.Learning to love the bomb
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA is likely to bring about a historic shift in nuclear weapons policy as the administration undertakes a significant effort to dramatically reduce the size of the nuclear arsenal. In 2009 alone, the administration will produce a Nuclear Posture Review and oversee the expiration of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in December. Obama will also be responsible for ensuring compliance with obligations in the Strategic Offense Reduction Treaty, which requires that the United States reduce its deployed strategic warheads to 1,700-2,200 by 2012.
Obama's nuclear agenda focuses on: securing loose nuclear material from terrorists, strengthening the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, and moving toward a nuclear-free world.
Pushing the president in the direction of a "world free of nuclear weapons" are paragons of past political power - former senator Sam Nunn of Georgia and former secretaries of state George Shultz and Henry Kissinger - as well as a host of Washington think tanks.
Offering an alternative view of the nuclear arsenal are the "modernizers," led by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz, and Commander of US Strategic Command General Kevin Chilton. Over the past several months, they have outlined what it will take to maintain and modernize the most advanced and secure nuclear arsenal in the world.
In the debate over the appropriate size and purpose of the nuclear arsenal, abolitionists make five basic arguments:
American political leaders have failed to alter nuclear policy for the post-Cold War security environment.
Terrorism, not Russia, is the primary threat facing the United States. Nuclear weapons do not deter terrorists.
America's advanced conventional capabilities can accomplish the same objectives once reserved for nuclear weapons.
As a signer of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, the United States is required to move toward nuclear abolition.
The threat of accidental detonation, miscalculation leading to nuclear war, and proliferation of nuclear weapons and material can only be overcome by total nuclear disarmament.
While each of these arguments bears some element of truth, they do not represent a complete understanding of the strategic role nuclear weapons play in ensuring the sovereignty of the United States or the evolution of American nuclear policy. Although each of the abolitionists' arguments deserves a detailed refutation, a brief rebuttal must suffice.
First, Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush were responsible stewards of the nuclear arsenal, bringing the number down from a high of 24,000 to the current 5,400, which will continue to decline to between 2,200 and 1,700 to meet the Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty requirements. Nuclear-capable bombers were also de-alerted more than a decade ago. Cutting the size of the nuclear arsenal 80 percent is a substantial shift in policy.
Second, terrorists do not threaten the sovereignty of the United States. Even if they carry out a successful attack, America will survive. Russia, however, continues to possess the capability to destroy the nation. Unilateral disarmament will not change that.
Third, conventional capabilities will never effectively substitute for nuclear weapons. Yes, they can destroy the same target. But, they lack the same capacity to generate fear in the heart of an adversary. Fear acts to deter, which is why we possess nuclear weapons.
Fourth, if the United States moves toward disarmament, it will be the only nuclear power to do so. Every other nuclear power is modernizing its nuclear arsenal. Thus, the United States may soon reach a point where it can be held hostage by other states.
Fifth, in the 65-year history of the bomb there has never been an accidental detonation, miscalculation leading to nuclear war, or large-scale nuclear proliferation. History suggests the opposite. Nuclear weapons make those that possess them risk averse, not risk acceptant.
The truth is nuclear weapons remain a fundamental aspect of our national security. Without them, the American people will face greater, not less, danger and adversaries willing to exploit our perceived weakness. Arbitrarily shrinking the nuclear arsenal by an additional 50 percent may not be a wise idea. It certainly deserves careful thought.
Boston.com
Obama's nuclear agenda focuses on: securing loose nuclear material from terrorists, strengthening the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, and moving toward a nuclear-free world.
Pushing the president in the direction of a "world free of nuclear weapons" are paragons of past political power - former senator Sam Nunn of Georgia and former secretaries of state George Shultz and Henry Kissinger - as well as a host of Washington think tanks.
Offering an alternative view of the nuclear arsenal are the "modernizers," led by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz, and Commander of US Strategic Command General Kevin Chilton. Over the past several months, they have outlined what it will take to maintain and modernize the most advanced and secure nuclear arsenal in the world.
In the debate over the appropriate size and purpose of the nuclear arsenal, abolitionists make five basic arguments:
American political leaders have failed to alter nuclear policy for the post-Cold War security environment.
Terrorism, not Russia, is the primary threat facing the United States. Nuclear weapons do not deter terrorists.
America's advanced conventional capabilities can accomplish the same objectives once reserved for nuclear weapons.
As a signer of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, the United States is required to move toward nuclear abolition.
The threat of accidental detonation, miscalculation leading to nuclear war, and proliferation of nuclear weapons and material can only be overcome by total nuclear disarmament.
While each of these arguments bears some element of truth, they do not represent a complete understanding of the strategic role nuclear weapons play in ensuring the sovereignty of the United States or the evolution of American nuclear policy. Although each of the abolitionists' arguments deserves a detailed refutation, a brief rebuttal must suffice.
First, Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush were responsible stewards of the nuclear arsenal, bringing the number down from a high of 24,000 to the current 5,400, which will continue to decline to between 2,200 and 1,700 to meet the Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty requirements. Nuclear-capable bombers were also de-alerted more than a decade ago. Cutting the size of the nuclear arsenal 80 percent is a substantial shift in policy.
Second, terrorists do not threaten the sovereignty of the United States. Even if they carry out a successful attack, America will survive. Russia, however, continues to possess the capability to destroy the nation. Unilateral disarmament will not change that.
Third, conventional capabilities will never effectively substitute for nuclear weapons. Yes, they can destroy the same target. But, they lack the same capacity to generate fear in the heart of an adversary. Fear acts to deter, which is why we possess nuclear weapons.
Fourth, if the United States moves toward disarmament, it will be the only nuclear power to do so. Every other nuclear power is modernizing its nuclear arsenal. Thus, the United States may soon reach a point where it can be held hostage by other states.
Fifth, in the 65-year history of the bomb there has never been an accidental detonation, miscalculation leading to nuclear war, or large-scale nuclear proliferation. History suggests the opposite. Nuclear weapons make those that possess them risk averse, not risk acceptant.
The truth is nuclear weapons remain a fundamental aspect of our national security. Without them, the American people will face greater, not less, danger and adversaries willing to exploit our perceived weakness. Arbitrarily shrinking the nuclear arsenal by an additional 50 percent may not be a wise idea. It certainly deserves careful thought.
Boston.com
posted by madtom at 10:26 PM
8 Comments:
Why bother? The won't allow development, testing or refurbishment of the bombs we have. We don't know how many, if any, of our bombs work now, and we sure as hell don't know how many will be working in 10 years. Naive fools or wanna be tyrants are leading us to destruction on many levels.
They are talking about building nuclear drones to replace our aging fleet of strategic bombers..
To deliver aging bombs that they refuse to allow to be tested or upgraded. I recall a report that estimated that as many as half of our bombs were likely to fail or deliver far diminished yields. Remember when the previous administration asked for funding for development of nuclear bunker busters? Hard to take them seriously when O has spent his career as an egghead talking about a nuclear free world and the ruling party has been antagonistic on the subject for decades.
No design has ever failed.
What makes you think they would start now. I really don't think plutonium know if O is black.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-broken-warheads29-2009may29,0,787677.story
First story on the subject I came across, but it doesn't go into all of the issues I recall from 10 years ago.
No design has ever failed? You know that how? What is the RRW? Do you think nuclear weapons last forever?
I remember the issue coming up probably ten years ago, and I may have some of the numbers wrong by some amount, but the gist is correct. The designed reliable life expectancy of most of our weapons was to be ten years. The average age is 25 years. I recall requests to set up underground testing of randomly selected warheads to see how reliable they remained since all hell breaks loose every time someone wants to upgrade or design new warheads--- that was ten years ago, or more. Some estimated that up to half would fail to some degree.
What O's tan has to do with it, I have no idea. His repeated statement that his goal is to rid the world of nuclear weapons and his history with naive ideologues has everything to do with it.
But that story is the usual nuclear fear mongering...the weapons are old and decrepit, and unsafe, lets get rid of them.
Strange place for you to quote.
It's a fact, no design has ever failed. I don't have the reference. It's a well known fact.
http://www.lanl.gov/science/1663/stockpile.php
Surely you can look up stuff yourself. If by design has never failed, you mean that a design put into production has never failed--OK, (though the newer (20 yr old) designs have never been actually tested) but what is your point? We are constantly having to change out components, often with components that are not the same as those originally tested and have NEVER been actually tested on a warhead. Los Alamos has no doubt done theoretical testing and claim all is well, but if you trust government scientists to be competent, or tell the truth, you haven't been paying attention.
My point is, O is among the world peace idiots who think it is desirable, or even possible, to live in a world with no nuclear weapons. The Leftists are in power and I trust them with nothing, and this in particular.
I haven't had the time of late to look anything up...I just have enough time to fly by, snipe an easy comment, go.
Post a Comment
<< Home