Posted on 04/18/2004 5:29:33 PM PDT by RocketJsqurl
The case for new low-yield nukes.
No one likes to consider the possibility of nuclear war. But somebody's got to do it, and that sober duty fell recently to a special task force of the Defense Science Board, which has just recommended useful changes to the U.S. strategic arsenal to fit our post-September 11 world. First we should note what the task force does not want to change--the high threshold for use of nuclear weapons. "It is, and will likely remain, American policy to keep the nuclear threshold high and to pursue non-nuclear attack options whenever possible. Nothing in our assessment or recommendations seeks to change that goal," the panel writes. "Nevertheless, in extreme circumstances, the president may have no choice but to turn to nuclear options."
The scenarios the task force envisions aren't, regrettably, all that extreme. High on the list would be eliminating an enemy's weapons of mass destruction before it has a chance to use them on us. (Think rogue states and assorted terrorist groups.) Or removing an adversary's regime while saving a country (North Korea). Or ending a WMD war quickly (India-Pakistan).
The task force argues that we need a better nuclear doctrine than the mutually assured destruction, or MAD, of the Cold War. Current plans to refurbish the nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons from the 1970s and '80s "will not meet the country's future needs," the report says. Large, high-fallout nuclear weapons designed to obliterate cities won't deter terrorists who might doubt that a President would use them in response to an attack.
Rather, the task force wants to see the U.S. nuclear arsenal expanded to include more precise, lower-yield weapons--especially those that could penetrate targets buried deep underground where conventional weapons can't reach. The idea is to give a President the option of incinerating enemy weapons, leaders and command-and-control systems with as little damage as possible to civilians. Having the option of highly precise nuclear weapons with greatly reduced radioactivity would also make the threat of their use more believable to terrorists contemplating attacks on the U.S. or allies.
The panel has a host of additional recommendations that don't include nukes. It wants a new cruise missile with a conventional warhead that could be launched from an offshore submarine and strike a target 1,500 miles away in 15 minutes. It recommends that the 50 Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missiles now scheduled for deactivation be refitted with conventional warheads and deployed to Cape Canaveral in Florida and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. This would give the U.S. "a 30-minute response capability for strategic strike world-wide." Like just about every report out of the Pentagon these days, the task force highlights the need for better intelligence. In the context of the U.S. strategic forces, the task force wants better human intelligence, better technology and more creative thinking. One recommendation calls for the development of "cyberspies"--electronic sensors that flesh-and-blood spies could place on potential targets and which could then be tracked and targeted from space.
The report hasn't got a lot of attention outside the Pentagon. Inside the building is another story. The Defense Science Board, chaired by William Schneider, is a prestigious body whose recommendations are taken seriously and often translated into action.
None of this is likely to go down well with critics in Congress who immediately deem any proposed change in nuclear policy to be provocative. They are already on record as opposing the Bush Administration's push for the development of new low-yield nukes.
The use of nuclear weapons remains a last resort. No American President wants to cross that threshold. But if he has to, to protect American lives, surely it's preferable to have the option of using a highly precise, low-yield weapon that strikes a specific target than the Armageddon alternative that prevailed during the Cold War.
SCUD storm. Not real effective. Not cheap.
It is ONLY a matter of time before we are HIT again and I for one do NOT believe it will be SMALLER than 911, but much larger and of course the only way that can happen, is by the use of WMD.
Somehow, I doubt that a terrorist cell in the middle of NYC or LA would particularly mind being the recipient of a Nuke strike. Nukes are for striking enemy countries and conventional enemy armies. Terrorism is not a country and it is not a conventional army.
Consider first that those eight have ownership of enough of our debt and dollars to topple us by dumping it. Why do you think the Saudi's get a free ride? The blessings of free trade, the balance of trade deficit, and the resulting foreign financing of our government.
Willing to nuke France? A lot of the problem between Israel and the Palestinians is kept going by France, and due to France is likely unresolvable.
Didn't NASA just test a Mach6 vehicle?
Agree completely. It seems that if you mention the possibility, you are somehow provoking the act.
Shaking my head....
"Though" "Those of Us 'In the West'" wish to exist "In a Peaceful Harmony" with "Islam," LET THERE BE NO DOUBT that Furthur Abominations such as "9/11" MAY WELL RESULT IN a "THERMONUCLEAR RESPONSE."
In SHORT, on a "Worldwide Scale," the "Followers of Islam" HAVE NOT established ANY FORM of "Moral Supremacy" such that they can take ANY ACTION unapproved by Their Fellow Man.
"In the Judgement of 'The World,'" "Islam" has NO MORE MORAL AUTHORITY than ANY Other "Belief!!"
Massive Responses to "Islamic-Inspired Genocide or Murder, or Rape, or Torture," are NOT ONLY JUSTIFIED--They are MORALLY MANDATED!!
On the "World Stage," "Islam" is "On Trial." & SO FAR,--as a Philosophy of Life, & a set of Guidelines by which to live a Productive & Peaceful Life--"Islam" has "Shown Itself to Be" Mostly a "Conduit" through which Belief Systems Based on HATRED Manifest Themselves.
There is Little or NO evidence that a Human Civilization can be built upon Hatred. YET, "Modern Islam" seems to be SOLELY BASED upon that principle.
I Know the "Modern-Day Believers" in "Islam" will "Protest 'Islam's Innocence;'" yet, repeatedly, despite Gentle, Non-accusatory requests that "Formal Islam" RENOUNCE BIGOTRY, RACISM, VIOLENCE, SUICIDAL MARTYRDOM, FEMALE SLAVERY, there seems to be an "Undercurrent of Belief" in the more radical tenets of "Islam," including an OUTRIGHT DENIAL of the Right of "NoN-Islams" to Exist.
Such a "Belief System" CANNOT co-exist with ANY "Western Culture.
The "Impasse" WILL, eventually, result in a "Annihilation-Level Confrontation."
If we are REALLY LUCKY, "Islam" will fade into irrelevance.
If we are NOT SO LUCKY, we will be FORCED to VAPORIZE the Earthly Manifestations of "Islam."-----or Acquiesce to the "Rules of Islam."
"Islam" requires the DEATH of "Western Culture,"--& the loss of two centuries of scientific/cultural Discoveries/advances.
Dov
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.