Military Takes “Proactive” Stance Against WMD Threats
The U.S. military says it is taking a more assertive stance against the proliferation or use of weapons of mass destruction.
Newly updated tactical military doctrine “represents a major shift from the former, passive defense nature against nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons to a broader, active, and preventive approach toward a wider range of CBRN [chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear] threats and hazards,” according to a new manual (pdf) on CBRN Operations.
The new posture constitutes “a significant doctrinal shift from ‘reactive’ to ‘proactive’ military capabilities. These actions are being performed at the tactical level, perhaps, now more than ever,” the unclassified manual said. See “Multi-Service Doctrine for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Operations,” U.S. Army Field Manual 3-11, July 2011.
The manual states that in accordance with international law, “The United States will never use chemical weapons.” Likewise, “The United States will never use biological weapons.”
However, “The United States may use nuclear weapons to terminate a conflict or war at the lowest acceptable level of hostilities.” (That stark statement is not new, and appeared in prior doctrine published in 2003.)
Americans are paying too much for almost everything, because the United States has long treated its trucking industry as an artifact to be preserved rather than as an opportunity for innovation.
These ideas aim to advance the detailed policy solutions needed to foster public trust and implement fairness in the adoption of AI across diverse domains, from healthcare and government benefits to rural access, education, and worker protections.
The evidence is clear: algorithmic pay-setting is established in app-based work, and payroll/timekeeping failures show how software can produce systemic wage harm at scale
While a few states have taken steps to implement decision-making mechanisms for certain AI systems, too many leaders are simply accepting narratives about AI’s purported public benefit at face value – jumping to the “how” of AI implementation before thoroughly vetting potential systems and deciding whether they are appropriate to use at all.