Bloomin Heck.
The US Air Force has revised its doctrine on operations for counterproliferation.
Pages 8, 17-18, 26-28 and 46 make especially interesting reading.
I think my favourite bit is on page 26...
Legal Considerations
The preemptive nature of counterforce operations, particularly when not
connected to a broader military campaign, is subject to conflicting interpretations of
international law. Given this controversial nature, orders to conduct counterforce
operations will likely originate at the highest levels of the United States Government.
Resulting rules of engagement may be highly restrictive given the inherently high
operational risk and potential for collateral damage.
Someone has been thinking hard about this.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Well I guess Boeing does a lot of government research so it really isn't surprising that they would be involved with some of the really stupid things the military has been involved in. Thankfully their research didn't focus on flying their planes psychically (well that we know of). From Danger…
What happens when a Nobel Peace Prize winner breaks international law in the rules of war? The world may find out as increased attention is being focused on the use of unmanned military drones that are carrying out assassinations of suspected militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Philip Alston,…
While perusing the new Richard Dawkins website a while back, I came across an article that, if you know my interest in World War II, you'd know that I couldn't resist commenting on, and it's been in my "to write about" queue for a few weeks now. In it, Dawkins discusses the aerial bombing campaigns…
One of our longtime heros of Shifting Baselines is Pulitzer Prize-nominated journalist Mark Dowie. In this recent essay he takes the Bush administration to task over their plans for large scale (too large?) aquaculture. What he notes is that, "while the U.S. Congress recently passed amendments to…
It is the job of the military to think about pretty much any eventuality, just in case. There are probably detailed plans to invade Canada. That doesn't mean it's likely we will invade Canada. However, given the rhetoric about Iran and the efforts of this administration to "prove" that Iran has supplied military aid to the insurgents in Iraq, and the rhetoric about Iran's nuclear program, it's a little more disturbing.
This quote (" ...subject to conflicting interpretations of international law.") would be funny if it weren't so tragic. I suppose it would be subject to interpretation of international law in the same sense that the US invasion of Iraq was: the US says it's OK and virtually the entire rest of the world says it's not. That makes it OK, since only the US interpretation of international law is valid. Same reasoning with the prisoners we keep and mistreat or give to other countries to mistreat.
Certainly is.
They should have contingenices and they should plan for them and they should exercise the plans.
There is not time to do everything at once, so what is being revised may be some indicator of what is pressing.
Ultimately, such things are political decisions and at some level unpredictable.
It is the condemned prisoner's paradox - even if Iran expects an attack they will still be surprised when it occurs.