Bush's Nuclear Deterrent Disarmament Plan Opposed by Pentagon

US and Russian arms control negotiators have reportedly reached an agreement on the terms for a new treaty between the US and Russia, reducing the size of the US arsenal to between 1700-2200 nuclear warheads each, and President Bush has announced that he plans to sign the measure at the Bush-Putin summit in Moscow on May 24th. The Russians sought a binding agreement in order to render the planned US nuclear disarmament measures "irreversible," while Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld worked to retain provisions in the treaty which would leave the US the option to rearm itself in the event of a crisis, using deactivated warheads to be placed in storage. While the final treaty does not mandate the destruction of deactivated warheads, according to an article today in the Washington Times, a senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that, "most of those that are retired are likely to be destroyed." Rumsfeld was reportedly so opposed to the treaty that he tried various strategems in an attempt to sabotage the agreement. He did not desist from his efforts until personally ordered to do so by the President. In order to better understand the rationale for the President's decision to sign this planned bilateral nuclear arms reduction treaty, in opposition to the counsel of his own Secretary of Defense, it is necessary to provide some background.

Back in October 2001, President Bush and Russian President Putin of Russia met during their summit in Crawford, Texas, to much fanfare; there at the Bush estate, the two leaders pledged sweeping reductions in their respective strategic nuclear deterrent forces. But dating back to the onset of the Bush-Putin summit, October 2001, Mr. Bush announced his plan to go against the recommendation of his Secretary of Defense and top generals, who know better, and begin unilaterally disarming the US strategic nuclear deterrent from then-7200 warheads, fielded by the US in November 2001, to between 1700-2200 weapons by year-2012--as much as a 75% reduction in deployed warheads. The reason for this proposed range of weapons was reportedly an attempt to placate his generals; however, the Administration has clearly indicated that Bush would prefer to disarm to the low-end level of 1700 warheads. The Pentagon's top commanders, most notably Admiral Mies, then Commander of Strategic Command (STRATCOM) stated at the time that the minimum number of strategic nuclear weapons necessary to constitute an effective deterrent would be 2300 warheads.

President Bush initially had expressed a preference for the implementation of unilateral nuclear disarmament measures. At the Texas summit, President Bush reiterated his past promise to unilaterally disarm the US arsenal well below this minimum number, "regardless of what Russia does." Bush has recently stated his determination to comply with the sweeping nuclear arms reductions required by the new treaty even if it is rejected by the Democrat-controlled Senate. However, the President has since agreed to the codification of his unilateral nuclear disarmament measures now being implemented in the form of a binding bilateral accord with Russia. The primary reason of Bush's policy change was reportedly to appease the Russians for his announced decision in December that the US would 'opt out' of the long defunct ABM Treaty strictures, which forbid it from deploying national missile defenses of any size or effectiveness.

In February 2001, Bush ordered a Nuclear Posture Review to determine what the minimal size of the US nuclear deterrent could be and still successfully meet US requirements to deter a nuclear attack from America's most likely enemies-namely North Korea, Communist China, and a number of other rogue states, including, most notably, Iran, which is now on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons. This Nuclear Posture Review was disclosed to the public after considerable delay in January. The Nuclear Posture Review states that the US will transition from the current nuclear triad of land, sea and air-based nuclear weapons to a "New Triad," consisting of "non-nuclear and nuclear strike capabilities, defenses, and responsive infrastructure." The Nuclear Posture Review stated that the US would henceforth have a "Threat Based Force" with a "Capabilities Based Force." In other words, the US will no longer seek to field a force capable of matching the vast Russian strategic nuclear arsenal, but instead will deploy only a force sufficient to counter potential threats from rogue states armed with weapons of mass destruction as well as ballistic missiles to deliver them.

According to the Nuclear Posture Review, the US has abandoned its emphasis on deterring nuclear attack (Mutually Assured Destruction), a concept which has kept the nuclear peace for nearly sixty years, and will resort to more "flexible" measures to counter a wider "spectrum of contingencies." This strategy change was inaugurated by President Bush and some of his top advisors who wanted to reflect their new post-9-11 outlook that Russia is not only not a threat, but is actually a strategic partner and perhaps even an ally in the war against terrorism, to be welcomed into NATO's decision-making councils. In other words, this vast planned reduction in US nuclear might is politically motivated and is not being implemented for any military rationale, which, in this case, was invented to serve and justify the political directives of the President. One wonders if this may be yet another case of the "peace dividend" being implemented prematurely, requiring yet another costly buildup of our military forces, should Russia retains the bulk of her strategic arsenal, as she may well do. Following such a U.S.-issued "peace dividend," Russia could very well emerge again as a major threat at some point in the near future.

Sorry for jumping down your throat, but it appeared that you were ignoring the thrust of the policy critique, and absolving the source based on the truly fine appointments he has made to the national security posts (with the exception of Tom Ridge and Norman Manetta, and his failure to clean house at CIA and DOE). I am just worried that these good appointments of Rummy and Wolfowitz et al., were primarily to put us off our guard, and use their good reputations to silence opposition on the right. Recall the first couple defense budgets pre 9-11? And even now it sucks. Poor Donald Rumsfeld. He plays it straight, and then he has to either resign or make the best of a budget given to him out of ulterior motives. So far he hasn't resigned. But I am wondering just how close he got after being ordered to cease undermining the unilateral disarmament plot of GWB.

Your choice of the term "Cold War II" is interesting. Should it come to pass, what makes you think that W's policies will ensure a defeat? By your own reasoning, Carter's policies should have ensured a defeat in Cold War I.

Carter never dreamed about disarming the US nuclear arsenal down to the levels that Bush has proposed. When Carter left office, the US had 10,000-11,000 strategic nukes and 30,000 plus nukes overall. Carter's policies were short term and were quickly reversed by Ronald Reagan. However, Bush, only recently elected is likely to get a second term and see his decimation of our strategic nuclear arsenal mostly implemented. Also, there is no visionary Ronald Reagan waiting in the wings to reverse course from Bush's dangerous unilateral disarmament/Communist appeasement policies when Bush leaves office.

Our "Treaty of Locarno"....

(For some, but clearly not all, of the readers who posted the posts above this one, who are too ignorant to understand what I meant by that, the Treaty of Locarno was the major modification to the Treaty of Versailles which rewarded the recalcitrant, lying and deceptive Weimar Germany with a framework of guaranteed continued appeasesment by the Triple Entente powers as well as a major "see no evil" message vis a vis their already extensive, secret and evil war preparations. Hitler would eventually inherit all of the preps, and it would allow him to surprise the world regarding how quickly Germany would turn to highly effective overt aggression. We have failed to learn from history once again. Pay heed.)

While I sympathize with the intent of your post here, I have to disagree with your read of history. The Treaty of Lucarno in 1925 was a belated attempt by the Allies to mend the massively unjust Treaty of Versailles of 1919 whose very oppressive terms were responsible for the rise of Hitler in the first place. It was concluded with a democratic Germany that was not lying, deceptive or corrupt, but one that was free, though economically downtrodden thanks to the Allies. It was not appeasement in the least. No there was never any appeasement of Hitler until Munich in 1938. Previous to that it was merely a question of allowing the Allied injustices toward Germany to be remedied.

Furthermore to say that Weimar Germany "was engaged in extensive, secret and evil war preparations" is a travesty and injustice to history. Nothing could be further from the truth. Germany was limited by the unjust Allies to an Army of only 100,000 with no tanks, planes, battleships, or heavy artillery. With the exception of some armor and aircraft prototypes tested in Russia, the Germans kept the terms of the Versailles Treaty until around 1934-35 when Hitler began trying to catch up with the much more massive Allied war machines. As late as 1937, the Allies could have crushed the German military with impunity. It took until 1940 for the Germans to build up to a level where victory over France was even hypothetically possible.

The primary lesson of history in the interwar period is not to conclude unjust one-sided treaties that constitute nothing but "the peace of the victors" and only secondarily not to appease one's enemies. Hitler could never have come to power in an economically prosperous Germany whose economy had not been destroyed by the oppressive and vengeful Allies with their $33 billion reparation payments. That being the case without Versailles there would have been no World War Two and thus no "great leap forward" for Communism in 1945-49. With a united Germany in place in the center of Europe allied with the Western powers against Soviet Communism, Communism would have remained checked at the eastern boundary of Poland in 1939. World War Two might have been fought between the West allied with Germany and the Soviet invaders of Eastern Europe.

Had there been no Hitler and no fall of France or Battle of Britain, FDR would not have likely goaded the Japanese to attack us at Pearl Harbor with his oil embargo which he fully expected would lead to a Japanese pre-emptive attack against us. Thus, the US would not likely have gone to war with Japan, which would not likely have invaded the Phillipines, Indonesia, Malaysia or Papua New Guinea and the Pacific Islands in a bid to resupply their Empire. As long as the Japanese Empire and not the Soviet Empire remained in control of Manchuria, Mao's Red Army could not be rearmed and resupplied and could never have conquered mainland China, which accordingly would have remained led by Christian Nationalists for decades thereafter. A war between the Western Allies and Germany against the most murderous regime in world history at the time--Stalin's Soviet Union--would have likely led to Soviet defeat and thus liberation of the entire world from Communism. We could have then dealt with the Japanese Empire at our leisure. History would have been very different indeed and would have turned out much better for the cause of world freedom.

Have you read either "Modern Times" by Paul R. Johnson or "While America Sleeps" by Kagan and Kagan? I think that perhaps there are nuggets of truth in what you wrote, however, I also believe that Weimar Germany was not nearly as innocent as many currently believe (and believed in the past). In fact, one major area of ongoing rationalization on the part of successive UK governments in not dealing with a resurgent Germany was taking the successive Weimar governments outward facades at face value. Vis a vis the 100,000 troop limit this was conveniently eluded by redesignating many troops as "internal security police." At one point I had similar views to what you wrote, however now I have learned a few new things that made me refine my views further. I guess in the end we can agree to disagree, because I know that you are a patriotic American and in favor of many of the same things I am. Take care!

I don't see Russia as the main problem. China is another story. As long as the US has an overwhelming number of warheads and missiles, there is no way they can compete with us. However, If we reduce to less than a few thousand warheads, they will feel tempted to try to achieve parity and superpower status. Here is some info on China's nuclear arsenal.

The problem with both Reagan and the two Bushes is that they have been too optimistic and idealistic about missile defense. They have all seemed to think that if you build a good enough shield you won't need any deterrence at all. It is one thing to not rely exclusively on MAD. It is another to think we don't need an offensive capability. In order for missile defense to be effective, the enemy has to believe that you have a second strike capability.

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.