This should worry all of us for several
reasons.
- Is
there a strategy change that supports further cuts? Those that I speak
with say … well … we could just target cities … and 300 is way more
than we need. I frequently remind those who support this that the Law
of Armed Conflict, Geneva conventions, and other international
agreements … and our own moral principles … prohibit the intentional
targeting of civilian non-combatants. And … yes, there will be
innocents that die in a nuclear attack, but the fact remains that we
should never plan to target and kill non-combatants.
- The
view of some is that “lower is better” … despite the strong evidence
that we can go too low. A very low number of nuclear weapons reduces
stability; makes it more likely that a potential adversary could
deliver a knock-out first strike; and gives incentives to
cheating. Further if one looks at the nuclear age and measures
casualties of war world-wide, one will find this is the safest period
of any 65 year period of time in the modern history of the world.
Nuclear weapons at sufficient levels as well as the assurance they have
been tested and will work, have made world war too horrible to
consider.
- Most
of the proposals are for further arms reduction agreements with the
Russians. However, the numbers cited are considered “strategic weapons
limitations” and do not include tactical nuclear weapons – of which
the Russians have many times more than we have. To exclude tactical
nukes plus those strategic and tactical weapons of the Chinese and
others leaves out categories of weapons that could threaten our
survival as a nation, as well as our friends and allies.
Negotiations over very low numbers need to include all nuclear armed
countries – and a healthy sense of skepticism about the bad behavior
of a few rogue states.
- We
have not yet gotten to the numbers agreed upon in New START. We have
until 2018 to reach the 1550 limit; 700 deployed missiles and bombers;
and 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers. The rush to go lower – at
a time when North Korea is expanding its stockpile, Iran is intent on
building its first weapon, and the PRC is building new launch vehicles
and warheads – seems to many like unilateral disarmament.
- Deterrence
theory actually considers that the US will respond with force that
will inflict upon an adversary more damage than he considers
acceptable. Low numbers may cause a potential adversary to judge that
either the US won’t respond to an attack or it won’t have the
capability to respond – thereby making our nuclear forces less
credible. This makes us more vulnerable and less secure.
- Every
nuclear nation (save perhaps North Korea) has the capability to create
more nuclear weapons per month than does the US. This is as a result
of underinvestment in our industrial base. To go to very low numbers
does not provide us the margin to quickly return to higher numbers (if
ever necessary) in comparison
to our major adversaries.
- Very
low numbers of nuclear weapons also pose a significant risk if we
discover a vulnerability or unforeseen technical problem with a weapon
or delivery system. Very simply, we will further reduce any hedge to
protect against “unknown unknowns”.
- Finally,
we must realize that our nuclear stockpile provides security for many
nations around the world through our bilateral and multilateral
security treaties. For example, Japan, the Republic of Korea,
the Philippines, and the 26 members of the NATO alliance rely on US
deterrence for their security. Going too low negates some of
that implied deterrence and may cause other nations to invest in and
build their own nuclear weapons.
All of the above is very important … even critical to
our security. Everyone who is concerned about national security should
understand this.
For your consideration.
Mike
Michael M. Dunn
President/CEO
Air Force Association
"The
only thing more expensive than a first-rate Air Force is … a second-rate
Air Force." -- Senate staff member
|
3 comments:
Lt. Gen. MIKE DUNN [USAF 'ret'.] and AFA = I SHARE the EXPRESSED CONCERNS that "how low can we go" on the nuclear DETERRENT WARHEAD INVENTORY hardly passes for US "national policy"! ** This President has already signaled an intent to lead by Presidential Executive Orders, rather than cooperation with both Houses of Congress! ** THAT is NOT proper "Leadership" - IT'S oligarchy - well documented in the US CONSTITUTION AND OUR FOUNDERS EXPRESSLY FORBADE THAT - BASED ON PRIOR PROBLEMS WITH King George in a prior millenium! ** The HOUSE SPEAKER needs to develop some backbone - then 'DE-FUND' all 73 Policy Czars operating illegally! ** THESE ARE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES! ** FWD by DAVE PHILLIPS in Reno, NV. -30-
We should keep the amount of nuclear weapons that is an absolute deterent to any advisary.
However if there is a way to locate such weapons anywhere in the world, as a long long term policy we should be looking to eliminate all such weapons and to keep the knowledge of a state secret.
We should work to keep our fighter aircraft to be the best in the world, but how do we do that as we continually sell our technology to the whole world?
Sir, two comments from a missileer's point of view having just been on senior staff at AFGSC
1. (opinion) Reverse engineering strategy based on number of warheads is possible but insane. Letting the targeteers do their job, and present targeting options within Strategy based solutions is the better way to go and is how we did the lest major reduction
2. The numbers that I have seen in the media do not indicate the difference between Fielded and Reserve warheads. The warhead count needs to include both due to the required infrastructure, and sustainment cost.
A. (opinion) This is likely people trying to come up with a number that is "agreeable" for warhead modernization/replacement, who have no concept of the requirements for engineering, production, sustainment, strategy or tactics for nuclear weapons.
Post a Comment