Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. mulls implications of nuclear decline
Associated Press ^ | 10/27/2008 | Robert Burns

Posted on 10/27/2008 9:02:11 PM PDT by pasr

WASHINGTON - The U.S. arsenal of nuclear weapons is declining in power and purpose while the military's competence in handling the world's most dangerous arms has eroded. At the same time, international efforts to contain the spread of such weapons look ineffective. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, for one, wants the next president to think about what nuclear middle age and decline mean for national security.

Gates joins a growing debate about the reliability and future credibility of the American arsenal with his first extensive speech tomorrow on nuclear arms. The debate is attracting increasing attention inside the Pentagon even as the military is preoccupied with fighting insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. The unconventional tools of war there include covert commandos, but not nuclear weapons.

Gates is expected to call for increased commitment to preserving the deterrent value of atomic weapons. Their chief focus has evolved from World War II enemies to the Soviets. Now the vast U.S. stockpile serves mainly to make any other nation think twice about developing or using even a crude nuclear device of its own.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, wrote in the current issue of an internal publication, Joint Force Quarterly, that the United States is overdue to retool its nuclear strategy. He referred to nuclear deterrence - the idea that the credible threat of U.S. nuclear retaliation is enough by itself to stop a potential enemy from striking first with a weapon of mass destruction.

"Many, if not most, of the individuals who worked deterrence in the 1970s and 1980s - the real experts at this discipline - are not doing it anymore," Mullen wrote. "And we have not even tried to find their replacements."

(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: nucleardecline; obama; postcoldwar; readiness
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last
Who can better handle this important issue? My answer is McCAIN/Palin................
1 posted on 10/27/2008 9:02:11 PM PDT by pasr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pasr

Pi$$ me off headline of the night.


2 posted on 10/27/2008 9:03:27 PM PDT by allmost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pasr
"Gates is expected to call for increased commitment to preserving the deterrent value of atomic weapons." My God, of course...what is the hell is alternative?
3 posted on 10/27/2008 9:04:01 PM PDT by americanophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pasr

more crapaganda from the AP.


4 posted on 10/27/2008 9:05:09 PM PDT by kingattax (99 % of liberals give the rest a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: americanophile

Rubber bullets and diplomacy, with an emphasis on the latter.


5 posted on 10/27/2008 9:06:27 PM PDT by TheZMan (Admin Moderator, "No. We dumped it because it was stupid.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: americanophile

Obama will want the USA to disarm. You know the UN and all that goody stuff. Yep I would bet on it!! Maybe this is what Biden is talking about.


6 posted on 10/27/2008 9:06:47 PM PDT by therut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pasr

This is actually a good issue for McCain.

Obama has specifically said he will not update the nuclear arsenal.


7 posted on 10/27/2008 9:07:29 PM PDT by lonestar67 (Its time to withdraw from the War on Bush-- your side is hopelessly lost in a quagmire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pasr
Prior discussion, but bears repeating:

US considering implications of nuclear decline

See also:

USAF Creates Global Strike Command

8 posted on 10/27/2008 9:07:45 PM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner (Sarah Palin is a smart missile aimed at the heart of the left!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pasr

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Who’s to guess what power will arise in the near future? South America, China, Russia, The Middle East...I rest easy at night knowing we have reliable nukes sitting in their silos.


9 posted on 10/27/2008 9:07:50 PM PDT by Dallas59 (Redistribute Obamas Wealth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pasr

Good Lord, what a bunch of meaningless double-talk.

It’s bad enough that they are pushing an agenda, but at least be coherent about it.


10 posted on 10/27/2008 9:08:11 PM PDT by denydenydeny ("[Obama acts] as if the very idea of permanent truth is passe, a form of bad taste"-Shelby Steele)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pasr

Dump some of the “declining” stockpile on the AP.


11 posted on 10/27/2008 9:08:18 PM PDT by libh8er
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: therut

I’ll see you in the streets!


12 posted on 10/27/2008 9:08:21 PM PDT by americanophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

No, this particular story is true. Trust me on this.


13 posted on 10/27/2008 9:08:35 PM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner (Sarah Palin is a smart missile aimed at the heart of the left!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All

“The U.S. arsenal of nuclear weapons is declining in power and purpose while the military’s competence in handling the world’s most dangerous arms has eroded.”

I probably shouldn’t comment because I can’t stand reading AP articles, but that sentence makes no sense to me. How has the US arsenal declined in power and purpose? I assume our nuclear weapons still are capable of blowing things up. And, because even if the Iranians get the bomb, we will be able to turn Iran into a parking lot, I assume our arsenal has as much of a purpose as it did during the days of the Soviet Union.

Of course, the Messiah thinks all of the nuts out there will be so in love with him that they’ll behave, so spending on nukes probably will be cut if he’s elected.

The issue of Iran alone makes it necessary to keep Obama out of the White House.


14 posted on 10/27/2008 9:09:35 PM PDT by nyc1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: americanophile
...somehow that came out sounding like I used a Chinese translator. My actual point was: What in hell is the alternative?
15 posted on 10/27/2008 9:11:25 PM PDT by americanophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nyc1
The half life of Tritium is 12.5 years. So any Tritium boosted fission weapons will loose about half their power in 12.5 years.
16 posted on 10/27/2008 9:12:05 PM PDT by SubMareener (Become a monthly donor! Free FreeRepublic.com from Quarterly FReepathons!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: pasr

AP should be mulling the decline of something a little bit closer to it’s front door.


17 posted on 10/27/2008 9:13:19 PM PDT by Steely Tom (RKBA: last line of defense against vote fraud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pasr

Nothing a 25% cut in defense budgets wouldn’t fix.


18 posted on 10/27/2008 9:14:16 PM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pasr
Certainly a reassessment is going on but the issues the AP raises are probably not the primary ones. We are hardly likely to eliminate these weapons in the face of imminent nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East. We are also unlikely to need them in the form of the current arsenal. Some modification has been going on for some years now due to drastically improved targeting techniques - why try to build and maintain a 30 megaton city buster just because we used not to be able to hit within a 5-mile radius?

Without going into detail these weapons do age, and parts can be reused. Just because it looks like a drawdown doesn't mean that it actually is one.

19 posted on 10/27/2008 9:21:02 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pasr
Hard to believe that the world's largest and most powerful nuclear arsenal is somehow incapable of doing what it is supposed to do.
20 posted on 10/27/2008 9:21:16 PM PDT by April Lexington (I'm voting for McCain in 2008 and Jefferson Davis in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson