|I know many of you don't want to hear this, but some of the aspects of the new nuclear contingency plan are rather stupid. I agree with the parts about deterrence, retaliation, etc. However, the use of nuclear weapons in response to "suprising military developments" seems to stray from the mutually-assured-destruction doctrine that has prevented the use of nukes post-WW2. If we adopt this doctrine, Russia and China will also in reciprocity. Couldn't Russia declare the Chechen rebellion a "suprising military development" and nuke (the remnants) of Grozny? Couldn't China declare a Filipino military presence on the Spratleys a "suprising military development" and fire some IRBMs at Manila? Or even more disturbing would be if the Middle Eastern and South Asian nations adopted this policy. What if India had this policy when Pakistani troops assisted the Kashmiris in taking over key Himalayan peaks along the LOC? There would have been hundreds of millions of casualties.... . My point is, this new plan could cause tactical and even strategic weapons to be supplements to conventional weaponry on the modern battlefield. We would be ignorant to think that we would be the only nation to adopt this policy... and the other countries that may adopt are not only unstable, but irresponsible. Again, I agree with the targets and the aspects of retaliation and detterence, but using nuclear weapons for tactical purposes with no WMD provocation could be disastrous for the entire planet.