What the President Means, Is …

Many analysts greeted Presidential Directive 59 with the sort of derision reserved for any political ploy that is as transparent as it is useless. Released just before the Democratic National Convention, and without the prior knowledge of the Secretary of State, PD-59 appeared to be the Carter Administration’s answer to the defense plank of the Republican platform. But the judgment that it can therefore be dismissed as mere campaign tactics may have been premature. A closer inspection of PD-59 reveals that it may fundamentally alter United States strategic policy in ways of which the public has not yet become aware.

Presidential Directive 59 is a still classified document which the Administration claims will add flexibility to this nation’s strategic targeting doctrine, through increased emphasis on military (counterforce) targets, and decreased emphasis on civilian population (countervalue) targets. As far as it goes, this shift of emphasis brings U.S. targeting policy more in line with conservative principles concerning nuclear war, and goes a long way toward replacing the doctrine of mutual assured destruction (MAD), the cornerstone of our strategic policy since the mid-1960s.

DH

About the Author

Damian Housman

Featured Tags

Many analysts greeted Presidential Directive 59 with the sort of derision reserved for any political ploy that is as transparent as it is useless. Released just before the Democratic National Convention, and without the prior knowledge of the Secretary of State, PD-59 appeared to be the Carter Administration’s answer to the defense plank of the Republican platform. But the judgment that it can therefore be dismissed as mere campaign tactics may have been premature. A closer inspection of PD-59 reveals that it may fundamentally alter United States strategic policy in ways of which the public has not yet become aware.

Presidential Directive 59 is a still classified document which the Administration claims will add flexibility to this nation’s strategic targeting doctrine, through increased emphasis on military (counterforce) targets, and decreased emphasis on civilian population (countervalue) targets. As far as it goes, this shift of emphasis brings U.S. targeting policy more in line with conservative principles concerning nuclear war, and goes a long way toward replacing the doctrine of mutual assured destruction (MAD), the cornerstone of our strategic policy since the mid-1960s.