-
The Forgotten Art of Thinking About the Bomb
December 5, 2012 | 5 comments
-
The Deadly Arithmetic of Nuclear Proliferation
October 15, 2012 | 91 comments
-
Nuclear Terrorism Sinks Savannah — and U.S. Civil Society
January 6, 2012 | 54 comments
-
Can Israel Save America?
September 9, 2011 | 98 comments
-
Israeli Exceptionalism
September 8, 2011 | 88 comments
Buy the Book
Neo-Disarmament
Five Cold Warriors who’d like to ban nuclear weapons.
The Partnership: Five Cold Warriors and Their Quest to Ban the
Bomb
By Philip
Taubman
(HarperCollins Books, 478 pages, $29.99)
Just as an Israeli airstrike against Iran appears increasingly likely, author Philip Taubman has published a book celebrating a growing movement among movers and shakers aiming to abolish nuclear weapons as soon as possible. The effort is spearheaded by some big names: Nixon-era national security adviser and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, prime architect of American foreign policy during the Nixon years; Reagan-era Secretary of State George Shultz, who became an advocate of nuclear weapons abolition during his tenure; Clinton-era Secretary of Defense William Perry, also a key architect of the development of Stealth technology; and former Georgia Democrat Senator Sam Nunn, who became a top defense and foreign policy expert during his two dozen years on Capitol Hill. Joining them as an adviser was physicist Sidney Drell, who was a nuclear weapons designer and close confidant of Soviet scientist Andrei Sakharov, called “the father of the Soviet H-bomb” by many historians. A sixth Cold warrior, diplomat Max Kampelman, also played an important role in getting the group together.
Following biographical portraits of his subjects, the main part of Taubman’s book narrates how the five men came to collaborate on the cause of promoting global abolition of nuclear weapons. The final section of the book explains the specific steps the five have taken to date, via articles, speeches, conferences, and tête-à-têtes with myriad prominent personages decorating their immense power Rolodexes.
The book offers interesting anecdotes that add color to what otherwise would have been a dry read. Nunn, as a 24-year-old Congressional intern, visited NATO’s massive Ramstein Air Base (in what then was West Germany) during the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. He was told by an Air Force general that in event of a Soviet attack he had one minute to get his planes aloft so they could escape destruction. Visiting NATO sites in 1974 as a freshman senator, Nunn was stunned to learn that ground commanders facing far more numerous Warsaw Pact forces envisioned early recourse to nuclear weapons, to prevent the Soviet Union’s huge army from overrunning Western Europe. On that same visit Nunn was told by one base security officer that a team of terrorists could conceivably storm the base and make off with a nuclear weapon — not three or four, but a team of ten could succeed.
Taubman, whose thirty years with the New York Times included stints as chief of the Gray Lady’s Moscow and Washington bureaus, makes no effort to conceal his enthusiasm for the project. Noting early efforts to block the group’s initiative, Taubman writes that “entrenched interests… in the nuclear weapons priesthood are already mobilizing to block the disarmament movement.” He cites Nixon/Ford Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger as “mockingly” telling one audience of defense analysts: “The dividing line between vision and hallucination is never very clear.” Taubman notes that such skepticism is shared by Jimmy Carter’s Secretary of Defense, Harold Brown, and Clinton-era CIA Director (albeit briefly) John Deutch.
Taubman offers a harrowing chapter on nuclear theft, lax security and careless handling of bombs and warheads. If you are looking for a good night’s sleep, skip this chapter. In a follow-on chapter he informs us that some 160 of 200 research reactors built worldwide run on bomb-grade fuel. There is, he writes, enough highly-enriched uranium — four and a half tons worldwide — to provide fuel for 170 nuclear bombs. (Their explosive yield is not specified, but presumably these would be Hiroshima-size bombs.)
He also recounts several near-nuclear confrontations between the U.S. and Soviet Union, besides Cuba in 1962: during the Vietnam War over U.S. escalation; in 1969 between Russia and China over border disputes; a mistaken radar alarm that triggered a launch of B-52 bombers; and the sudden confrontation in the Mediterranean towards the end of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, over Israel’s having trapped an Egyptian Army division on the west side of the Suez Canal. When the Nixon administration declared a nuclear alert during the confrontation, only Kissinger and then-presidential assistant Gen. Alexander Haig supported the move. Taubman reports that Kissinger told Haig, of the reluctant officials: “These guys were wailing all over the place.”
Taubman wistfully recounts Ronald Reagan’s near-acceptance of “nuclear zero” at the 1986 U.S. — Soviet Summit in Reykjavik as a missed opportunity to eliminate nuclear weapons by 2000. Gorbachev had offered it, subject to Reagan limiting his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) to laboratory research alone. But Reagan refused.
The end of the Cold War gave strong impetus to superpower disarmament, with several arms reduction treaties passing. Nunn found himself in Russia during the August 1991 coup that unseated Gorbachev for a few days and led to the rise of Boris Yeltsin, who became the hero of the popular revolution that led to the demise of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991. Nunn was appalled that during the days of the coup he could not get a straight answer from Russian officials as to whether the Russian nuclear arsenal remained under secure control. This was one of the spurs that led Nunn to collaborate with Indiana Republican Senator Richard Lugar in the hugely successful Nunn-Lugar nuclear threat reduction project, securing by 2011 nearly all the loose nuclear material inside Russia and finding employment for thousands of nuclear scientists. In 2001 Nunn and Lugar joined forces with funding from billionaire Ted Turner to form the Nuclear Threat Initiative, to promote new solutions to nuclear issues.
It is in the final section that Taubman argues his case for proceeding towards nuclear zero. The ascension of Barack Obama to the presidency put in the Oval Office a passionate advocate of total disarmament, only two years after the high-profile disarmament supporters published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.
In broad brushstroke, key ideas already floated by the group include de-alerting missiles and bombers from Cold War high alert status; securing loose nuclear material; creating a collaborative inspection program; and extending international control over nuclear facilities, under the aegis of the United Nations. The advocates further stress that the United States must set an example by taking the lead in reducing their own nuclear arsenal to a very low level (a few hundred). Failing this they say it will be impossible to persuade other nations to do the same.
Taubman lauds the New START Treaty, ratified in December 2010, and the 2009 Nuclear Security Summit as examples of success in the direction of zero. But New START was a unilateral U.S. strategic arms reduction agreement, as the Russians were already below the treaty limits. The Russians can actually build newer, more modern missiles and add to their arsenal. And New START’s verification provisions are more limited than the treaty it replaced (the Bush Moscow Treaty of 2002).
The Washington, D.C. Nuclear Security Summit featured four dozen world leaders. Forced to attend was Israel, whose arm was twisted by the Obama administration. Israel got more attention for its arsenal than did North Korea for having exited the Nonproliferation Treaty and joined the nuclear club. Iran, meanwhile, continues to march towards nuclear capability.
And thus we see the three elephants standing hardly noticed by abolitionists in the proverbial room. First, rogue states will not only decline to follow our good example; they will be induced to increase their arsenals, which become more valuable as our arsenal shrinks — 100 nukes in Pakistan matter much more in a world with the U.S. at the same number, than in a world with the U.S. having a few thousand weapons. This runs counter to the psychology of civilized people who see nuclear weapons as being for deterrence only, but a nuclear Iran eager to destroy the Great Satan (U.S.) and Little Satan (Israel) will think differently.
Proof of this was provided by the Soviets in the eleven months between the November 1985 Geneva Summit and the October 1986 Reykjavik Summit. In that short span the Soviets capped off their 25 year strategic buildup by adding 5,300 warheads, topping out at some 45,000 warheads — this despite the U.S. having frozen the total number of its warheads in 1967 at just over 31,000, and reducing them constantly. So much for setting an example. Yes, Gorbachev came around, as Russia’s economy imploded. Do not expect the fanatical mullahs to do the same.
About the Author
Letter to the Editor View all comments (40) | Leave a comment
More Articles by John C. Wohlstetter
More Articles From Buy the Book
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/10/neo-disarmament
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 2.10.12 @ 6:42AM
You can't unring a bell.
Timothy L. Pennell| 2.11.12 @ 8:50AM
It's called ALZHEIMERS.
And, what Appleby said.
Jack in Wi.| 2.10.12 @ 6:44AM
Reagan hated nuclear weapons and wanted them gone from the face of the earth. All of us who comment here and elsewhere know of the endless threats by radical Zionists, on the internet, to use nuclear weapons. The author here does a good job of going over the book. The problem is at the end where he spouts on about Iran and it's nuclear program.
Iran has stopped all nuclear weapons development and is concentrating on the peaceful uses of nuclear power. This has been confirmed by all our combined intelligence agencies on numerous occasions. Iran is under constant inspection from the IAEA. It has never been found to be in violation of it's nuclear non proliferation treaties, that it has signed. It has the lawful right to do what it is doing without any comment or threats from the USA or Israel.
In 2003 Iran offered to settle all differences with the USA and even go along with the Arab initiative to make peace with Israel. Powell, Rice and Armitage wanted to go along and start neogotiations. Dim witted Bush went along with the neocons, and turned down an an offer that would have saved us from the impending disaster we are facing. We are on the verge of a possible nuclear war that would soon be WW3.
The whole Middle East should be disaramed of nuclear weapons. The Muslims haven't started this arms race and the Israeli's have been using nuclear blackmail for almost 40 years, to get what it wants. The lunatics in Israel and it's worldwide Zionist network who are pushing a nuclear genocide, deserve to be locked up for their insanity. Israel is the greatest threat to the world ever. Hitler didn't have 500 atomic weapons and a plan to use them. I suggest everyone google the Samson Option and the Masada Complex to see the problem we are are facing. The people mentioned in the book and all others who want an end to nuclear weapons are to be commended.
Robert Gage| 2.10.12 @ 12:34PM
"Hitler didn't have 500 atomic weapons and a plan to use them"
So, comparing Hitler and Germany who had NO access to a nuclear arsenal and who WOULD(and no sane person could argue he wouldn't have after WE in the US DID use them) have used it in a heartbeat in the German retreat from Russia and France if he had to a country that HAS had a nuclear arsenal for 50 years or so and has not used it once is somehow a compelling arguement for your position? Really? Thats idiocy to the tenth power. And the fact that any country who has a nuclear arsenal whoever it may be, has plans on how to use it and what conditions warrant its use should it be necessary is somehow news to you or anybody else and we should be shocked by that great revelation? Again, Really? Every country with a nuclear arsenal has target plans, target packages, and scenarios under which it would use it to defend itself against any or all agressive targets to deter force or invasion of its territory or prevent its downfall as a state. Wow, big news there!!! Got news for you, every country that has a nuclear arsenal has a doomsday, launch it all option at even the remotest aggressor before it goes down to oblivion plan. Thats why they call it a Mutually assured destruction doctrine and the fact that Isreal has one is, gasp, outrageous! You live in a dark little paranoid world friend!
Jack in Wi.| 2.10.12 @ 3:33PM
The German scientists thought that atomic weapons were beyond the pale. Hitler did not have the weapons. Israel has had the weapons and threatens to use them against many innocent 3rd parties if it feels that it is going down. Read Martin Van Creweld's threat that Israel has targeted most of the Middle East and much of Europe for destruction. That is the whole idea of the Samson Option. In the the doctrine of mutual assured destruction, the atomic powers would destroy each other, but not target people who were not attacking them. There are many lunatics Zionists all over the webb that threaten to use nuclear weapons, offensively and pre-emptively. Occam here, for example, has on numerous occasions called for the leveling of Iran and any other place he doesn't like. Israel is the first country who has that kind of doctrine and has used nuclear blackmail far too long. The only hope is that sane Israeli's and Jews in the dispora get rid of these guys and find a way to make peace. The whole Middle East should be a nuclear free zone.
Robert Gage| 2.10.12 @ 4:53PM
"The German scientists thought that atomic weapons were beyond the pale"
Thats a flat out crock of shit and a show of your ignorance of the subject. German physicist Werner Heisenberg already was doing calulations that a Fission Chain reaction was not only possible but probable by 1939. Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, a younger colleague and friend of Heisenberg's, drew upon publications by scholars working in Britain, Denmark, France, and the United States to conclude that if a uranium machine could sustain a chain reaction, then some of the more common uranium 238 would be transmuted into "element 94," now called plutonium. Like uranium 235, element 94 would be an incredibly powerful explosive. In 1941, von Weizsäcker went so far as to submit a patent application for using a uranium machine to manufacture this new radioactive element. By the fall of the Third Reich in 1945 they had achieved a significant enrichment in small samples of uranium. Not enough for an atomic bomb, but uranium 235 enrichment nonetheless. German scientists knew exactly what a fission weapon was very early.
The Germans had neither the industrial apparatus nor the time or resources needed to produce a weapon and thats what stopped them. They knew exactly what a fission bomb was and they were actively working towards that goal with what little resources and research that were available. The Japanese had a nuclear program themselves and one of the top Japanese Physicists visited one of the two nuclear targets after the attack and knew exactly what kind of weapon was used.
The Isreali's had targeted several Warsaw pact countries in Europe and the Soviet Union themselves during the cold war days as the Soviet Union and it allies were supplying the Arabs with military equipment, arms and armor, Military Personel, Advisors, and were considered "enemies" and viable targets in the event of a full out assault. Second, why wouldn't they target most of the middle east, thats who they have been defending themselves against for decades. What did you think they were building a nuclear arsenal for? Putting them in a big pile and standing on top and making faces at its opponents?
"In the the doctrine of mutual assured destruction, the atomic powers would destroy each other, but not target people who were not attacking them"
Oh really, then you better do some boning up on the Cold War targeting scenarios. The Soviets had major targets all over the world in the event of an all out nuclear war, many of which were non-participants. A full out attack with all weapons released would kill 10's of millions in non-targeted countries as well. Both sides knew that.
Jack in Wi.| 2.10.12 @ 7:12PM
Heisenberg specifically said that the German scientists would not produce nuclear weapons because of their horrible nature. He condemned American scientists for their peversion of science, in building them. Hitler by the way had some horrible nerve gases that could have killed millions people. He refused to use them. He remembered what it was like to be gased in WW1. both sides stayed away from poison gas in WW2. To threaten and entertain the use of nuclear weapons in a preventive, agressive, war is beyond the beyond the pale of humanity. Israel and it's supporters should be ashamed of such actions and crimes. Many Germans were hung after WW2 for just such actions.
Jenny| 2.12.12 @ 10:18AM
No, you blithering idiot, he saved the gas for people he herded into gas chambers that couldn't defend themselves and shoot back. You really are some kind of historical idiot.
Robert Gage| 2.10.12 @ 5:10PM
"There are many lunatics Zionists all over the webb that threaten to use nuclear weapons, offensively and pre-emptively. Occam here, for example, has on numerous occasions called for the leveling of Iran and any other place he doesn't like"
Do these Web Zionists that have you all shook up have the authorization to target and release the nuclear arsenal of Isreal? No, they don't. They only scare somebody who is already paranoid to begin with. Mr. Occam, whoever you are, stop scaring this poor bastard.
John - TMF| 2.10.12 @ 6:00PM
I haven't seen your name around here. Jackboot is a "special" case, he and his buddy Clint.
They are rabid anti-Semite isolationists who subscribe to nutcase theories like their fellow er um traveler Pat Buchanan. Their almost religious devotion to RuPaul is almost laughable if it weren't so dangerous.
For your info Jackboot... Hitler's bomb was close to being completed, there is evidence that the Germans might have detonated a small device off of the Baltic coast, but didn't have enough U-235 for a full sized bomb.
The effort to derail his heavy water production was Herculean. It cost the lives of agents, Norwegian and British commandos, a failed bombing, a failed bombing raid, and the need to sink a ferry carrying the final delivery of it (the boat was full of civilians who ended up being tragic collateral damage) in a Norwegian fjord.
Hitler's bomb makers were within months of having practical functioning atomic weapons. The V2 could carry a 1 ton warhead, and was more than capable of delivering the payload to Great Britain.
I tire of historical revisionists, their selective hindsight is as stilted as their myopic hate filled world view.
r/TMF
Robert Gage| 2.10.12 @ 6:13PM
Thank you John, yes I am new here. The person from Wisconsin I had pegged already as some kind of anti-Jewish lunatic by his maniacal and warped and frankly rediculous moral equivelency comparison with Hitler and Isreal. Your right, its feeding trolls and a waste of time. Thanks for your heads up and have a great weekend!
Clint| 2.10.12 @ 8:41PM
That's A Lie.
You're A Liar, John The MF.
I'm A Registered Republican,Tea Party Patriot, Dr.Ron Paul Supporter.
Dr.Ron Paul,
" While President Obama’s demand that Israel
make hard concessions in her border conflicts may very well be in her
long-term interest, only Israel can make that determination on her own,
without pressure from the United States or coercion by the United
Nations.
“Unlike this President, I do not believe it is our place to dictate how
Israel runs her affairs. There can only be peace in the region if those
sides work out their differences among one another. We should respect
Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate her policy from Washington."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is In Maine.
Jack in Wi.| 2.10.12 @ 7:18PM
Dr. Martin Van Creweld is a prominent Israeli Military historian. His threat about Israel blowing up most of the Middle East and Europe is no lunatic on the internet. Most of the lunatics spouting calls for nuclear genocide are hasbarets trying to scare the hell out of anyone they don't like. They are an important part of the Israeli campaign of nuclear blackmail. Many of them are paid disrupters, of discussion boards, by the Israeli ministry of propaganda.
Jack in Wi.| 2.10.12 @ 7:28PM
I have never called for the leveling of Israel or that it be bombed with nuclear weapons. Yet we have endless propagada calling for an immoral and illegal attack on Iran, no matter what the consequences. If I did call for such an attack on Israel I would rightfully be condemned. It is time to do the same to the warmongers who have lied us into a disastarous war in Iraq and want to lie us into a much worse war with Iran. These criminals belong in prison or on the end of a rope, after a fair trial.
allblues| 2.10.12 @ 12:44PM
What would Ron Paul do?
Jack in Wi.| 2.10.12 @ 7:33PM
Ron Paul would bring the troops home to their families and let the Middle East run itself. If Israel wants to go to war on it's own, so be it. Frankly they couldn't stand a 100 dead soldiers on their last escapade into Lebanon and one prisoner of war. I don't think the Israeli's would be so brave without Uncle Sam covering their backsides. They might even figure out how to live in peace with their neighbors.
JP| 2.10.12 @ 3:54PM
"Iran has stopped all nuclear weapons development and is concentrating on the peaceful uses of nuclear power. This has been confirmed by all our combined intelligence agencies on numerous occasions. Iran is under constant inspection from the IAEA."
Do you just make this crap up? The IAEA hasn't been allowed to set foot into one facility for a decade. Have you noticed that the EU is finally establishing sanctions for just this reason.
Jack in Wi.| 2.10.12 @ 7:20PM
The Iranians are under constant inspection. No- has found any evidence that they have started any nuclear weapons program or diverted any material awy from their legal program.
Star Tripper| 2.13.12 @ 1:55PM
Nobody found the 500 metric tons of yellow cake uranium ore in Iraq until the US went in. Nobody had a clue that Libya had a missile and WMD program until Ghadaffy surrendered it so he wouldn't become another Saddam.
Quartermaster| 2.10.12 @ 7:49PM
The Persians do not submit to full inspections of their nuke facilities so we have no idea if they have stopped development. Frankly, the way to be is they have not.
Given what the Arabs have said about Israel, the Israelis have no choice except to keep nukes.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 2.12.12 @ 6:04AM
Utter garbage written by a pacifist pro-Ron-Paul loon. Nuclear weapons are absolutely necessary to deter America's enemies, and they PREVENT WAR rather than cause it. The US nuclear arsenal should not be cut; if anything, it should be grown. This should be a no-brainer to even the staunchest isolationsts and nonintervenvtionists. However, Ron Paul and his minions, including Jack, are not mere "noninterventionists' or even mere isolationists; they are virulently anti-American, America-hating pacifists who want the US to unilaterally disarm itself. Hence why they make such ridiculous statements and why Ron Paul has repeatedly sponsored massive defense cuts.
Iran has not ceased work on nuclear weapons. It is still working on them. It is not only enriching uranium at a far greater speed, and in far greater quantities, that it needs to produce electricity, it is now working on uranium deuteride, which has NO civilian applications. Its only application is as a trigger for nuclear weapons.
Hitler was working during WW2 on nuclear weapons and by 1944, the German nuclear program was very advanced, as has been detailed in many books, including La Bombe de Hitler. He already possesd, and was producing en masse and launching, V-2 ballistic missiles, which were capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to Britain. (These V-2 missiles later served as the basis for the development of Cold War era American and Soviet ballistic missiles, including Scuds, and many German scientists later worked for the US or the Soviet Union, depending on who captured them first, on nuclear weapons and BMs as wll as space rockets, Werner von Braun being only the most famous of them.)
Nuclear disarmament is a fantasy. It must not be pursued.
oldfart| 2.10.12 @ 7:05AM
Jack - have you ever had any contact with any kind of radical? If you ever had you would not be making the statements you do. It is like trying to argue with your Mother-In-Law - I'm right your wrong - end of discussion.
Just because you have a knife on your belt does not indicate that you will go around cutting someone's neck. But if that someone knows you have the knife - they just might thing twice about trying to cut your neck.
Nemo| 2.10.12 @ 7:11AM
Anyway, it's too late.
albert constantine jr.| 2.10.12 @ 8:08AM
I believe Pandora herself later opposed opening boxes following her misadventure.
Bob K.| 2.10.12 @ 9:17AM
Good luck with that!
Jim Mulcahy| 2.10.12 @ 9:44AM
This is gun control at its worst. Only dupes like the US would abide by an agreement to totally abolish all nuclear weapons. Does any sentient person think N. Korea or Iran would abide by such an agreement? If we significantly reduce our stockpile that permits countries like Iran who can't afford to have many become a big player (This was Kissinger's view in the '80s). It would also encourage other rogue states to arm themselves.
TrueBlue | 2.10.12 @ 11:13AM
Iran and N. Korea don't obey international law because they are not THEIR laws. They pay lip service, sometimes, but in the end they'll never willingly follow them because they know the "civilized" world isn't willing to take the extra step to wipe them out. There's a reason that Germany and Japan became reformed after WWII.
Sanctions alone will never work, because it requires EVERY other country in the world to agree and follow them, otherwise the sanctioned nation will just trade with those who ignore the sanctions (China and Russia being big examples of this).
It's no different than the majority of gun laws. The only people that will obey them are law-abiding citizens. Criminals are criminals BECAUSE THEY BREAK THE LAW. So anti-gun laws help only criminals and dictators.
Richard Baker| 2.10.12 @ 1:11PM
And who doesn't want the end of nuclear weapons? They wrote a book on this subject? It's kinda like being against electricity. These technologies are extant and aren't going away. Was this book an attempt to be invited to the correct dinner parties via a mea culpa?
John - TMF| 2.10.12 @ 6:57PM
Now to the issue at hand:
While I am certain that these fine old, very accomplished gentlemen have good intentions, and a fond desire to have a world rid of the "scourge" of nuclear weapons, their sentiments are just that; the wishes and hopes of rapidly fading old men.
First, I offer an aphorism that holds the ultimate truth in diplomacy and human comportment. Pacifism is a utopian fantasy. It is ultimately a fatal dream because for the world to be eternally peaceful, there must be 100% participation, 100% of the time.
Because atomic weapons (both standard fission, and thermonuclear fusion) are pre-digital technologies that are now fully 70 years old, it is impossible to "put the jin" back into its lamp (an ironic analogy if there ever was one).
To rid the world of nuclear weapons one would have to be the world's policeman. One would have to stop most of the developing world from exploring any sort of atomic physics, since such science will always lead to atomic weapons.
The costs of maintaining nuclear disarmament would far exceed any one, or group of nations monetary or conventional capabilities. Who determines who gets punished? How is the punishment for transgressing going to be meted out, and how are complex treaties to be verified?
We have none of those mechanisms, and the next wave of nuclear armed nations have none of our "Western Sensibilities" either. They are young (check CIA Factbook for the average age of most Islamist influenced nations.) They are aggressive, and above all they hate us for what we are and what they perceive us to be.
And.. remember the aphorism... They are NOT passive. They rule by dictatorship and they wage war at every level to get what they want. Currently what they want the most is nuclear weapons.
No treaty or negotiation is going to stop the eventual use of one or more of those weapons, once gained, against us.
It will take counter force, and without the threat of mass retaliation, that counter force would be obliterated on the battlefield.
We would be taking, to paraphrase a catchy phrase from a good movie, a gun to a bomb fight.
The sweet tunes of the pipes and violins from Fiddler's Green has changed once capable and determined diplomats into wistful old men.
Nuclear weapons are here to stay, and if we want to keep them out of the hands of madmen, we had better stop wishing our existence away, and get to work.
r/TMF
Bob K.| 2.11.12 @ 12:00AM
Why not start with closing our southern border?
robert gage| 2.10.12 @ 8:20PM
John,
Well spoken and the cold hard truth. You don't undiscover a technology. Total nuclear disarmament is a utopian fantasy that practioneers of that mindset bandy about at cocktail parties to morally jack each other off.
PCP Smoker| 2.10.12 @ 8:42PM
Imagine spending that much time getting schooled, only to NOT know the difference between good and evil.
POST American| 2.10.12 @ 11:33PM
-----'80's Show' sideshow --SAP OP --ASIDE--
"Do you realize, that, at this point,
what the Globalists, with YOUR tax
money, have created in RED China?
YES, the communist aspect is moot
as corporate powers (--most of them
no doubt formerly complicit in MAO's
halocaust) run the roost and determine
the agenda. ---BUT! with its police state
character, intense concern with social
programming for EUGENICS ---and
'aggressive' EUGENICS for the unborn
--old --un fit --indeed, ALLLLL 'challenged
life' ---they are NOW the --NAZI-- model
of capstone efficiency without the overt
imperial quality. They are the criminal
UN's 'Model for the World' ---and soon
to be 'World Enforcer'."
---Unaccountable, psychopathic, intergenerational,
capstone USURY is an abomination
which begets EUGENICS.
-----EUGENICS is ABSOLUTELY CENTRAL-------
---The consumation of the EUGENICS 'vision'-----
----------------------------IS--------------------------------
----------------------GENOCIDE--------------------------
"When YOUR time comes
--------WHAT WILL YOU DO?"
------------------------------------------? ? ? ? ? ?
Ivan Ivanovich| 2.11.12 @ 8:32AM
So, we have 31,000 nukes. Why don't we just send 15,500 to Iran and 15,500 to N. Korea? Then we could bend over and kiss our asses goodbye.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 2.12.12 @ 6:09AM
Nuclear disarmament is an idiotic, suicidal, treasonous policy. It would dramatically weaken the US military, deprive America of its best deterrent and its best weapons, and make it easier for America’s enemies to win wars against the US (because the US would have no nuclear weapons to defeat aggressors), thus making America dramatically less safe. Additionally, unilateral or bilateral nuclear disarmament would be suicidal because other countries would have nuclear weapons while the US wouldn’t. This would be an invitation for other countries to nuke the US completely and annihilate the US entirely. Such suicidal policies must never be pursued.
A unilateral cut of the US nuclear arsenal to just “a few hundred” nuclear warheads would be idiotic, wrong, treasonous, and suicidal, because it would not only dramatically reduce the US nuclear arsenal (thus dramatically weakening the US military, which by itself would make America less safe), it would DISCOURAGE other nuclear-armed countries from making their own reductions, because:
1) the US would, by then, have already reduced its arsenal to just a few hundred warheads, thus encouraging other countries to grow their nuclear arsenals to reach parity with, or even get ahead of, the US;
2) some countries would have an arsenal roughly as big as that of the US, and some others, such as China and Russia, would have an arsenal significantly larger than that of the US; and that would eliminate any incentive for other countries to make reductions of their own;
3) the US would voluntarily give up its only trump card in arms reduction negotiations and dramatically weaken its negotiation position;
4) since the reduction of the US nuclear arsenal would, under disarmament advocates’ own assumption, be unilateral, other countries would not have to do anything to win that American concession, and would not be willing to make any concessions later. In fact, they would expect further American unilateral concessions.
In addition, such a dramatic unilateral cut in the US nuclear arsenal would render the US nuclear arsenal vastly smaller than those of Russia and China, thus inviting these countries to nuke the US first, and guaranteeing a nuclear first strike on the US.
“Leadership by example” is useless and never works. “Leadership by example” on disarmament issues is not just useless and ineffective, it is treasonous and suicidal, because it is really unilateral disarmament, which unilaterally disarms a country, leaves it defenseless, invites aggressors to attack it, and guarantees an enemy attack.
Taubman’s allegations that nuclear weapons have been stolen from American bases or storage installations are false; not a single nuclear warhead has even been stolen from the US military. As for the fantasy that terrorists could ever successfully storm an Air Force base, steal a nuclear bomb, and use it, it’s a pacifist fantasy that only proves how ignorant and foolish Taubman is. To be able to steal a nuclear warhead, terrorists would have to be able to carry it physically out of the base. How would they do so? On their backs? They would not be able to crash the base’s gate, bring a truck it, and transport the warhead out in a truck, because that would require them to send an entire brigade of well-trained fighters to the base and eliminate all base guards. Even if they were to ever steal a nuclear warhead, it would be useless to them, because they would not be able to deliver it. For that, they would need to have a matching means of delivery, and they will never be able to get one. Terrorists will never be able to steal an American plane, ICBM, nor SSBN. And no, Hezbollah’s and Iran’s ballistic missiles cannot deliver “any warhead” – terrorists would need to acquire a matching means of delivery, i.e. one that can carry that specific type of warhead. America’s ICBM and SLBM warheads cannot be carried by planes nor by SRBMs or IRBMs. Bomber warheads cannot be carried by missiles.
The risk of terrorists ever stealing an American, French, or British nuclear weapon, let alone acquiring the means to deliver it, is zero.
The Cold War era incidents that Taubman recalls – the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Nixonian escalation of the Vietnam War, the 1969 Soviet-Chinese border clash, the mistaken alarm that caused the scrambling of B-52 bombers, and Israel’s trapping of an Egyptian Army division west of the Suez Canal in 1973 – are not arguments for nuclear disarmament. They are actually arguments AGAINST nuclear disarmament. They prove that nuclear weapons are needed, are good deterrent weapons, and make America and the world SAFER. Nuclear weapons did not cause any of these standoffs, but they prevented EVERY ONE of these standoffs from escalating and from becoming nuclear wars. It was because of nuclear weapons that these standoffs’ participants did not up the ante. They wanted to survive and did not want to cause a nuclear war, and thus understood when to back off.
During the Cuban Missile Crisis, neither side could attack, because neither side wanted to commit suicide by inviting nuclear retaliation, so both sides had to, at minimum, tolerate each other and accept a compromise.
In Vietnam, there was never any risk of the Soviets retaliating for America’s escalation of bombing of North Vietnam, because North Vietnam was not a vital interest of the USSR and was not worth fighting over, let alone going nuclear over, despite Taubmann’s lies. The USSR was so geographically distant that it had no strategic irons in the Vietnamese fire, to borrow words from retired Col. Thomas Snodgrass, USAF, a veteran of the Vietnam War. The Soviets understood this, which is why they never did anything meaningful about North Vietnam, except to continue to supply it with weapons.
The 1969 border clashes between the Soviet Union (not Russia) and China again proved that nuclear deterrents work. The US could not have, and did not decide to, intervene here (not to mention that no crucial US interests were at stake in this murky conflict), because it knew it could not risk nuclear retaliation by the Soviet Union, and vice versa.
The 1973 Yom Kippur war was another excellent example of nuclear deterrents at work. The Soviet Union knew it could not attack Israel (let alone use nuclear weapons) because it would’ve invited certain nuclear retaliation by the US. President Nixon made that even clearer by announcing a worldwide strategic alert for the US nuclear triad. That deterred the Soviet Union from intervening. Had there been no nuclear weapons at the time, or had they been only in Soviet hands, the scenario would’ve played out very differently.
All of these facts, as well as the entire perfect record of US nuclear weapons preventing the Cold War from ever going hot and preventing Soviet/Russian aggression against NATO, is proof that nuclear weapons DO NOT cause war, that they are useful and necessary deterrents, and that they actually PREVENT wars and make America and its allies safer. It also proves a broader truth – that a strong defense makes the US and its allies safe and PREVENTS wars rather than cause it.
But of course, these are facts that Philip Taubman (who is an extremely leftist journalist working for the NYT, an extremely leftist anti-defense newspaper), as an extreme leftist, will never learn, and neither will the leftist “experts” whom he approvingly writes about in his pathetic screed – Kissinger, Shultz, Perry (who was co-responsible for the disastrous defense cuts of the 1990s), and Nunn. Taubman, as an ideologically-blinded leftist, is deluded and blinded by his pacifist ideology of unilateral disarmament, so he’s unable to learn facts.
The book approvingly cites the election of veteran pacifist Barack Obama, an advocate of total disarmament, the most pacifist President in US history, a totally failed President who has made America much weaker and dramatically less safe, because he shares Taubmann’s pacifist ideology and goal of total disarmament.
Taubman and the five ex-officials may be deluding themselves that they can convince the entire nuclear club – not just the US – to give up nuclear weapons. But they are wrong. Global nuclear disarmament will never happen. China, North Korea, Pakistan, India, and Israel will never give up their nuclear weapons. Iran will never freewillingly end its nuclear weapons program. Nuclear weapons will always exist. They were invented 66 years ago (and thermonuclear weapons were invented almost 60 years ago). They cannot be un-invented, abolished, or banned globally. This “genie” cannot be put back into the bottle, so to speak. Nuclear weapons are here to stay. And that being the case, the US needs to listen to the realistic advice of General Eisenhower, who recommended in 1948 that the US must have the strongest and most numerous nuclear weapons and develop all delivery systems of nuclear warheads.
The US must never give up or cut its nuclear arsenal. Such a policy would make America weaker and less safe. If anything, the US nuclear arsenal should be grown.
With God all things r possible| 2.12.12 @ 12:43PM
What is it with these old guys? They should become wise, but instead become utter, doddering fools. They are the country club Republican version of octegenarian and chief fool James Earl Carter.
Avert your eyes from this embarrassment.
POST American| 2.12.12 @ 10:05PM
----------------------FINAL WORD----------------------
STOP BALKING to the 'TALKING POINTS'!
The 4 decades on CFR-Globalist RED China handover and
TREASON OP ------IS THE CENTRAL ISSUE.
---------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012----------------
Overcome your love affair with FEAR.
"Let's ALL die ---or let's DO IT."
-Thomas Carlysle
HUAC/ Nuremberg
TIME TO MOVE
Russell | 2.13.12 @ 12:39AM
John has written an article that makes most of the preceding comments look fairly coherent.
John Kettlewell| 2.13.12 @ 4:54AM
I'm glad they mentioned that the latest START Agreement was a unilateral USA disarmement. I just wish folks would stop using Treaty as if it was Constitutionally binding on every document agreed to internationally. No thing can usurp the powers, responsibilities, and rights without Article 5 procedures.
Nuclear abolishment is nothing but a sideshow to the attempted reductions of military capacities of sovereign nations. It occasionally comes to fore due to the 'unknowns' involved in such a device capable of destruction similar to relatively sized Armies. It's about control in the end, as is everything else politically.
There will be something after nuclear weapons are gone, to pursue. There is ALWAYS something more to do. Everything comes back to global governance; sustainability in the form of population control and then the true rebirth of eugenics.
If I sound like a nutjob, that is of no concern to me. Control is the ultimate human attainance, Ego is the flaw that perpetuates that fallacy.
nathan| 2.13.12 @ 10:35AM
Umm, interesting all interesting.
Let's see what we "might" actually know. Maybe.
Ispectors are in Iran now. As far as we can figure out, they have access to the only facility that really matters the one at Qom. The cameras there have not been turned off. What "everyone" seems to agree on, Israelis included is that there is no bomb at present. Iran is enriching at a level below weapons grade but above reactor grade. Could they go higher? Yes. Have they done so? No.
Consider the neighborhood they live in, consider the horribly evil Saddam with our assistance attacked them with the loss of 500,000 lives and given that Pakistan is next door, and a very hostile heavily armed Israel not too far away and you're listening to the republican presidential candidates minus Ron Paul sing variations of the Beach Boys, please any/all of you tell us what you, the leader of a country surrounded by a lot of military bases, a country that has not ventured outside its borders "directly" in over a century, a country that was the object of an act an unprovoked act of war in 1953 by the so-called greatest country on earth (why exactly did we overthrow the popular Mossedegh government and replace it with a kleptomaniac human rights abuser? And yeah that was a long time ago but not to them?) tell us if you were the leader of the country with an obligation to defend your people what exactly would YOU do?
And what how good is your Persian? What exactly did they say? We will destroy you or you are going to disappear into the dustbin of history? Want to go to war on the basis of a bad translation?
Again confronted what they are confronted with, surrounded by who they are surrounded by, if you are the head of government tell us what YOU do?
And by the way, let's get rid of the one urban myth here. The attack on the Osirik reactor did more or less nothing. Desert Storm did nothing. It wasn't until troops moved in that the research was ended. Like so often air power short of nuclear is grossly over rated. And it won't really accomplish much here either.
Enjoy your day folks.