Comments on: Is Our Nuclear Arsenal Useless In The Age Of Terror? http://www.frumforum.com/is-our-nuclear-arsenal-useless-in-the-age-of-terror Building a conservatism that can win again Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:50:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: dragonlady http://www.frumforum.com/is-our-nuclear-arsenal-useless-in-the-age-of-terror/comment-page-1#comment-43290 dragonlady Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:24:44 +0000 #comment-43290 sinz54, the air force chief of staff and civilian secretary head just got fired for lax accounting for nuclear materials. The military service with the preponderance of nukes was silent on the cancellation of the nuke-tipped bunker buster and delay in the RRW. I don't believe nuclear deterrence is outdated, but I do think we're struggling with its applicability in this day and age. While presidential directives may have been issued, how have these directives been translated into how our forces should be configured? The devils are in the details and it's those details that are lacking. I think the author is exaggerating with the last few lines in his article, but I do believe we are still groping with updating our nuclear strategy. Ref this WaPo link on the RRW: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/17/AR2007061700969.html "The committee pointed out that neither the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review last year nor the administration's 2001 Nuclear Posture Review "provided a long term nuclear weapons strategy or the defined total nuclear stockpile requirements for the 21st century." sinz54, the air force chief of staff and civilian secretary head just got fired for lax accounting for nuclear materials. The military service with the preponderance of nukes was silent on the cancellation of the nuke-tipped bunker buster and delay in the RRW. I don’t believe nuclear deterrence is outdated, but I do think we’re struggling with its applicability in this day and age. While presidential directives may have been issued, how have these directives been translated into how our forces should be configured? The devils are in the details and it’s those details that are lacking. I think the author is exaggerating with the last few lines in his article, but I do believe we are still groping with updating our nuclear strategy. Ref this WaPo link on the RRW: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/17/AR2007061700969.html
“The committee pointed out that neither the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review last year nor the administration’s 2001 Nuclear Posture Review “provided a long term nuclear weapons strategy or the defined total nuclear stockpile requirements for the 21st century.”

]]> By: C.E. van Avery http://www.frumforum.com/is-our-nuclear-arsenal-useless-in-the-age-of-terror/comment-page-1#comment-51719 C.E. van Avery Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:12:40 +0000 #comment-51719 For an in-depth analysis of some of the problems, see Yankee Sailor's posts: http://yankeesailor.blogspot.com/2006/04/nuclear-deterrence-in-age-of-terrorism.html http://www.yankeesailor.us/?p=767 For an in-depth analysis of some of the problems, see Yankee Sailor’s posts:

http://yankeesailor.blogspot.com/2006/04/nuclear-deterrence-in-age-of-terrorism.html
http://www.yankeesailor.us/?p=767

]]> By: manton http://www.frumforum.com/is-our-nuclear-arsenal-useless-in-the-age-of-terror/comment-page-1#comment-52236 manton Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:33:50 +0000 #comment-52236 The Secretary of State, by the way, refused to sign off on that, so it went out without her sig, even though past similar documents had always had three sigs. That sure sends a strong signal. :sarcasm: The Secretary of State, by the way, refused to sign off on that, so it went out without her sig, even though past similar documents had always had three sigs. That sure sends a strong signal. :sarcasm:

]]> By: manton http://www.frumforum.com/is-our-nuclear-arsenal-useless-in-the-age-of-terror/comment-page-1#comment-50460 manton Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:32:09 +0000 #comment-50460 This is the most recent, and most fulsome, account of the US nuclear posture: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/nuclearweaponspolicy.pdf. Do you honestly believe a mullah in Tehran is going to read that and get scared? I don't. This is the most recent, and most fulsome, account of the US nuclear posture: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/nuclearweaponspolicy.pdf. Do you honestly believe a mullah in Tehran is going to read that and get scared? I don’t.

]]> By: sinz54 http://www.frumforum.com/is-our-nuclear-arsenal-useless-in-the-age-of-terror/comment-page-1#comment-50991 sinz54 Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:28:32 +0000 #comment-50991 manton: Of course, I meant "deployed" in the sense of "EMPLOYED." Cf. Bush Administration National Security Presidential Directive NSPD-35, "Nuclear Weapons DEPLOYMENT Authorization," which used the term similarly. manton: Of course, I meant “deployed” in the sense of “EMPLOYED.” Cf. Bush Administration National Security Presidential Directive NSPD-35, “Nuclear Weapons DEPLOYMENT Authorization,” which used the term similarly.

]]> By: sinz54 http://www.frumforum.com/is-our-nuclear-arsenal-useless-in-the-age-of-terror/comment-page-1#comment-45406 sinz54 Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:23:08 +0000 #comment-45406 dendup: MAD was a bad idea during the Cold War, and you're right that it's an obsolete idea in the times we're in now. And with that observation, you have effectively answered your own earlier question: There must be a variety of options for the use of nuclear weapons, beyond just doing nothing and turning the other cheek to an attack, or lashing out with everything we've got to annihilate an attacker. We must be able to employ them selectively, to eliminate an adversary's ability to launch a second strike; or to eliminate the adversary's industrial might; or even just for demonstration purposes in a largely unpopulated area. That was even true during the Cold War, and it's still true today. Beyond that, there are circumstances when the U.S. might be forced to initiate hostilities. We had a good example this past year, when North Korea began arming Syria with nuclear technology. Israel bombed the Syrian installation in time. But supposed they hadn't, and Syria nukes Israel. Israel will retaliate against Syria, of course. But after the CIA confirms that Syria had nuked Israel with North Korean-supplied nukes, I believe the U.S. should retaliate against North Korea as well. Obviously Israel can't do that; and North Korea, by provoking a regional nuclear war in the Middle East, would need to be taught a lesson to deter future rogue states. dendup: MAD was a bad idea during the Cold War, and you’re right that it’s an obsolete idea in the times we’re in now. And with that observation, you have effectively answered your own earlier question: There must be a variety of options for the use of nuclear weapons, beyond just doing nothing and turning the other cheek to an attack, or lashing out with everything we’ve got to annihilate an attacker. We must be able to employ them selectively, to eliminate an adversary’s ability to launch a second strike; or to eliminate the adversary’s industrial might; or even just for demonstration purposes in a largely unpopulated area. That was even true during the Cold War, and it’s still true today. Beyond that, there are circumstances when the U.S. might be forced to initiate hostilities. We had a good example this past year, when North Korea began arming Syria with nuclear technology. Israel bombed the Syrian installation in time. But supposed they hadn’t, and Syria nukes Israel. Israel will retaliate against Syria, of course. But after the CIA confirms that Syria had nuked Israel with North Korean-supplied nukes, I believe the U.S. should retaliate against North Korea as well. Obviously Israel can’t do that; and North Korea, by provoking a regional nuclear war in the Middle East, would need to be taught a lesson to deter future rogue states.

]]> By: manton http://www.frumforum.com/is-our-nuclear-arsenal-useless-in-the-age-of-terror/comment-page-1#comment-41385 manton Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:20:20 +0000 #comment-41385 Your use of "deployed" is sloppy. OF COURSE people in the chain of command know how the weapons are deployed. That is largely a matter of physical positioning. Much of that is even in the public domain. But that is a secondary issue. What matters is how, when, and why they might be USED. Which is presumably what you meant to say. But if you meant to say deployed, then your point is true but irrelevant. However, if you meant to say "used," then I just have no confidence -- none at all -- that "everyone in the chain of command with the appropriate security clearances knows how and when nuclear weapons might be" used. My own experience in government tells against it. And I repeat, even if it were true, what is the point if OUR ENEMIES do not know what we have concluded? Are they deterred by secret declarations? Your use of “deployed” is sloppy. OF COURSE people in the chain of command know how the weapons are deployed. That is largely a matter of physical positioning. Much of that is even in the public domain. But that is a secondary issue. What matters is how, when, and why they might be USED. Which is presumably what you meant to say. But if you meant to say deployed, then your point is true but irrelevant. However, if you meant to say “used,” then I just have no confidence — none at all — that “everyone in the chain of command with the appropriate security clearances knows how and when nuclear weapons might be” used. My own experience in government tells against it. And I repeat, even if it were true, what is the point if OUR ENEMIES do not know what we have concluded? Are they deterred by secret declarations?

]]> By: sinz54 http://www.frumforum.com/is-our-nuclear-arsenal-useless-in-the-age-of-terror/comment-page-1#comment-38573 sinz54 Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:13:33 +0000 #comment-38573 dragonlady: A consistent nuclear strategy has never "faltered"; as I pointed out, it's been under continual review and modification throughout every recent Administration. What has changed is that the public has lost interest since the end of the Cold War. So there has not been much *public* debate on these issues, leaving them to be handled by the National Security Councils of the various Administrations. So when the author claims that "from the President to the SecDef to the Joint Chiefs to the nuclear priesthood to US Senators to think-tankers to the man on the street, no one any longer has any idea," he's just flat WRONG. Everyone in the chain of command with the appropriate security clearances knows how and when nuclear weapons might be deployed. It's just the man on the street who no longer has any idea--because he's stopped asking the appropriate questions. dragonlady: A consistent nuclear strategy has never “faltered”; as I pointed out, it’s been under continual review and modification throughout every recent Administration. What has changed is that the public has lost interest since the end of the Cold War. So there has not been much *public* debate on these issues, leaving them to be handled by the National Security Councils of the various Administrations. So when the author claims that “from the President to the SecDef to the Joint Chiefs to the nuclear priesthood to US Senators to think-tankers to the man on the street, no one any longer has any idea,” he’s just flat WRONG. Everyone in the chain of command with the appropriate security clearances knows how and when nuclear weapons might be deployed. It’s just the man on the street who no longer has any idea–because he’s stopped asking the appropriate questions.

]]> By: manton http://www.frumforum.com/is-our-nuclear-arsenal-useless-in-the-age-of-terror/comment-page-1#comment-51042 manton Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:06:08 +0000 #comment-51042 Mr. Hair: Is that you? Thanks for the kind words. Mr. Hair: Is that you? Thanks for the kind words.

]]> By: herricane http://www.frumforum.com/is-our-nuclear-arsenal-useless-in-the-age-of-terror/comment-page-1#comment-51502 herricane Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:40:59 +0000 #comment-51502 Great piece, Michael. I may have learned more from this article about nuclear proliferation policy than I have from anything else I've read in years. My thought is that it's always the crisis we aren't paying attention to that will strike next. In the 1990s it was terrorism. In the 2010s it might well be nukes. Horrible to think about, but that's why we have leaders. Hopefully those leaders will acquit themselves better than they did in responding to the financial crisis, when our nation's policy was WWGD ("What Would Greenspan Do?") Good luck with your writing --JHerr Great piece, Michael. I may have learned more from this article about nuclear proliferation policy than I have from anything else I’ve read in years. My thought is that it’s always the crisis we aren’t paying attention to that will strike next. In the 1990s it was terrorism. In the 2010s it might well be nukes. Horrible to think about, but that’s why we have leaders. Hopefully those leaders will acquit themselves better than they did in responding to the financial crisis, when our nation’s policy was WWGD (“What Would Greenspan Do?”) Good luck with your writing –JHerr

]]>