HH 59 : The Destroyer of Worlds

[adwinistrator]

I was assuming that the Carlin-esque "Nuclear Hitler" scenario would have to be a Global Strike LAO rather than say, launch on warning, which would seem to be within the CONPLAN 8044 scope, AFAIK, CONPLAN 8022 was cancelled and is not integrated into 8010-12 at this time.

Everyone's "Nuclear Hitler" scenarios would only be plausible if JCS/STRATCOM wrote out a scenario that had no requirements, which they would never do.

Now, one President can certainly be more trigger happy than another, where if the conditions are met, they might have reason to hold off on ordering a nuclear strike, but that seems to be all the leeway that's built in. I don't think the JCS/STRATCOM could execute a nuclear strike without CinC's order, unless it's written into the OPLAN that way, which many of the response scenarios most likely are.

As far as CONPLAN 8022, as far as I understand (could be wrong), it wasn't so much cancelled as it was integrated (the CONPLAN was no longer needed, as it's functionality was merged into OPLAN).

Up until that point STARTCOM had described strategic deterrence and Global Strike as separate, but after CONPLAN 8022 was canceled in late 2004, STRATCOM started describing Global Strike as synonymous with the offensive leg of the “New Triad,” consisting of nuclear, conventional, and non-kinetic offensive capabilities. JFCC Space and Global Strike was renamed JFCC Global Strike and Integration to describe the integration of Global Strike options into the strategic war plan and regional plans. Defense officials told me Global Strike was “migrating” from CONPLAN 8022 into the other plans as needed. Today the STRATCOM component command that has responsibility for maintenance and execution of the strategic war plan is simply known as JFCC Global Strike; deterrence and WMD preemption have merged.

[jbird4049]

I suddenly realize that I never finished Kings of Kings..

It's an audio book, not a podcast. Those can be hard to finish.

[Smitty-48]

I was assuming that the Carlin-esque "Nuclear Hitler" scenario would have to be a Global Strike LAO rather than say, launch on warning, which would seem to be within the CONPLAN 8044 scope, AFAIK, CONPLAN 8022 was cancelled and is not integrated into 8010-12 at this time.

Everyone's "Nuclear Hitler" scenarios would only be plausible if JCS/STRATCOM wrote out a scenario that had no requirements, which they would never do.

Now, one President can certainly be more trigger happy than another, where if the conditions are met, they might have reason to hold off on ordering a nuclear strike, but that seems to be all the leeway that's built in. I don't think the JCS/STRATCOM could execute a nuclear strike without CinC's order, unless it's written into the OPLAN that way, which many of the response scenarios most likely are.

As far as CONPLAN 8022, as far as I understand (could be wrong), it wasn't so much cancelled as it was integrated (the CONPLAN was no longer needed, as it's functionality was merged into OPLAN).

Up until that point STARTCOM had described strategic deterrence and Global Strike as separate, but after CONPLAN 8022 was canceled in late 2004, STRATCOM started describing Global Strike as synonymous with the offensive leg of the “New Triad,” consisting of nuclear, conventional, and non-kinetic offensive capabilities. JFCC Space and Global Strike was renamed JFCC Global Strike and Integration to describe the integration of Global Strike options into the strategic war plan and regional plans. Defense officials told me Global Strike was “migrating” from CONPLAN 8022 into the other plans as needed. Today the STRATCOM component command that has responsibility for maintenance and execution of the strategic war plan is simply known as JFCC Global Strike; deterrence and WMD preemption have merged.

Ah, I see, well, that makes sense, Curtis LeMay would approve no doubt.

I have a Nuclear Hitler scenario which is workable, but like the actual Hitler rather than the cartoon generally invoked, it would require some significant Machiavellian scheming and time to implement, could not be done short notice at a whim, Hitler did not actually do things short notice at a whim, or a least, he didn't, until the very end, when the pocket started to collapse around him precipitously, which, in this context, would likely mean a launch on warning scenario rather than PGS.

I mean, Dick Cheney got the war he wanted, so can be done, however, does actually require years of scheming and massive complicity in order to implement, can't be done unilaterally by one man alone, even if that man was Hitler.

If the WH is determined to launch a nuclear strike against the DPRK for example, no doubt the DPRK could be baited into a trap, but even so, in order to get to PGS, it would require the complicity of the Executive and Legislative branches working in concert, the President cannot get one of these things going all by himself, couldn't just pick up the phone and order it to be done at a whim.

[adwinistrator]

I have a Nuclear Hitler scenario which is workable, but like the actual Hitler rather than the cartoon generally invoked, it would require some significant Machiavellian scheming and time to implement, could not be done short notice at a whim, Hitler did not actually do things short notice at a whim, or a least, he didn't, until the very end, when the pocket started to collapse around him precipitously, which, in this context, would likely mean a launch on warning scenario rather than PGS.

Now I'm wondering who would get the short straw and be told they have to deny the executive branch...

Let's say, somehow, Nuclear Hitler has his team write up a presidential directive to include a free-use scenario. Does the DoD's OSD tell them to fuck off before talking to USSTRATCOM? If Nuclear Hitler had enough cronies in the DoD to get that directive written out into an actual policy change list, does USSTRATCOM tell the white house no go, or do they tell the OSD to relay the message and fuck off?

I mean, Dick Cheney got the war he wanted, so can be done, however, does actually require years of scheming and massive complicity in order to implement, can't be done unilaterally by one man alone, even if that man was Hitler.

Dick Cheney just had to get the president on board, and get congress to vote. It wasn't easy, but most of the difficulty came in keeping plausible deniability, and making sure no one outed them until it was too late. If only memos like this one were leaked early enough, the right people might have started asking the right questions...

[Smitty-48]

Now I'm wondering who would get the short straw and be told they have to deny the executive branch...

Let's say, somehow, Nuclear Hitler has his team write up a presidential directive to include a free-use scenario. Does the DoD's OSD tell them to fuck off before talking to USSTRATCOM? If Nuclear Hitler had enough cronies in the DoD to get that directive written out into an actual policy change list, does USSTRATCOM tell the white house no go, or do they tell the OSD to relay the message and fuck off?

A "free use scenario", unvetted by national and international law and the laws of armed conflict, opens the door wide for the military to decline the order on the grounds of it being inherently unlawful, need to get the military to vet the plan as being lawful before it is workable, that's why all these OPLANs have to be vetted first, a free use scenario would insert far too much risk of injecting "I'm sorry, sir, but I must decline that order" all the way down the line, "free use" puts too much control in the hands of the military, as without being vetted beforehand by them, you would essentially be leaving it up to them to decide if the attack was lawful or not.

Dick Cheney just had to get the president on board, and get congress to vote. It wasn't easy, but most of the difficulty came in keeping plausible deniability, and making sure no one outed them until it was too late.

Took them a decade to get there though, the Iraq War wasn't put together overnight, the groundwork started being laid right after the first Gulf War, and the Clinton Administration was actually the ones who kept the fire burning, Cheney actually just pulled the Clinton "Regime Change" plan off the shelf and then put it in front of George W and Congress.

[adwinistrator]

A "free use scenario", unvetted by national and international law and the laws of armed conflict, opens the door wide for the military to decline the order on the grounds of it being inherently unlawful, need to get the military to vet the plan as being lawful before it is workable, that's why all these OPLANs have to be vetted first, a free use scenario would insert far too much risk of injecting "I'm sorry, sir, but I must decline that order" all the way down the line, "free use" puts too much control in the hands of the military, as without being vetted beforehand by them, you would essentially be leaving it up to them to decide if the attack was lawful or not.

Oh I agree, it's not going to happen. Now I want to hear your plausible scenario

Took them a decade to get there though, the Iraq War wasn't put together overnight, the groundwork started being laid right after the first Gulf War, and the Clinton Administration was actually the ones who kept the fire burning, Cheney actually just pulled the Clinton "Regime Change" plan off the shelf and then put it in front of George W and Congress.

I won't derail in this thread, but I'd appreciate your contribution to my thread on this in the expertise section.

[Smitty-48]

A "free use scenario", unvetted by national and international law and the laws of armed conflict, opens the door wide for the military to decline the order on the grounds of it being inherently unlawful, need to get the military to vet the plan as being lawful before it is workable, that's why all these OPLANs have to be vetted first, a free use scenario would insert far too much risk of injecting "I'm sorry, sir, but I must decline that order" all the way down the line, "free use" puts too much control in the hands of the military, as without being vetted beforehand by them, you would essentially be leaving it up to them to decide if the attack was lawful or not.

Oh I agree, it's not going to happen. Now I want to hear your plausible scenario

Well, just in broad strokes, first you have to get a scenario which is pre-vetted by the military, then you have to scheme to make that scenario a self fulfilling prophecy, wouldn't be possible if you wanted to nuke Switzerland, but there are certainly regimes which could be incited into the kill zone, the tricky part is just baiting those regimes into fulfilling the parameters of the pre-vetted scenario, at which point, it's the other guy making it happen not you.

If I wanted to make an example of someone by baiting them into a PGS scenario, the DPRK would be my patsy of choice.

[adwinistrator]

A "free use scenario", unvetted by national and international law and the laws of armed conflict, opens the door wide for the military to decline the order on the grounds of it being inherently unlawful, need to get the military to vet the plan as being lawful before it is workable, that's why all these OPLANs have to be vetted first, a free use scenario would insert far too much risk of injecting "I'm sorry, sir, but I must decline that order" all the way down the line, "free use" puts too much control in the hands of the military, as without being vetted beforehand by them, you would essentially be leaving it up to them to decide if the attack was lawful or not.

Oh I agree, it's not going to happen. Now I want to hear your plausible scenario

Well, just in broad strokes, first you have to get a scenario which is pre-vetted by the military, then you have to scheme to make that scenario a self fulfilling prophecy, wouldn't be possible if you wanted to nuke Switzerland, but there are certainly regimes which could be incited into the kill zone, the tricky part is just baiting those regimes into fulfilling the parameters of the pre-vetted scenario, at which point, it's the other guy making it happen not you.

If I wanted to make an example of someone by baiting them into a PGS scenario, the DPRK would be my patsy of choice.

That can work, I was thinking of something like that, but adding in some clandestine 3rd party support... Have another country tell DPRK they've got their back, have them think they've got 3 other countries on their side, when in fact they have no one.

[Ex-California]

Dan quotes Schlosser's Command and Control book in the episode. It's a good book

[adwinistrator]

Dan quotes Schlosser's Command and Control book in the episode. It's a good book

That caught my attention, I'll have to add it to the wish list.