them that striking us is suicidal.