0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
974 $
JULY 2020

U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff: Nuclear Weapons Usage Contributes To Restoration Of Strategic Stability


U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff: Nuclear Weapons Usage Contributes To Restoration Of Strategic Stability

Click to see full-size image

On June 11th, the US Department of Defense’s Joint Chiefs of Staff published a new edition of the Doctrine on the Use of Nuclear Weapons and deleted it shortly thereafter.

After it was deleted, a notice stated that the Joint Publication 3-73 was available at the Joint Electronic Library+, which is a restricted access website. The Federation of American Scientists managed to keep a publicly available copy and here it is.

The publication itself has some interesting statements such as:

Using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability. Specifically, the use of a nuclear weapon will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and create conditions that affect how commanders will prevail in conflict.”

Apart from very obvious statements such as the abovementioned, the doctrine mentions the possibility to use tactical nuclear weapons to support the US conventional operations.

The following quote is from the section “Operations in a Nuclear Environment,” and in addition to the information below, it also mentions that commanders should be aware how the nuclear weapons can affect personnel and that using such a weapon has tangible implications with a scope much larger than just the explosion.

“d. The spectrum of nuclear warfare may range from tactical application, to limited regional use, to global employment by friendly forces and/or enemies. The use of a nuclear weapon in support of even tactical operations requires detailed planning at all levels. Whatever the scenario for employment of nuclear weapons, planning and operations must not assume use in isolation but must plan for strike integration into the overall scheme of fires.

e. Employment of nuclear weapons can radically alter or accelerate the course of a campaign. A nuclear weapon could be brought into the campaign as a result of perceived failure in a conventional campaign, potential loss of control or regime, or to escalate the conflict to sue for peace on more-favorable terms. The potential consequences of using nuclear weapons will greatly influence military operations and vastly increase the complexity of the operational environment.

f. Integration of nuclear weapons employment with conventional and special operations forces is essential to the success of any mission or operation.”

Furthermore, the nuclear weapons allow the US President to “escalate or de-escalate a conflict,” in addition to providing simple deterrence against adversaries using nuclear weapons against Washington.

“Joint forces provide flexibility and employment options that allow the US to provide effective deterrence and, if necessary, execute missions against the spectrum of potential targets. Flexibility allows the President to engage the enemy with the capability of escalating or de-escalating a conflict. Flexibility, such as that offered by long-range bombers and dual-capable fighter aircraft, is important because deterrent credibility hinges on having a convincing capability to execute a variety of nuclear and non-nuclear options. Furthermore, nuclear-capable aircraft offer the greatest degree of flexibility in the triad because they can be a highly visible sign of resolve and, once ordered to conduct a nuclear strike, are recallable.”

Thus, the US more than anything wishes to present the notion that it is prepared to use its nuclear weapons to defend itself, to the point that such actions may be taken to simply “restore strategic stability.”

“Developing nuclear contingency plans sends an important signal to adversaries and enemies that the US has the capability and willingness to employ nuclear weapons to defend itself and its allies and partners. The US is prepared to take actions to restore strategic stability, limit damage, and/or terminate the conflict on the best achievable terms for the US, its allies, and partners.”

In essence, the US nuclear forces serve four general purposes according to the doctrine:

  • Deter nuclear and nonnuclear attack;
  • Assure allies and partners;
  • If deterrence fails, achieve US objectives;
  • Hedge against an uncertain future.

The US maintains a triad of strategic nuclear forces consisting of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and long-range bombers. Each system provides strength to the US nuclear force posture through unique and complementary attributes. Further, the strategic triad reduces the possibility that a technical problem in any one leg of the strategic triad or adversary technical advancement will leave the US at a strategic disadvantage.

In addition, if all else fails:

The US and select North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies maintain dual-capable aircraft capable of delivering nuclear or conventional weapons in support of national strategic extended deterrence objectives and bolstering regional deterrence.

Meaning that a retaliation may come even from a NATO ally that has dual-capable aircraft, which is able to deliver a US nuclear weapon.

In conclusion, the new doctrine has the aim of providing for the development of nuclear contingency plans. These plans would provide:

  • Tailored deterrence options, as a basis for dialogue between planners and decision makers before a crisis arises.
  • An opportunity to identify intelligence requirements.
  • A means to assess the anticipated effectiveness of options prior to execution.
  • A means to assess the nature and extent of unintended consequences.
  • The ability to rapidly implement select, flexible deterrent options and, if needed, predetermined nuclear employment options.

The doctrine itself doesn’t really provide anything new in terms of strategy, but it simply proves that the US is ready to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in a regional conventional conflict to reach its goals, and it is officially its doctrine. Notwithstanding, Russia is being accused of wishing to do so in some conflicts, and is turned into “the bad guy,” despite Russia’s nuclear doctrine stating the complete opposite of what the US one sets forth.




Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Normal Person

    Sadly, this is the world we live in. 30 years ago I never thought the discussion of nuclears arms would still be a relevant topic. Why is the world not becoming any safer? Where is our civilization heading? So many weapons are being employed today; from military grade ones, sanctions, trade wars, cyber-attacks and disinformation (fake news). It is just a matter of time before patience runs out, then there will be no way back. Your leaders have failed to inform
    that there is technically no air defense system to neutralize a nuclear exchange when it comes to advanced military adversaries.

    • Tommy Jensen
      • Concrete Mike

        LMAo thats western.society for you!

        • Tommy Jensen

          All this hybrid wars and militarisation has off course a purpose and a plan behind. What is this plan?
          According to Rockefellers UN they have all signed in for Agenda 21^30. Reduction of the population from 8 to 1 billion “sustainable” people. The Royals, the Billionaires and the peasants to serve in stupid jobs.
          Believe me, the sheeple are and will be working day and night to fulfil UNs “sustainability” plans. Run sheeple, run!

      • verner


        • S Melanson

          One of your finest posts. Clearly you are the incarnation of Nostradamus and can see our ultimate fate… or is it really?

      • gustavo

        This is exactly what the ants do when they have overpopulation (marabunta).

    • omrizkiblog

      (((they))) moved by bottomless greed and arrogance.

  • Rob

    For these drunk morons butchering innocent citizens in Mid east by using nuclear weapons is good for restoration of strategic stability or for survival of Israeli cancer.

    • FlorianGeyer

      Israel is on the target lis of Iran and possibly even Russia if the US resorts to this insanity.

      If only it was possible to see ancient videos of the Fall of the Roman Empire.
      I would think it would replicate the crass arrogance of the US today.

      • Rob


  • verner

    and then you have the squatters lurking around the gulf of oman with one or two of its stealth subs (german made) with nuke-tipped missiles itching to use them against Iran and the iranian people,

    and no one bothers about the ethnic cleansing program the squatters run on palestinian land, or the Lebensraum-program where they steal, true jewish trait, as much land as they can get away with from the palestinians and that amounts to 100% and that they operate concentration camp gaza a la hitler’s program of annihilation of an entire indigenous people or maybe they just copy the morons’ indian war program.

  • TiredOfBsToo

    The quickest way for the US regime to disappear from the face of the planet is to attempt to use nukes of ANY size against Russia/China. The sad part of all of this is that you have psychopaths eager to mass murder on the world stage in the hopes of profiting financially. These morons lack the intellectual gray matter to even be selected to work on any ‘defense’ report much less nukes.

    • FlorianGeyer

      If that is the case, Russia and China should react to any missile attack from US assets as if it is a nuclear attack, and destroy US assets everywhere.

      • TiredOfBsToo

        I don’t know if they’d react that way, certainly there’s that real strong possibility that it would happen that way, after all, a delay could render them unable to retaliate in strength. I guess it might depend on the number of missiles launched and the projected target, after all, the Russian leadership seems to be more civilized then the nuts with nukes in the US, UK & Israel, which don’t seem to value human existence in the least as they’ve proven so often. That’s why I believe the situation is a lot more dangerous these days.

  • Tommy Jensen

    Exactly what me and Bolton have pointed out.
    US has the capability and willingness to tactical nuclear carpet bombings to defend ourselves and to send a signal to those who dont behave in the International rules of order. Dont fok with an American!

    • Vas

      Nice joke, but they will never dare to do it because there would be huge consequences to them.

    • FlorianGeyer

      Gosh, Bolton is your buddy?
      I never realised you were sooooo important :)

    • grumpy_carpenter

      So the USA and Russia are two gunfighters facing each other on a dusty street. The US strategy is “if I draw my gun and wing him he’ll run away and I’ll win”

      And you believe what? That when the Russians see you go for your gun their response will be to drop their guns in fear and run away?

      The last time the Russians gave a country the benefit of the doubt and didn’t respond immediately to a threat they lost 28 million people and 5 decades of development. they won’t make that mistake twice. The USA goes for the nukes the Russian will blow your heads off with everything they got. They are going to take casualties one way or another so you can be dam sure they are going to take you with them at the first sign of nuclear attack.

      That strategy comes from some think tank kid who has never been in a fight in their lives. In a bar fight that you know you have no way of avoiding do you let your opponent get the first punch in then drop to the floor in tears begging for mercy or do you sucker him then put the boots to him so he can’t get up and do you harm. I know what my choice would be.

    • gustavo

      Brave north-american watching the destruction of the Hirshima and Nagasaki cities and civil people from their ships during WWII.

      • Tommy Jensen

        With shiny eyes “guided by the beauty of our weapons”.

        • gustavo

          You did not get the point. USA here shows cowardice and criminal behavior, as USA showed when USA-UK bombed Dresden.

    • Xoli Xoli

      Now press the buttons.Just like in Hiroshima

  • Tudor Miron

    US is the only country in the world to have actually used nuclear weapons – till this day they are not sorry and openly state that it was a right thing to do. This article shows that this sick mentality never changed.

    • FlorianGeyer

      You will doubtless know the facts of the 90’s, but you will still enjoy this video from 2012, I think.


      Your President describes the journey to reclaim the assets of the Russian people that had been appropriated by the US and other jackals in the 90’s.

      • Tudor Miron

        Product sharing agreement – that was one of key rules imposed on Russia to loot it to the bone. What is funny is that 90% of even Russian population do not know about it. What is funny is that law was introduced in parlament by “Apple” party who’s leader Javlinsky loves to brag about liberal values.

        • FlorianGeyer

          Its high time that Russian media was asked to broadcast that interview I think Tudor.

          When I first listened to it all those years ago, I was shocked to see the venal ways of the West toward Russia.

          • Tudor Miron

            Ruzionic press (and that is majority of our media) will not broadcast this kind of things.

          • FlorianGeyer

            Its the same in the UK. Old faces hate to get off the Gravy Train and old faces have a power network established.
            It takes decades for a real clean out.

          • Tudor Miron

            Have you seen it all? That movie (Unknown Putin)

          • FlorianGeyer

            Not since 2014, Tudor. I must lok again. The part that struck me at the time was the very one sided Resource Share Agreement.

          • Tudor Miron

            Thank for your sharing the link I looking at it now. A must see to realize how close we were to total collapse. I knew a lot but this film is something special. I suggest that you look at all the parts (I found 5 parts with English translation and subtitles).

          • FlorianGeyer

            I will look during the weekend.

            It is easier to understand the hatred that the US has for President Putin when one realises that he prevented the rape of Russia .

            I just wish that Britain had such a leader who would root out the parasites in Britain and also stand tall against the USA.

        • goingbrokes

          Product sharing agreement – what a disgusting misnomer. They might as well have called it free trade agreement = you give us everything for free.

    • S Melanson

      Indeed it has not changed since 1945. The 1950s Eisenhower-Dulles Doctrine of Roll-back was a repudiation of Kennan’s Containment Policy with Diplomacy conducted by Dulles as a game of brinksmanship. Secretary of State Dulles believed nuclear weapons were an effective coercive tool in ultimatum diplomacy with a nuclear doctrine that integrated use of nuclear weapons into conventional warfare without stipulation of no first use. Eisenhower oversaw a massive increase in US stocks of nuclear weapons to a staggering 21,000 warheads.

      There are scholarly papers that discuss this and ominously point out that Bolton is essentially like Dulles – but even scarier. So it is no mystery the Doomsday clock is currently set to the closest to midnight ever – which is 2 minutes. It was set to 2 minutes only one other time and never closer, that was 1955, during Eisenhower and Dulles administration. Dulles brinksmanship was the basis for JFK’s handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis and we were very very close to nuclear war based on faulty CIA intel (imagine that). We were lucky.

      Today, nuclear doctrine has in reality always been part of conventional war strategy and tactical planning with restraint of use largely lip service. Kennan foresaw this and containment was a strategy to prevent war and for good reason. Today, will we be so lucky? Can we depend on Trump, who appointed the Armageddon dream team Pompeo and Bolton, to pull us back from the brink?