'AirLand Battle Doctrine'
Socialist Action1980sPaul LawsonScanned print read by OCR, and not yet proofread: expect run-together words, dropped letters and, where a piece began partway down a page, a few lines of its neighbour. The printed page is the authority.
NATO has always planned to use nuclear weapons threatened by defeat in a conventional Thus NATO has believed in the first use of nuclear weapons.
But the use of nuclear weapons is no longer a last resort for the United States. The US Army's 'AirLand Battle specifies the use of nuclear weapons in virtually large armed conflict. PAUL LAWSON here argues that for NATO the distinction between conventional nuclear war is rapidly disappearing.
Alongside the fight against Cruise and Pershing, the West German Peace movement is raising a new Dallic uny AirLand Battle doctrine'. This ag- - the struggle against gressive new warfighting policy now constitutes the US basic 'how to fight' principles for what the US army sees as a decade of 'intense, deadly and costly battles'.* AirLand Battle doctrine makes nuclear war much more likely for two reasons: it emphasises seizing the initiative' and has a clear bias towards pre-emptive, strikes. it proposes substitution of small equipped rapid deployment forces as substitute for slower, less mobile conventionally forces.
AirLand Battle doctrine
developed at the Training and Doctrine Command headquarters Fort Monroe, Virginia codified in the August 1982 field manual (100-5, Operations). manual declares that in future wars L'S forces should conduct unpredictable and violent' attacks deep into enemy territory disorientate the enemy.
The manual declares that 'the offensive is the decisive form of war' and advises the use of 'every if war. always doctrine' Many army's weapon, asset offensive the nuclear- an unexpected direction' armed Mearsheimer put it, was close to calling strikes'. at is civilians as distant as The manoeuvering time (between 'rapid, thirdly, the to weapons.
The nuclear Socialist Action, 10 February 1984;
combat multiplier to throw the enemy off guard with a powerful blow from The significance of this new US Army approach is threefold. First, as Harvard military analyst John it comes very for pre-emptive Second, the 'deep battle' attacks it calls for would hit enemy troops, equipment and potentially 72 hours and 150 miles) - before the enemy sIon, troops even began to fight. And combination of weapons advised for such attacks invariably includes tactical nuclear armed AirLand Battle divisions will be available for worldwide military operations, but regarded as particularly suitable for fighting wars Europe, the Middle East Korea. While the United States has gone to great pains to construct its massive conventional Deployment Force, it would take several weeks to put it into full operation.
Brigades modelled on AirLand doctrine will be able to go into action rapidly and deliver devastating firepower. An AirLand Battle diviwill employ light vehicles, new weapons, advanced electronic warfare devices heavily armed helicopters'. The US and World Report commented that 'it is no accident that this new division will most closely resemble Israel's lean fighting in Rapid weight force'. Such a division would only require half as much air power as a conventionally-armed get to, for example, the Middle East.
The US Army's public relations approach to AirLand battle is that it is so destructive, that it would make escalation into nuclear war less likely. But this is not borne. out by the policy itself. US forces have always been nuclear weapons first, but previous strategy has weapons for situations where conventional means prove inadequate to attain the desired goal. The new doctrine sharply alters this concept.
Repeated emphasis in the doctrine manual is put on the objective of using the maximum violence to rapidly attain total completely destroy force. ed, they should and in depth. weapons' air-delivered division to Power prepared USC reserved nuclear structs victory and the enemy If nuclear weapons are to be usbe used early on 'Tactical nuclear 'among the chief means of deep battle' (along with weapons, field artillery, air manoeuvre units and unconventional warfare forces).
Nuclear weapons are deemed to be particularly effective 'when attacking follow on formations or forces in depth because of their inherent power and because of reduced concerns about troop safety or collateral damage.' Or to put that in plain English, the policy incommanders to target nuclear weapons deep into enemy territory and fire them early, so that blast and radiation only kills enemy troops and civilians and does not spill over into US forces.
Nuclear weapons mended for use in other situations as well. After a succesful attack, when the force must move quickly to exploit its forward momentum, 'nuclear or chemical weapons may be useful for destroying enemy artillery and reserves, closing routes
of escape, and engulfing suitable argets With sufficient nuclear or chemical fire support, the exbloitation can be lauched shortly after the attack itself".
Or again, during a withdrawal operation 'stealth or ground attack may be necessary to divert the enemy's attention'.
The huge amounts of firepower are dealt with here in such a matterof-fact way that it might lull us into thinking that we are dealing here with little' nuclear bombs. very opposite is the case. 'Tactical' refers more to how a weapon is used ('attacks on targets with more or less direct effects on the course of the battle') than the destructive power of the bomb. For example many of the weapons used under AirLand doctrine are more powerful than those dropped Hiroshima (13 kilotons) Nagasaki (23 kilotons). Necessity The US army's Lance missile carries a warhead of up to 100 kilotons. Over 2000 Lance missles have been built and an 'enhanced radiation' version has been under production since 1981. missiles are also a component part of AirLand divisions, warheads of between 60 and 100 kilotons.
The necessity to win quickly by using all-out violence is lege in Carlisle, Described as the on the screen.
Indiscriminate tion' Teneve the nuclear weapons'. willingness to Army commanders.
sanction the weapons. But given to the manders, ( enemy troop formations. nuclear or The 'V1l or Pershing with battles being taught to US army commanders on the Janus computer system at the US Army War ColPennsylvania. 'world's SIROSU powerful combat simulator' the Janus computer can project any 15 square miles of the earth's surface Janus director Donald Blumenthal noted that the high ranking officers who played the war game had a disturbing tendency to resort to nuclear weapons indiscriminately. 'If they were caught out of posiThe said 'they would try to situation by using Perhaps this resort to nuclear weapons stems from the fact that the simulation is after all a game, but there is little doubt that such training makes the use of nuclear weapons more thinkable for US Despite the complete integration of nuclear weapons use into • US combat plans, it remains the case that only the President can use of nuclear this authority is limited to an 'authority to release' nuclear weapons. The when, where and how of their use would be battlefield comwho would have full discretionary rights to utilise them to attack towns and cities as well as fact.
Previous debate has tended to focus on whether a 'limited nuclear war' could be restricted to an exchange of battlefield weapons. AirLand Battle doctrine things much clearer. The 'tactical' weapons would be of Hiroshima size or bigger.
In a European theatre war millions of civilians would probably die even if the war did not escalate into an all-out exchange of intercontinental weapons.
But the final conclusion is even more stark. There is no possibility whatever of the US army engaging in a conventional war in Europe without it turning into a nuclear conflagration.
Moreover, the scenario is being prepared for a 'third world' situation. This would involve the US fighting any enemy, for example in the Middle East, of considerable size and power whether a conventional army or a strong guerrilla force — with large units of the US forces.
In other words, the AirLand style of devastating attack is being prepared for use against enemies which do not even possess nuclear weapons, let alone an enemy which has not yet used them.
No major conflict will fought in Europe by NATO forces without involving the United States Army. That army is irrevocably pledged to the use of nuclear weapons in wartime, and by inference so is the NATO alliance. Those many people who support unilateral nuclear disarmament by Britain but wish to stay in NATO should take careful note of this fact.
*Unless otherwise stated, all quotes are from the AirLand doctrine manual (105 — Operations) published by the US Army.
Socialist Action 10 February 1984 - 7