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.)
After months of delay, the council tasked by President Trump to review the FEMA released its final report. Our disaster policy nerds have thoughts.
FAS and FLI partnered to build a series of convenings and reports across the intersections of artificial intelligence (AI) with biosecurity, cybersecurity, nuclear command and control, military integration, and frontier AI governance. This project brought together leaders across these areas and created a space that was rigorous, transpartisan, and solutions-oriented to approach how we should think about how AI is rapidly changing global risks.
Investment should instead be directed at sectors where American technology and innovation exist but the infrastructure to commercialize them domestically does not—and where the national security case is clear.
To tune into the action on the ground, we convened practitioners, state and local officials, advocates, and policy experts to discuss what it will actually take to deploy clean energy faster, modernize electricity systems, and lower costs for households.