Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told
The west must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack
to try to halt the "imminent" spread of nuclear and other weapons
of mass destruction, according to a radical manifesto for a new
Nato by five of the west's most senior military officers and
strategists. 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/nato/story/0,,2244782,00.html

See the neocon's founding paper, a blueprint for world domination:
http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Published in sept '00, it contains the following:
"As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the
world's most preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in
the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does
the United States have the vision to build upon the achievement of
past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a
new century favorable to American principles and interests?
[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet
both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and
purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national
leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities. ...
To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades,
the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment
with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit
the emerging revolution in military affairs. ...  A transformation
strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from
the United States ... and sacrificed forward basing and presence,
would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble
American allies.  Further, the process of transformation, even if
it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent
some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

Essential viewing:
Hijacking Catastrophe
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3320922145165829917

Essential listening:
The global dominance group
http://www.audioport.org/index.php?op=program-info&program_id=7548

Essential reading:
"This study examines how interlocking public private partnerships,
including the corporate media, public relations firms, military
contractors, policy elites, and government officials, jointly support
a US military global domination agenda. We ask the traditional
sociological questions regarding who wins, who decides, and who
facilitates action inside the most powerful military-industrial
complex in the world."
http://www.projectcensored.org/downloads/Global_Dominance_Group.pdf

"...  Today, for the first time in almost 50 years, the United
States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy. It will
probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the
long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike.
This dramatic shift in the nuclear balance of power stems from a
series of improvements in the United States' nuclear systems, the
precipitous decline of Russia's arsenal, and the glacial pace of
modernization of China's nuclear forces. Unless Washington's policies
change or Moscow and Beijing take steps to increase the size and
readiness of their forces, Russia and China -- and the rest of the
world -- will live in the shadow of U.S. nuclear primacy for many
years to come.
"... The intentional pursuit of nuclear primacy is, moreover,
entirely consistent with the United States' declared policy of
expanding its global dominance. The Bush administration's 2002
National Security Strategy explicitly states that the United States
aims to establish military primacy: "Our forces will be strong
enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military
build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the
United States." To this end, the United States is openly seeking
primacy in every dimension of modern military technology, both in
its conventional arsenal and in its nuclear forces.
   Washington's pursuit of nuclear primacy helps explain its missile-defense
strategy, for example. Critics of missile defense argue that a
national missile shield, such as the prototype the United States
has deployed in Alaska and California, would be easily overwhelmed
by a cloud of warheads and decoys launched by Russia or China. They
are right: even a multilayered system with land-, air-, sea-, and
space-based elements, is highly unlikely to protect the United
States from a major nuclear attack. But they are wrong to conclude
that such a missile-defense system is therefore worthless -- as are
the supporters of missile defense who argue that, for similar
reasons, such a system could be of concern only to rogue states and
terrorists and not to other major nuclear powers.
   What both of these camps overlook is that the sort of missile
defenses that the United States might plausibly deploy would be
valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one --
as an adjunct to a U.S. first-strike capability, not as a standalone
shield. If the United States launched a nuclear attack against
Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with a tiny
surviving arsenal -- if any at all. At that point, even a relatively
modest or inefficient missile-defense system might well be enough
to protect against any retaliatory strikes, because the devastated
enemy would have so few warheads and decoys left. ..."
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204/keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html

UN in secret talks to create 'new world order'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/transformed-un-proposed-to-create-new-world-order-771416.html

Russia ready to use nuclear weapons if threatened - army chief
Baluyevsky's comments come amid growing tensions between Russia and
NATO over the alliance's expansion into the former Eastern Bloc,
the United States' plans to deploy missile defense elements in
Poland and the Czech Republic, and Moscow's increasingly assertive
military stance.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080119/97339084.html

Putin says Russia won't be drawn into new arms race
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080208/98758020.html