decem said:
but how do you know that this is a "more provocatory US global warfare stategy?" we could only assume what stances other administrations might have taken on use of nuclear weaponry in like situations.. even had they expressed what their "probable" stance would be.. when all is said and done.. there's no telling what tactics/stance would have been utilized then.. or now..
Decem,
A bunch of articles inferred the doctineral shift in US deployment of nuclear weapons.
ill give u a few quotes from the LA times article:
1) "The Bush administration, in a secret policy review completed early this year, *has ordered the Pentagon to draft contingency plans* for the use of nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, naming not only Russia and the "axis of evil"--Iraq, Iran, and North Korea--but also China, Libya and Syria."
2) "In addition, the U.S. Defense Department has *been told to prepare* for the possibility that nuclear weapons may be required in some future Arab-Israeli crisis."
3) "Nevertheless, the Bush administration plan reverses an almost two-decade-long trend of relegating nuclear weapons to the category of weapons of last resort. It also redefines nuclear requirements in hurried post-Sept. 11 terms."
4) "China, because of its nuclear forces and "developing strategic objectives," is listed as "a country that could be involved in an immediate or potential contingency." Specifically, the NPR lists a military confrontation over the status of Taiwan as one of the scenarios that could lead Washington to use nuclear weapons."
5) "The second important insight the NPR offers into Pentagon thinking about nuclear policy is the extent to which the Bush administration's strategic planners were shaken by last September's terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Though Congress directed the new administration "to conduct a comprehensive review of U.S. nuclear forces" before the events of Sept. 11, the final study is striking for its single-minded reaction to those tragedies.
a) Heretofore, nuclear strategy tended to exist as something apart from the ordinary challenges of foreign policy and military affairs. Nuclear weapons were not just the option of last resort, they were the option reserved for times when national survival hung in the balance--a doomsday confrontation with the Soviet Union, for instance.
Now, nuclear strategy seems to be viewed through the prism of Sept. 11. For one thing, the Bush administration's faith in old-fashioned deterrence is gone."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-arkinmar10.story
The preceding quotes prove:
1) a major shift in US nuclear deployment docterine has occured - historically from a role of deterance, now to one of offensive strike capability.
2) quote #5a) and #4, within the context of all other quotes *prove* historical US nuclear deployment docterine ecompassed only doomsday scenerios. A Chinese invasion of Taiwan is a regional conflict, hardly threatening US politically stablity. Therefore, a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would historically be classified as a nondoomsday scenerio. The current NPC's (Nuclear Posture Review) inclusion of China as a recommended target of a US nuclear first-strike, in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, proves a significant shift in US nuclear docteronal strategy has occured with regards to US - Sino relations.
If u want to go more indepth its possible. What ud have to do is reveiw all declassified or leaked historical NPC documents and determine US - Sino nuclear deployment strategy. All current evidence strongly suggests it was nonexistent prior to the Bush administration.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
