Replies

" I was very concerned about your report of our "standing down" our nuclear umbrella until I found this article:

www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=mj04norris

If that article is correct, it looks like we still have more than enough "nuclear teeth". Good news, eh?"

Our nuclear forces need to be able to deal with multiple enemies. We need a policy of massive retaliation if the Islamic world employs WMD against the US. In such an event we still need to have a large nuclear force even after we expend a large number of weapons on targets from Karachi to Cairo.

The main targets in the Islamo-sphere would be counter-value rather than counter-force, so few would be time critical. It would not matter if they were struck in 3 days time rather than 30 minutes. This would make the bomber the ideal means of delivering a counter value strike. They can carry a far larger payload than SLBM's or ICBM's, and are reusable, particularly if rearmed with updated SRAM's to take out enemy air defenses. They can attack on multiple sorties rather than a single strike.

We have enemies uniting against us, in Latin America we have Lula de-Silva's Brazil and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela forming an anti-Anglo axis, encouraged by China. We have China, the Islamic world and perhaps Russia, although more skillful diplomacy would have converted her to an ally, e.g. not attacking Serbia and granting refuge to Chechen terrorists.

What worked once will work again, reactivate the Strategic Air Command. The chain mailed fist clutching olive branches and lightning bolts saw us through a very dangerous time in our history. Complete production of the Trident D5, and arm all 18 Ohio class SSBN's with them, instead of drawing down the force to create Tomahawk missile launchers.

Make the B-1 a dual use bomber, nuclear and conventional, and build more, most of the tooling was retained. Re-engine the B-52H with P&W2000 series high bypass turbofans (used on the C-17) to a B-52J configuration. Put the 747 Advanced into production as a tanker, with hard-points for cruise missiles for an additional punch.

We should go to a force of 540 bombers in 18 bomb wings, in the 8th and 15th Air Force of SAC, with another numbered air force having the ICBM fleet. Massive retaliation works, when animal rights wackos harass people they go after 80 year old women wearing fur coats to opera. They never go to biker bars and harass the Hells Angels for wearing leather.

This report is by the same people at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists who constantly understated Soviet missile forces, and exaggerated what our Minuteman missile force and Poseidon missile force could do to the Soviets after a Soviet first strike. They fought Reagan's build-up tooth-and-nail as "overkill" "unnecessary" "provocative" "destabilizing" or a "first strike threat".

Needless to say, Reagan's buildup was NONE of that. It was always an essential, and necessary counter to the Soviet's first-strike ambitions. And one that the Russians may still have lurking under wraps in Putin's noggin. We have reduced our Tridents by 30%. We have reduced our MX's by 100%. The Russians meanwhile, have reduced their SS-18s by....5%. Which reduction is comprised of a couple filmed "show piece" silo-destructions, and the missiles that were therein used for launching satellites. But the rest are staying put until the year 2017...

God, I wish John Bolton who negotiated this Moscow treaty that implemented this unilateral U.S. reduction (so far) could speak openly without political restraints imposed on him by GWB. I suspect he would have a lot to say.