By Laicie Heeley Over the past few weeks, pronouncements and threats concerning Iran’s nuclear program have become increasingly worrisome. Inflammatory remarks by the US and Israel have elicited an equally inflammatory response from Iran, and the end result is anyone’s guess. The tension has been building for months, and recently some top American officials have […]
More on Republican Disarmers
In his latest New York Post column, the Heritage Foundations Peter Brookes lambasts the Obama administration for allegedly considering reductions in deployed strategic warheads below the New START limit of 1,550. No surprise here, given that Brookes vehemently opposed the New START treaty.
We could have plenty of fun with most everything in the op-ed, but the third to last paragraph was my favorite:
Yes, Republican presidents have ditched plenty of nukes over the years. But those reductions came with US arms-control wins, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union and our indisputable conventional superiority.
In other words, it’s fine when Republican presidents move to reduce the arsenal (1) by pursuing arms control agreements, (2) because the world has changed, and (3) due to our overwhelming conventional superiority. But it’s basically appeasement when Democratic presidents move to reduce the arsenal (1) by pursuing arms control agreements, (2) because the world has changed, and (3) due to our overwhelming conventional superiority.
Sounds like Robert Burns’ follow-up story on the administration’s review titled “Boldest nuclear cutters recently? It’s been GOP” struck a nerve with the Heritage folks.
There are legitimate arguments one can make against further reductions in the arsenal. See this contribution from Elbridge Colby, for example. I strongly disagree with Colby (that’s a post for another night), but it’s a seriously argued case.
The same can’t be said of Brookes latest diatribe.
Strategic revelation
by John Isaacs Executive Director John Isaacs discusses the AP leak of cutting our nuclear force over at Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. His piece, “Strategic Revelation” was published February 23, 2012. One of the time-honored traditions for influencing debates in Washington, DC, is to leak confidential information to the press. The Pentagon Papers, […]
Gen. Gard Op-Ed in the Hill: "Reason over relics: Restructuring our nuclear force"
Center Chairman Lt. Gen. Robert Gard (USA, ret.) published an op-ed in The Hill today on the ongoing, Pentagon-led review of U.S. nuclear deterrence requirements. A February 14 Associated Press story reported that as part of this review the Pentagon has prepared a range of options for future nuclear force levels.
Below is Gen. Gard’s closing argument:
In a time of limited budgets and scarce resources, it would be irresponsible not to consider reductions in weapons that most national security experts see as of marginal strategic value. Those scarce funds certainly can be better directed toward addressing 21st century national security threats, not those of the 20th century. The mere consideration of that possibility, however, will mean overcoming the passionate objections of the defenders of the last century’s Cold War thinking.
The Associated Press story appears to be the result of a leak aimed at embarrassing the president and preemptively limiting the range of possible actions he may consider, but that kind of approach to policy making is profoundly irresponsible. What should be embarrassing is attempting to block the president and the Pentagon from considering all options. Seeking to derail deliberative policy-making and play national security for political points is hardly the stuff of responsible leadership.
Many things happen in Washington because of an entrenched status quo. Maintaining a hugely expensive and colossally redundant nuclear force of declining strategic significance shouldn’t be one of them. History is rich with examples of nations that failed to adapt to changing times: they fought for the status quo instead of meeting the needs of their people. America cannot afford to become that example.
You can read the whole thing here.
Reason over Relics: Restructuring our Nuclear Force
Lt. General Gard’s op-ed “Reason over Relics: Restructuring our Nuclear Force” was originally published in The Hill’s Congress Blog on February 22, 2012. In To End All Wars, his excellent history of World War I, author Adam Hochschild recounts how passionately some strategists defended the perceived essential role of the horse cavalry. In an era that war was […]
