Nuke 'em if ya got 'em.

Byline: The Register-Guard

The Bush administration's Orwellian doctrine of pre-emptive military attack as a justifiable form of self-defense has spawned a proposal from the Pentagon to incorporate nuclear weapons among the nation's "defensive" options.

In other words, in for a dime, in for a dollar. If you're going to strike first anyway to prevent an enemy from using weapons of mass destruction against America or its allies, why not blast 'em with the Big One and be done with it?

Here's why: Because it's insane to dream up justifications to launch nuclear weapons against stateless, independent terrorist cells, the members of which are undeterred by the prospect of "mutually assured destruction." Because it would be madness for President Bush to insist that his policy is to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. military strategy while simultaneously agreeing to make nukes just another hammer in the toolbox in the global struggle against violent extremism.

Given the Bush Doctrine's fondness for shooting first and asking questions later, it's not surprising that the military brass drafted a document titled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" that incorporates nuclear weapons into the mix. But outside the insular mind-set of the Pentagon, American citizens ought to be shouting, "Don't even think about it!"

Nuclear weapons are so horrific and destructive that every responsible government in the world has sought at various times to limit their development, reduce existing stockpiles and work toward their eventual elimination. In a study that examined one of the scenarios outlined in the Pentagon draft for first-strike use of a nuclear earth penetrator, the National Academy of Sciences pointed out that fallout from a bunker buster explosion could spread over 1,000 miles and kill up to a million or more people.

The World War II generation that actually lived through the only military use of nuclear weapons has been replaced by baby boomers for whom "fallout" is nothing more than a synonym for "consequence." The end of the Cold War and its associated threat of global nuclear annihilation has apparently weakened the concept of deterrence based on the apocalyptic effects of a nuclear explosion. In its place is a grisly, utilitarian respect for how well nukes might get a military job done.

Playing on U.S. fears in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Bush and the Pentagon have driven home the message that biological and chemical weapons pose a grave enough threat to the American people to justify a nuclear response. But there is never any acknowledgement of the almost incalculable difference in destructive and lethal impact between chemical agents and nuclear weapons.

It is imperative that the Bush administration's effort to build legitimacy for pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons not be allowed to succeed. So far, Congress has mustered enough cooler heads to kill funding for development of new nukes, but pressure is intensifying.

U.S. troops are overextended in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the administration never misses an opportunity to highlight the potential nuclear threats posed by Iran and North Korea.

Let's review. The new policy would allow the United States to launch a pre-emptive, first-strike nuclear attack against any target its intelligence agencies determine has weapons of mass destruction. People who've forgotten the catastrophic failure of those same intelligence agencies with regard to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq should read that last sentence again.