Des documents obtenus par la Federation of American Scientists gr\u00e2ce au Freedom of Information Act<\/em> mettent en \u00e9vidence que le Pentagone a planifi\u00e9 une guerre nucl\u00e9aire adapt\u00e9e \u00e0 la guerre contre la terreur, contre les rogue states<\/em> soup\u00e7onn\u00e9s de d\u00e9velopper des armes de destruction massive (sont cit\u00e9s quelques usual suspects<\/em>: Irak, Iran, Syrie, Libye). C’est le site TPMmuckracker.com<\/em> qui d\u00e9veloppe une analyse de cette r\u00e9v\u00e9lation, le 5 novembre<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abDespite years of denials, a secret planning document issued by the U.S. military’s nuclear-weapons command in 2003 ordered preparations for nuclear strikes on countries seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including Iran, Saddam Hussein-era Iraq, Libya and Syria.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbA briefing (pdf) on the document obtained by the Federation of American Scientists, showed that the document itself was created to flesh out a 2001 Bush administration revision of long-standing nuclear-weapons policy, known as the Nuclear Posture Review. That review was a Defense Department-led attempt to wean nuclear policy off a Cold-War focus on Russia and China, but the shift raised questions about what purpose nuclear forces would serve apart from deterring an attack. In March 2002, leaks indicated that the review would recommend preparations for nuclear attacks against WMD-aspirant states. Arms Control Today pointed out at the time that planning to attack non-nuclear states that were signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty reversed decades of U.S. nuclear policy.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe administration’s response was to deny that the review moved the U.S. from deterrence to a first-strike posture. After the leaks, the Defense Department issued a statement in March 2002 saying cryptically, This administration is fashioning a more diverse set of options for deterring the threat of WMD. … A combination of offensive and defensive, and nuclear and non-nuclear capabilities is essential to meet the deterrence requirements of the 21st century. Speaking to CNN around the same time, General Richard Myers, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Nuclear Posture Review was not a plan, it’s not an operational plan. It’s a policy document. And it simply states our deterrence posture, of which nuclear weapons are a part. Vice President Dick Cheney said at the time that the notion that the review paved the way for preemptive nuclear strikes was a bit over the top.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbBut that now looks to be an explanation too clever by half. Perhaps the review itself didn’t contain operational plans. But guidance documents created to flesh it out did.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbOne such document is known as OPLAN 8044 Revision 03. That document is an update of the basic nuclear-weapons plan, formerly known as the Single Integrated Operational Plan. It was created by the U.S. Strategic Command (Stratcom), which has responsibility for nuclear-weapons planning, doctrine and maintenance. Using the Freedom of Information Act, the Federation of American Scientists obtained a briefing on how Stratcom’s OPLAN 8044 Revision 03 changed the nuclear-policy paradigm. For the first time in U.S. nuclear history, plans for nuclear attack on regional targets around the world were included in the basic nuclear war planning document.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tComme on le lit dans l’extrait ci-dessus, il ne s’agit pas d’une surprise compl\u00e8te ou d’une r\u00e9v\u00e9lation sans pr\u00e9misses. On savait que certaines op\u00e9rations nucl\u00e9aires \u00e9taient envisag\u00e9es en th\u00e9orie contre certains pays soup\u00e7onn\u00e9s de d\u00e9velopper des ADM. De telles d\u00e9marches th\u00e9oriques sont courantes dans les bureaucraties nucl\u00e9aires, selon les situations conflictuelles potentielles. La r\u00e9v\u00e9lation porte ici sur la planification effective, impliquant d’\u00e9ventuels plans de guerre et un repositionnement des forces, ou d’une partie de ces forces, pour les conflits en question. C’est une situation importante dans la mesure o\u00f9 la nouvelle doctrine strat\u00e9gique US pr\u00e9voit la possibilit\u00e9 d’attaques et de frappes nucl\u00e9aires pr\u00e9ventives. Cette doctrine est sp\u00e9cifiquement destin\u00e9e \u00e0 des situations de la guerre contre la terreur, c’est-\u00e0-dire contre des pays type-rogue states<\/em>. Par cons\u00e9quent, la planification a \u00e9t\u00e9 r\u00e9alis\u00e9e selon des mod\u00e8les de guerre nucl\u00e9aire pr\u00e9ventive, ce qui repr\u00e9sente sans doute une premi\u00e8re strat\u00e9gique pour ces circonstances, dans un cadre administratif normal, sur instructions du pouvoir civil.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tCes diverses pr\u00e9cisions confirment un courant d’analyse g\u00e9n\u00e9rale concernant les USA, leur \u00e9volution strat\u00e9gique, leur attitude vis-\u00e0-vis de l’arme nucl\u00e9aire. Il s’agit d’une \u00e9volution qui a des ant\u00e9c\u00e9dents: les agitations du g\u00e9n\u00e9ral LeMay<\/a> dans les ann\u00e9es 1950<\/a> (planification d’une frappe pr\u00e9ventive contre l’URSS, mais d’une mani\u00e8re clandestine, sans instructions du pouvoir civil); surtout, une appr\u00e9ciation diff\u00e9rente de la guerre nucl\u00e9aire n\u00e9e \u00e0 la fin des ann\u00e9es 1970. Le constat g\u00e9n\u00e9ral est \u00e9vident. Les strat\u00e8ges am\u00e9ricanistes n’ont con\u00e7u qu’exceptionnellement, sous la pression de la probabilit\u00e9 d’un an\u00e9antissement r\u00e9ciproque USA-URSS en cas de guerre nucl\u00e9aire entre les deux puissances, l’id\u00e9e que l’arme nucl\u00e9aire est une arme de non-emploi, comme disent les Fran\u00e7ais. Fondamentalement, les strat\u00e8ges US et les dirigeants civils pensent, aujourd’hui, sans aucun doute, que l’arme nucl\u00e9aire est une arme comme les autres et qu’il ne serait pas inint\u00e9ressant de l’utiliser un jour. C’est un point psychologique essentiel.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 7 novembre 2007 \u00e0 07H08<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Des documents obtenus par la Federation of American Scientists gr\u00e2ce au Freedom of Information Act mettent en \u00e9vidence que le Pentagone a planifi\u00e9 une guerre nucl\u00e9aire adapt\u00e9e \u00e0 la guerre contre la terreur, contre les rogue states soup\u00e7onn\u00e9s de d\u00e9velopper des armes de destruction massive (sont cit\u00e9s quelques usual suspects: Irak, Iran, Syrie, Libye). C’est… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[3605,2645,3004,3607,3606,3744],"class_list":["post-69387","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-frappe","tag-guerre","tag-nucleaire","tag-planification","tag-preventive","tag-terreur"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69387","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=69387"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69387\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69387"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69387"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69387"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}