Out national security is no area for pseudo-moral preening. We either do what's necessary to sleep well in our beds or we invite catastrophe.Late last year, Representative Adam Smith (D., Wash.), then the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee and now its chairman, said, “The rationale for the triad I don’t think exists anymore. The rationale for the numbers of nuclear weapons doesn’t exist anymore.” This month, he doubled down on his insistence that America should shrink its nuclear arsenal, saying he does not think intercontinental ballistic missiles “are necessary for our deterrence.” Chairman Smith is wrong. Such dangerous disregard for the effectiveness of the nuclear triad directly contradicts the consensus of our military and intelligence communities and the lessons we’ve learned throughout history.Smith’s desire to dismantle our nuclear triad flies in the face of military consensus. Look no further than the recommendations of the bipartisan National Defense Strategy Commission for the United States, which found in 2017 that “nuclear and conventional forces are both indispensable to a balanced, effective defense.”I could not agree more. Since its inception, our nuclear triad has been a vital part of protecting our nation, and the need for proper deterrence filled by a nuclear arsenal has not lessened over time. What’s more, the newfound desire to dismantle the triad goes against 50 years of history, during which time the triad has successfully deterred attacks from foreign entities over and over again.As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have discussed this issue with the commander of U.S. Strategic Command, General John E. Hyten, who on multiple occasions has reiterated that “the surest way to prevent war is to be prepared for it.” Hyten’s concern rises in large part from the more diverse and dangerous group of global adversaries the United States now faces, which includes Russia. In that respect, the hypocrisy in Democrats’ desire to disarm the triad is glaring: The party proclaiming Russia as our democracy’s top threat is simultaneously advocating the abandonment of the weapons deterring the Kremlin from attacking our country.And that’s the bottom line: Chairman Smith’s desire to disarm our country ignores the fundamental, foundational truth that deterrents work. They have worked before and they are working now. Eliminating a deterrent does not eliminate the underlying threat; the world does not become a safer place when we remove what keeps us safe.
Monday, March 11, 2019
Now that Democrats are in charge of House committees such as this, it's more crucial than ever to speak out against their wrong-headedness
Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND) makes crystal-clear, in a National Review piece today, why Representative Adams Smith's views about nuclear preparedness are not just folly but fatal delusion:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Gee, who knew the military would advocate for proliferation. The original impetus for agreed disarmament was to have ALL nuclear capable countries disarm.You and your ilk seem to think there can be winners in this zero sum game.
ReplyDeleteBut you see, Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea don't seem to be interested in disarming. Quite the contrary, they pose a clear threat to the peace-loving countries of the world.
ReplyDeleteThat'll work. They'll be so scared straight they'll tremble nightly in their beds like you and your ilk evidently do. City states are coming back in vogue. The old nationalistic model never worked to begin with. Fighting fire with fire is madness.
ReplyDeleteYou're disputing the concept of deterrence? Consider that the last time nuclear weapons were used in a conflict was 1945.
ReplyDeleteAnd what's your evidence that "city states are coming back in vogue"?
ReplyDeleteReread opinions by Oppenheimer and Einstein. As for the city state concept that sounds intriguing and is actually already working well, I am trying to locate a link to a radio interview I heard recently while driving. Stay tuned.
ReplyDeleteDid you happen to note when reading this post that the National Defense Strategy Commission for the United States was a bipartisan document?
ReplyDeleteAre there any city-states that are members of the UN? Or the Organization of American States? Or the Association of Southeast Asian Nations? Or the Organization of Islamic Cooperation? Or the European Union?
ReplyDeleteNo and thats precisely the point. We don't need your war machines.
ReplyDeleteWhy does bloggie give a crap about international peace making and peace keeping bodies? All I've ever seen him do is trash them.
ReplyDeleteMy point was to see if there are any city-states that are getting diplomatic recognition from any nation-states.
ReplyDeleteBeyond the Vatican.
ReplyDelete“The peoples of this world must unite or they will perish. This war, that has ravaged so much of the earth, has written these words. The atomic bomb has spelled them out for all men to understand. Other men have spoken them, in other times, of other wars, of other weapons. They have not prevailed. There are some, misled by a false sense of human history, who hold that they will not prevail today. It is not for us to believe that. By our works we are committed, to a united world, before this common peril, in law, and in humanity.”
ReplyDeleteOn 25 October 1945 President Harry S. Truman received Oppenheimer in the Oval Office; the physicist had requested the meeting in an effort to persuade the president to support international controls on nuclear weapons. Truman disarmed Oppenheimer by asking when the latter thought the Russians would develop a nuclear weapon; Oppenheimer replied that he did not know, to which Truman interjected: “Never!”
Sensing a lack of urgency in the U.S. leader, and perhaps a little overwhelmed by their first meeting, Oppenheimer confided, “Mr. President, I feel I have blood on my hands.” The remark infuriated Truman who bluntly replied (as he later told David Lilienthal, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission), that “the blood is on my hands, let me worry about that,” smoothly ejected the physicist and instructed Secretary of State Dean Acheson never to bring “that son of a bitch in this office ever again.”
https://www.newsweek.com/hiroshima-smouldered-our-atom-bomb-scientists-suffered-remorse-360125
As for the rise of city-bred and born influences, though I am still seeking the link to the radio program I heard a segment of while driving recently (of course probably on NPR), the reality is that humans increasingly reside in metropolitan areas which have their own micro economies and spheres of influence based more on cooperation and mutual benefit than on fear, misunderstanding and the coercion of centralized socio-religio political ideologies and historical animosities that still very much will likely result in the end of the world as we know it. More later as I continue on with my research. Bloggie as a conservative, believing that he has his eyes wide open to historical reality and desiring those in power to continue to act as such may well be deaf, dumb and blind to a world where these ancient animosities and hyper-cruel and potentially global destructive remedies are discarded by the mass of humanity as expeditiously and speedily as a bad gene is edited out of the genome. Peace, love and understanding, brother.....
ReplyDeleteWell, sure, they must unite. Chairman Kim, are you listening? Ayatollah Khameini?
ReplyDeleteAnd sure, more people are living in metropolitan areas. I don't know that fear and misunderstanding are going away as a result. Chicago's murder statistics ought to be part of the consideration here.
No, for right now the United States needs a strong nuclear triad, and a department within the Pentagon focused on how future threats might unfold.
That is called proliferation and it is patently unacceptable! No human is worthy of making the decision to use then. Kim, if this is the way they want to do it, proliferate rather than eliminate themselves, then fuck it! Stay in bed with China.
ReplyDeleteOur nuclear proliferation puts fear in other countries. Other countries then proliferate too. Since we are the only country who ever dropped the bomb (killing 80,000 humans instantly in Hiroshima and close to that many eventually), is it that much of a stretch to fear we will do it again? Nothing will come from proliferation but proliferation. The endgame? Too terrible to think about. Trump has even suggested that Japan protect themselves and stop depending on the America he purports to be making great again.
ReplyDelete"While mainstream voices go squeamish at talk of war, the far-right is working overtime to articulate a new, Japanese destiny — one that taps into a militancy that was tamed after America’s nuclear attacks. There are still red lines, Nakano says. Go to a dinner party in Tokyo, suggest that Japan build a nuke and “you will get strong, angry reactions,” he says. “From people who are left or right. A big chunk of people think going nuclear is not even an option.” He recalls Trump’s suggestion in 2016 that Japan acquire its own nukes to “protect itself against this maniac [Kim Jong-un].” Nakano says that comment totally “offended and confused the mainstream in Japan.” But putting nukes aside, suggesting that Japan build a more potent military, one unshackled by its US-imposed constitution, is no longer all that taboo. In fact, Japan’s conservative prime minister hopes to do just that."
https://interactive.pri.org/2019/03/japan-nuclear/index.html