-Caveat Lector-
Re: Clinton's PDD-60
Monica Lewinsky was used to deflect attention
from Clinton's death wish for America:
from: http://www.armscontrol.org/ACT/novdec97/pdd.htm
Clinton Issues New Guidelines on
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Doctrine
Craig Cerniello
THE CLINTON administration quietly made a significant change
in U.S. strategic nuclear doctrine in November by formally
abandoning guidelines issued by the Reagan administration in
1981 that the United States must be prepared to fight and
win a protracted nuclear war. The new presidential decision
directive (PDD), details of which were first reported in The
Washington Post on December 7, operates from the premise
that the primary role of nuclear weapons in the post-Cold
War era is deterrence. In a December 23 interview, Robert
Bell, senior director for defense policy and arms control at
the National Security Council, provided additional
information about the PDD and clarified some misperceptions
in the press with respect to the Clinton administration's
policy on "launch on warning" and the use of nuclear weapons
against a chemical or biological weapons attack.
New Guidelines
Due to its highly classified nature, many specific details
about the PDD have not been made public. Nevertheless, Bell
confirmed that "We have made an important change in terms of
strategic nuclear doctrine in reorienting our presidential
guidance away from any sense that you could fight and win a
protracted nuclear war to a strategic posture that focuses
on deterrence."
The administration made the decision to rewrite the old
nuclear guidelines early in 1997. At that time, General
John Shalikashvili, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, explained to President Clinton that the United States
could not reduce its nuclear arsenal to the level that was
being discussed for START III (2,000 to 2,500 deployed
strategic warheads) and carry out the objectives of the 1981
nuclear guidelines. Bell pointed out that this assumed that
the goals of the old guidelines could ever have been
realized -- a skepticism that has been voiced by former
Reagan administration officials. Hence, one key factor
influencing the administration's decision to rewrite the old
guidelines was that they were not compatible with the U.S.
objective of achieving further strategic force reductions
with the Russians.
Moreover, the administration viewed the 1981 guidelines as
an anachronism of the Cold War. The notion that the United
States still had to be prepared to fight and win a
protracted nuclear war today seemed out of touch with
reality given the fact that it has been six years since the
collapse of the Soviet Union. In this connection, Bell said
the 1981 directive "reads like a document you would expect
to have been written at the height of the Cold War, not
something that you would want operative today...."
Launch on Warning
Bell said the press had incorrectly indicated that the PDD
"still allows" the United States to launch nuclear weapons
upon receiving warning of an attack. Bell emphasized that
"there is no change in this PDD with respect to U.S. policy
on launch on warning and that policy is that we do not, not
rely on it." In fact, Bell said "in this PDD we direct our
military forces to continue to posture themselves in such a
way as to not rely on launch on warning -- to be able to
absorb a nuclear strike and still have enough force
surviving to constitute credible deterrence."
Bell pointed out that while the United States has always had
the "technical capability" to implement a policy of launch
on warning, it has chosen not to do so. "Our policy is to
confirm that we are under nuclear attack with actual
detonations before retaliating," he said.
Negative Security Assurances
Bell also dispelled the published report that the PDD
expands U.S. nuclear options against a chemical or
biological weapons attack. "This PDD reaffirms explicitly,
virtually verbatim, the policy of this administration as we
stated it the last four or five years, including during the
extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT], the
negotiation of the CTB [Comprehensive Test Ban] and the
ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention," he said.
Specifically, the PDD reaffirms the 1995 statement on
negative security assurances issued by Secretary of State
Warren Christopher on behalf of President Clinton at the
time of the indefinite extension of the NPT. This statement
reiterated in a slightly more restrictive form the 1978
statement on the non-use of nuclear weapons issued by
Secretary of State Cyrus Vance on behalf of President
Carter.
In this context, Bell explained that it is U.S. policy not
to use nuclear weapons first against any state except in
three cases. First, "if a state that we are engaged in
conflict with is a nuclear-capable state, we do not
necessarily intend to wait until that state uses nuclear
weapons first -- we reserve the right to use nuclear weapons
first in a conflict whether its CW [chemical weapons], BW
[biological weapons] or for that matter conventional
[weapons]," he said. Under the second scenario, Bell said
the United States reserves the right to use nuclear weapons
first "if a state is not a state in good standing under the
Non-Proliferation Treaty or an equivalent international
convention." Finally, he said if a state attacks the United
States, its allies or its forces "in alliance" with a
nuclear-capable state, then the United States reserves the
right to use nuclear weapons first, even if that state is
not a nuclear-capable state and is in good standing under
the NPT. Because these three exceptions have existed for
some time, Bell said "there is no policy change whatsoever
in this PDD with respect to fundamental U.S. position on no
first use of nuclear weapons."
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
