Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does anyone know what PDD60 actually say; I've heard that it means that the US must absorb a nuclear strike first, before firing back, and that a President is not informed of this:
Does anyone know what PDD60 actually say; I've heard that it means that the US must absorb a nuclear strike first, before firing back, and that a President is not informed of this:
I don’t believe that is what the intent is. I’m pretty sure that if a President, and his NCA, all agree that a first strike is warranted, then that is what will happen. They don’t have to wait for a strike on the US homeland to respond.
Back in 1991, President Bush ordered the bombers to stand down off ground alert. Prior to this order, there were always fully loaded bombers with nukes on the alert pad, with crews standing by, ready to launch at a moment’s notice. Way back in the day, 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, they used to do an airborne alert, which is crazy.
It’s an absolute miracle that we never had a major accident detonation somewhere, and the book Command and Control is the best book I’ve ever read that lays out the history of nuclear weapons from inception at the Manhattan Project all the way through the end of the Cold War and beyond.
But this update that you linked was published to capture the new posture of the alert stand down. Again, I don’t believe it was meant as policy to make a first strike by us illegal. Maybe I’m missing some key elements to this, and if so, someone feel free to chime in.
Clinton Issues New Guidelines on U.S. Nuclear Weapons Doctrine
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 . . . source and link to continue reading https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-11/news/clinton-issues-new-guidelines-us-nuclear-weapons-doctrine
Also, Clinton in 1997 unilaterally OFFERED TO KEEP 50% OF OUR NUCLEAR MISSILE SUBS IN PORT AT ANY ONE TIME. This decision made on the heel of PDD-60 was/is suicidal. I was unable to find the source for this. I don’t want to speculate here as to why I can not find it on the internet anymore. You draw your own conclusion.
Last edited by tom_fe; 05-08-2021 at 12:15 PM..
Reason: text link corrections
I don’t believe that is what the intent is. I’m pretty sure that if a President, and his NCA, all agree that a first strike is warranted, then that is what will happen. They don’t have to wait for a strike on the US homeland to respond.
Back in 1991, President Bush ordered the bombers to stand down off ground alert. Prior to this order, there were always fully loaded bombers with nukes on the alert pad, with crews standing by, ready to launch at a moment’s notice. Way back in the day, 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, they used to do an airborne alert, which is crazy.
It’s an absolute miracle that we never had a major accident detonation somewhere, and the book Command and Control is the best book I’ve ever read that lays out the history of nuclear weapons from inception at the Manhattan Project all the way through the end of the Cold War and beyond.
But this update that you linked was published to capture the new posture of the alert stand down. Again, I don’t believe it was meant as policy to make a first strike by us illegal. Maybe I’m missing some key elements to this, and if so, someone feel free to chime in.
There were many accidents, to include explosions and aircraft accidents....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
U.S. to absord First Strike before Retaliation
