HONOLULU -- We were shocked and dismayed to learn that the Pentagon has allegedly been instructed to develop contingency plans calling for the use of nuclear weapons to deter or respond to a chemical or biological attack on the United States. We say "allegedly" because we are relying on (at best) secondhand accounts of the Defense Department's Nuclear Posture Review. We haven't had direct access to this classified report -- but, then again, neither have the overwhelming majority of those who have joined the chorus of protest against this congressionally mandated review.
The shock and dismay comes from the revelation -- if true -- that more than 10 years after the United States and its allies issued a firm warning to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that the use of chemical or biological weapons against Desert Storm forces would result in retaliation "by all available means" (read nuclear weapons), the Pentagon is just now getting around to developing contingency plans for such an option against Iraq or others who are known or suspected to possess chemical or biological (or nuclear) weapons. What took them so long?
Keep in mind that contingency plans do not lock you into a particular course of action; they merely entail the development of a range of possible responses to an anticipated crisis. Developing a plan does not mean that nuclear weapons automatically, or even inevitably, will be used. The primary reason for factoring them in is to remind potential adversaries -- as the 1991 announcement effectively reminded Hussein -- that use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) could trigger an equally horrific response. This is called deterrence.