The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Saturday, April 10, 2010

Abolishing Nuclear Weapons

With the end of the cold war, some 20 years ago, retired Army Colonel and strategic thinker Harry Summers wrote an OpEd somewhere that struck me as putting forward the proposition that with the abolition of nuclear weapons the world would once again be safe for conventional warfare.

With the the signing of the latest US-Russian agreement on nuclear weapons, and President Obama's recent statement of US Policy toward nuclear use, we may be moving toward making the world safe for conventional warfare.

Now comes retired Army artillery officer and current Methodist Minister with a reminder of what the abolition of nuclear weapons might mean.

Regards  —  Cliff

  Author of On Strategy.

23 comments:

lance said...

Happy Birthday Mega Death

As I read the post my only conclusion is that we should abolish all nuclear weapons since, given we accept the premise that we won't use them, the world would be safer not having them around subject to theft, government upheavals, etc.

Renee said...

The scientific knowledge is known, is it possible to turn back? Do we ban the teachings of nuclear physics?

Craig H said...

I find it both funny, and also a little bit disturbing, that folks could possibly be concerned about our ability to deter by rattling whatever saber we choose to rattle. The "paper tiger" syndrome has nothing to do with the size or sort of our teeth. It has to do with our resolve to ACT.

I would say, what we've done to destroy Iraq (without nuclear weapons, by the way) will stand for many years more effective than any "be quiet back there or you won't get any candy" speeches that may or may not include the implied threat of going nuclear.

And, for another thing, it's not like we're getting rid of any number of them that would be significant, because even a handful of bombs would be more than sufficient to intimidate anybody without one of their own, provided they understood we had the resolve to set one off.

So we get down to Sarah's little hissy fit, (would be more effective if she could even pronounce the word), echoed in this piece referenced here, that saying we won't use 'em is tantamount to letting all the world's terrorist regime piss in our cornflakes. And I don't buy that.

We have enough conventional firepower to snuff all but a handful of regimes in this world, and the fact that we have nukes is only of concern to those few that might be able to stand up to us otherwise. (Russia, China, and I'd list another one here, but I don't think there are any). If we and Russia and China can satisfy our need for stability without nukes, then I'd say the rest of things in the rest of the world have not changed.

We're still going to be measured by our resolve to ACT, not by the means by which we take that action. And, not for nothing, but we're aces with our conventional stuff, and I think that's far more of a deterrent than anything else would be. (Just ask Saddam).

Jack Mitchell said...

I find my self agreeing in some combination with all three comments above.

What I would note are the voices that wish to undermine the Commander in Chief's crediblity at every given turn, e.g. Liz Cheney.

For the purpose of political gain, they piss in the political coffee and then seek a slap on the back from like minded folks. This self-congratulatory strategy of hobbling our President domestically, thus internationally, is shallow and short sighted.

Nukes will persist as long as they are the ultimate WMD. As Lennon/Ono suggested, I am always willing to "give peace a chance." This approach is firmly grounded in the reality of being well armed.

I wish the "other side" would stop fearmongering.

ncrossland said...

I don't know anyone who knows for certain the outcomes of doing this or that w/r to our international posture and military capability to carry out that posture.

I would argue that the only reason that Russia and China and the nutball in NK have not used nukes or chem bio in the past half a century or so is that to do so would invite their own death because we have the capability of inflicting that in response.

Doesn't mean we are the world cop, or that we are the good guys. We are simply an effective counterbalance. Nation-states don't make weapons as a hobby just to see if they can do it. They make weapons with the intent of using them. That is the intent of the US and its systems. We will use them, and that knowledge has kept the world more or less free...on a world scale.

There is no such thing as an acceptable war or a good war, but a small regional one is certainly preferrable to one on a World scale. That is what we have today, two relatively small and controlled "wars."

To openly advertise that we won't use some of our capability unless this and this and this occur is to invite this and this and this to occur. And it is not about "domination" per se as much as it is about a nation-state ensuring that it gets what it thinks it needs....and that goes for the US as well.

I do agree that a numerical reduction in nuclear warheads can occur safely. Numbers are almost meaningless. It is where the remaining numbers are located and what delivery system they are coupled with. Frankly, loading up a B-52 with nukes is a bit "dramatic." On the other hand, keeping our boomers fully loaded and at sea is another matter altogether. THAT is deterrence...but only if the "other guy" thinks we'll send the message if we need to. BTW, the boomers have enough nuclear firepower to pretty much convince an aggressor to back off. Then we have the B-2 and the Minutemen (what is left of them).

Today however, the discussion of mutual disarmament is pretty much academic. The real threat is the stateless entity with access to a portable nuclear weapon...or chem bio. Their only goal is to inflict terrible damage on their target.

Sadly, the whole discussion of weapons and their use has largely become partisan....one side against the other side...a Dem view and a Rep view...and frankly, the political stage is NOT the preferred venue.

Jack Mitchell said...

I'd like to suggest that certain nations, with a penchant for brutality, are not dissuaded by our force, but by our ideals.

It is the American character, ably reinforced, that is the deterrent.

America stands for something. That, and the "big stick," stops many in their tracks.

ncrossland said...

Not sure I agree with the posit. Too be sure, America has been a beacon of safety and freedom for many decades, but our ideals didn't do much to stop the Nazis or Tojo from encroaching on the world....and it was not our ideals but our promise of unthinkable force that stopped the USSR in their tracks.

It is not a put down of America as I consider myself to still be under oath, but rather a simple fact of the interplay of national instruments of power and policy.

Jack Mitchell said...

Well, it could be that WWII was the first earnest projection of America's power. The Axis had little to consider.

The Great War was not a true indicator of America's ability.

The Soviets were not deterred,as they saw themselves as the antithesis of America. They were all but compelled to challenge us tit for tat.

China had their go at us in Korea. The shit canning of MacArthur emboldened them how?

C R Krieger said...

First, to the name Mega Death.  Back before the earth started to cool (the earth, as opposed to the climate), my tour in Thailand ended at an awkward time—December of 1973.  Awkward in that I was due to go to staff college, but those assignments normally started in August.  The exception was the four US Air Force slots at the Royal Air Force Command and Staff College (since eliminated in a consolidation), at RAF Station Bracknell, in the UK.

One of our Syndicate exercises was to compose a defense budget for the UK and our particular Syndicate Directing Staff member was a Royal Navy Commander, Nynian Stuart.  He put me in charge of our team of about a dozen officers.  I thought that was a bit awkward, but maybe he was hoping I would maybe, being an American, break some rice bowls.  As we were in the City of Bracknell, we were near the British Weather Service Headquarters and they had a brand new computer, which we remotely accessed for two exercises. My classmates got to the computer before I did and inserted, in my honor, as an American, the User ID of Mega Death.  It was all in good fun—I think. :-)

As for the Soviet Union, after World War II; I am reading, at this time, a book on Germany in the first years after WWII.  I am not so sure the Soviet Union was so much matching us tit for tat as they were working very hard to build a glacis for protection (going back only 150 years they had been invaded three times and had an unsuccessful war with the renewed Poland (~1920).  They worked to incorporated their part of Germany under their thumb.

I suspect that one of the issues was the paranoia of Joseph Stalin.  I think he and his Administration missed the fact that the US was conflicted between staying in Europe to ensure the peace and wanting to get the troops home.

At the beginning of the Berlin Airlift we only had one fighter wing in Germany.  Not a big show of force.  And few Army units, most of which were focused on occupation duties.  IF, and for me at this point it is an IF, the Soviets wanted to come further west, the only thing standing in their way was the handful of nuclear weapons the US possessed.

Regards  —  Cliff

lance said...

Another opinion: http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_14859690

ncrossland said...

Sorry Jack, I don't accept your frankly apologist arguments. America did not "project power" until it had no other choice, particularly when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. The Axis forced that result, knowingly and purposefully.

In the context of the time, the Great War WAS a demonstration of American power and capability. As Adm. Yamamoto wistfully observed, the attack on Pearl Harbor "awakened a sleeping giant." A direct attack on the US by a state sponsored power would evoke a similar response today and would unreservedly insist that, in spite of promises to do otherwise, the Administration use every means available in retaliation.

USSR's antithetic role vis a vis America was not responsible for their tit for tat role. Their leadership was bent on world domination and at any means possible. "Possible" was and is the key word here. Knowing that pushing their red button would invite total destruction was sufficient to deter at least a military act of aggression. And that was the key. The tit for tat you refer to was simply a requirement to try to stay a step ahead of us, if only equal to us. In the end, the fallacy of the communist promise literally broke the economic back of the USSR.

Finally, the firing of MacArthur was never intended to threaten or embolden anyone, least of all China. He disobeyed the President. He was fired. End of story. China was a surrogate partner of NK not to challenge the US per se, but rather to do what they were able to secure the Korean peninsula for communism. Bear in mind, at the time, China not only didn't have a nuclear capability, it barely had an aerial capability. All of the aircraft flown were Russian and many were flown by Russian pilots. So, while some personages in the Chinese government may have felt encouraged by this or that, "emboldened" was never much of an objective. The oriental zeitgeist is much different than that of the "western world." They are willing to wait extended periods of time to achieve their goals, and history bears that out.

Craig H said...

Cliff--that's exactly my point: Stalin (and today's Russia and China) pause because they know the stakes, and because they know that we'll set them off if we must. Everybody else doesn't worry about our nukes--they know we'll send in the Marines (supported by the USAF) and that's plenty to kick everybody else's ass.

Individual miscreants, aligned with rogue states or not, aren't going to care if we do or if we don't--they're all about the first strike. (That's why they call it "suicide" bombing).

I also agree entirely with necrossland's observation above that taking party sides on something like this is the worst possible thing that can be done.

Jack Mitchell said...

Sec. Clinton this morning on the abc Sunday show, This Week:
You know, the threat of nuclear war -- nuclear attack as we grew up with in the Cold War has diminished. The threat of nuclear terrorism has increased. And we want to get the world's attention focused where we think it needs to be with these continuing efforts by Al Qaeda and others to get just enough nuclear material to cause terrible havoc, destruction, and loss of life somewhere in the world.

Please take note that she didn't focus her comment about terror within the bounds of the imaginary line that separates us from the remainder of the humans on this planet.

That is an artifact of political persuasion.

Neal, you are lazy with your cliche branding. Also, you may want to reference your quoting of the honorable Admiral. You are quoting a Hollywood movie script.

C R Krieger said...

Jack

I agree with what SecState is trying to do, but it is not the be all and end all of our strategic thinking; I hope.  (On the other hand, we do need more Dep't of State involvement in our strategic thinking.)

And, it is not just terrorists who are a problem. My wife noted to me the danger of India and Pakistan having a small nuclear war and the world not coming to an end.  That conflict might well make the world safe for small scale nuclear wars.  Not a pretty thing, even when it isn't about city busting, as they used to say.

Lots of things to worry about out there.

Regards  —  Cliff

C R Krieger said...

From an Anonymous correspondent from west of Lowell...

Abolish bullets.
     Make the world safe for long-bow warfare.

Regards  —  Cliff

ncrossland said...

Well Jack, as long as we are interpreting the comments of others and casting them as ground truth, let me clear up the Yamamoto mess a little bit.

First, while the "quote" was drawn from Tora, Tora, Tora, the inclusion of it in the movie script was based on him actually saying it. Whether he did of course is a matter of veiled history, since anyone standing nearby is likely dead by now. So, you believe what you want.

What Yamamoto did say with regard to the war are more of less a matter of record (which you are free to argue against if you wish).

The first is: In "The Reluctant Admiral," Hiroyuki Agawa, without a citation, does give a quotation from a reply by Admiral Yamamoto to Ogata Taketora on January 9, 1942, which is strikingly similar to the famous version: "A military man can scarcely pride himself on having 'smitten a sleeping enemy'; it is more a matter of shame, simply, for the one smitten. I would rather you made your appraisal after seeing what the enemy does, since it is certain that, angered and outraged, he will soon launch a determined counterattack."

And second: The other common quotation attributed to Yamamoto predicting the future outcome of a naval war against the United States is: "I can run wild for six months … after that, I have no expectation of success" which may be true, but there are no primary source documents to support it[2]. As it happened, the Battle of Midway, the critical naval battle considered to be the turning point of the war, indeed did occur six months after Pearl Harbor (Midway ended on June 7th, exactly 6 months later).

And finally: Yamamoto, when once asked his opinion on the war, pessimistically said that the only way for Japan to win the war was to dictate terms in the White House, requiring them to eventually invade the United States and march across the country while fighting their way to Washington — i.e., Japan would have to conquer the whole of the United States. Yamamoto's meaning was that military victory, in a protracted war against an opponent with as much of a population and industrial advantage as the United States possessed, was completely impossible — a rebuff to those who thought that winning a major battle against the US Navy would end the war.

My laziness that you allege may well be simple and necessary brevity given the relative importance of the need.

Whether you wish to believe it or not, there is still a very strong need for George Orwell's "rough men."

Jack Mitchell said...

Neal,
My e-mail addie. 'member?

On the notion of "rough men." All I can say is Huah! Follow Me.


I am the Infantry

I am my country's strength in war, her deterrant in peace.

I am the heart of the fight whereever, whenever.

I carry America's faith and honor against her enemies.

I am the Queen of Battle.

I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained soldier in the world in the race for victory.

I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win.

Never will I fail my country's trust.

Always will I fight on through the foe, to the objective, to triumph over all.

If neccessary I will fight to my death.

By my steadfast courage I have won 200 years of freedom.

I yeild not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superiour odds.

For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight.

I forsake not my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty.

I am relentless
I am always there, now and forever
I am the Infantry
Follow me!

ncrossland said...

Charles Krauthammer summed it up beautifully I think.

"Nuclear doctrine consists of thinking the unthinkable. It involves making threats and promising retaliation that is cruel and destructive beyond imagining. But it has its purpose: to prevent war in the first place. During the Cold War, we let the Russians know that if they dared use their huge conventional military advantage and invaded Western Europe, they risked massive U.S. nuclear retaliation. Goodbye Moscow. Was this credible? Would we have done it? Who knows? No one's ever been there. A nuclear posture is just that -- a declaratory policy designed to make the other guy think twice. Our policies did. The result was called deterrence. For half a century, it held. The Soviets never invaded. We never used nukes. That's why nuclear doctrine is important. The Obama administration has just issued a new one that 'includes significant changes to the U.S. nuclear posture,' said Defense Secretary Bob Gates. First among these involves the U.S. response to being attacked with biological or chemical weapons. Under the old doctrine, supported by every president of both parties for decades, any aggressor ran the risk of a cataclysmic U.S. nuclear response that would leave the attacking nation a cinder and a memory. Again: Credible? Doable? No one knows. But the threat was very effective. Under President Obama's new policy, however, if the state that has just attacked us with biological or chemical weapons is 'in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),' explained Gates, then 'the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it.' ... This is quite insane. It's like saying that if a terrorist deliberately uses his car to mow down a hundred people waiting at a bus stop, the decision as to whether he gets (a) hanged or (b) 100 hours of community service hinges entirely on whether his car had passed emissions inspections. Apart from being morally bizarre, the Obama policy is strategically loopy. Does anyone believe that North Korea or Iran will be more persuaded to abjure nuclear weapons because they could then carry out a biological or chemical attack on the U.S. without fear of nuclear retaliation?" --columnist Charles Krauthammer

Jack Mitchell said...

Krauthammer is as much an expert on the matter, as half term Governor Palin. Being the chief cheerleader of "American Exceptionalism", or “unipolarity” as the Colomnist likes to call it, adds up to exactly what?

The US is in the Pole Position in the Arms Race. What we do sets the playing field.

Bottom line, adding a trillion tons of warheads will not make us any safer from AQ.

Lowering the stock levels puts a downward pressure on all nations. Going rogue, like Iran & NK, will become more stark and harder to rationalize.

I'm not gonna wet my pants over this. Huggies for you?

ncrossland said...

Depends Jack.....Depends. LOL.

I agree, "deterrence" in the nuclear sense is completely unimpressive to AQ, and probably to Iran....and I am certain for NK. The dilemma for the US is if NK or Iran were to lob one of their nukes our way....or maybe to one of our allies.....what would/could be our response? Knowing full well that the "bad guys" are perhaps no more than 1% of the population, do we go in and turn the other 99% into pillars of salt?

The sort of conflict we are discussing with that scenario calls for much more "surgical" reaction......and I've long been an admirer of the way Moussad handles their retalliation.....especially with the much storied Munich bunch.

Of course, we've pretty much lost all our capabilities to do that sort of wildly "uncivilized" thing...especially since we are now court-martialing three SEALs for allegedly punching a butcher in the tummy...and perhaps even giving him a fat lip. In Operation Red Wing, we lost three SEALs because of the dilemma posed by a self-righteous left leaning government and dyed in the wool liberal MSM. The four man team encountered a couple of Afghan sheepherders and captured them. The problem was...what to do with them. They discussed it and came to the conclusion that they had to let them go because if they killed them, they would likely be brought up on murder charges by the country they pledged to protect. Of course, letting them go risked that they would run and tell the Taliban where the SEALs were. They let them go. Shortly they found themselves surrounded by a Taliban force of over 100 men. All but one SEAL were killed in the attack and 16 other SOF folks were killed in the rescue attempt that was the basis for the naming of Robert's Ridge.

When we give folks weapons and tell them to go kill and enemy..which is what war is all about....we need to understand that bad things are going to happen...or perhaps....we shouldn't know at all. But now....today.....in our current mind set......our troops have to pause to think......and as the poets say, "he who hesitates is lost."

It's time to relax and enjoy a nice single malt...hope your evening is similarly relaxing....

Jack Mitchell said...

Sammy Summer Ale for me, Bro.

Cheers!

The New Englander said...

A very minor detail but Roberts' Ridge was named for Petty Officer Neil Roberts, who died during a firefight on a ridge during Operation Anaconda in 2002 after falling out of a Chinook.

Operation RED WING took place in 2005.

But ncrossland, on to the bigger picture -- I have been studying that particular "abuse" case and I agree the charges against those guys are totally bogus and believe they will go nowhere.

ncrossland said...

Mea culpa New Englander, you are correct. The force sent in to rescue the 4 SEALs in Red Wing were largely decimated, and I recall thinking how similar that effort was to the outcome in the Anaconda tragedy.....and my feeble brain simply short circuited.....

They say that with age comes wisdom...but I can attest that sometimes....age comes alone. Somebody said that, and if I think of his name.....I'll give him credit.