The nine documents below point to an extremely high probability that the Bush administration will use tactical nuclear weapons in its planned offensive against Iran.

The outcome of the November election will be the deciding factor in whether Bush goes to war before he leaves office.

Nuclear Posture Review 2001,(exerpts): “Nuclear weapons… provide credible military options to deter a wide range of threats, including WMD and large-scale conventional military force …U.S. military forces themselves, including nuclear forces will now be used to dissuade adversaries from undertaking military programs or operations that could threaten U.S. interests or those of allies and friends… Composed of both non-nuclear systems and nuclear weapons, the strike element of the New Triad can provide greater flexibility in the design and conduct of miltary campaigns to defeat opponents decisively… Nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack, (for example, deep underground bunkers or bio-weapon facilities)… North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya are among the countries that could be involved in immediate, potential, or unexpected contingencies.”

Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, 2005: “Geographic combatant commanders may request Presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons… To demonstrate US intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD”

Conditions under which nuclear weapons may be used: “For rapid and favorable war termination on US terms.”

National Security Strategy, 2006: “…the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively… using all elements of national power…Safe, credible and reliable nuclear forces continue to play a critical role…”

National Military Strategy to Combat WMD, 2006: “Offensive operations may include kinetic (both conventional and nuclear)… to deter or defeat a WMD threat…”

Linton Brooks, NNSA Director, to Congress, 2004: “The Nuclear Posture Review represented a radical departure from the past and the most fundamental rethinking of the roles and purposes of nuclear weapons in almost a quarter-century… Instead of treating nuclear weapons in isolation, it considered them as an integrated component of American military power…To provide a practical means to implement this new, integrated aproach, the President established a new Strategic Command, with responsibility for global strike – both nuclear and non-nuclear …”

Gen. Cartwright, StratCom head, to Congress, 2005: “…We are active participants in all three legs of The New Triad: offensive nuclear and non-nuclear strike, … The New Triad concept will enable more precisely tailored global strike operations. With a full spectrum of nuclear, conventional and non-kinetic options available, regional combatant commanders will be enabled to achieve specific local effects against high value targets in the context of the strategic objective…”

Earth-penetrating nuclear weapons, FAS report: “The United States has one type of nuclear earth penetrator, the B61-11 bomb, which was accepted into the stockpile in September 2001” (Congressional Research Service)

National Research Council report: “in remote, lightly populated areas, casualties can range from as few as hundreds at low weapon yields to hundreds of thousands at high yields and with unfavorable winds”

“The Bush administration has radically redefined America’s nuclear use policy: US nuclear weapons are no longer regarded as qualitatively different from conventional weapons. Many actions of the administration in recent years strongly suggest that an imminent US nuclear use is being planned for, and this was confirmed by Bush’s explicit refusal to rule out a US nuclear strike against Iran. We have all been put on notice. The fact that North Korea is now a nuclear country does not change the agenda – quite the contrary.”

Click here to read Voting against nuclear war with Iran, by Jorge Hirsch