| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Rethinking Armageddon |
| 2004-04-21 |
| 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. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #2 It's not that I dislike the idea of a Nuclear Exchange, it's just that Armageddon need's a better PR firm. Sell it to me. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-04-21 9:18:22 PM |
| #1 Like a lot of people I responded to the neolithic behaivor in Fajullah by saying "just nuke the motherf*****s". Then more sane and rational thoughts set in. The djini is out of the bottle as far as nukes are concerned, they can't be uninvented. But that does not we sould be reduced to responding with just city busters if it ever came to that (although we do need to keep some of those too, I can think of a couple of targets off the top of my head). In the WoT the main problem is the enemy is so easily hid. Any government that supports terroists today is going to do everything it can to stay out of the crosshairs. I like the idea of converting the MX peacekeepers to conventional warheads, but even thirty minutes might not be enough lead time for a really high value target |
| Posted by: cheaderhead 2004-04-21 6:20:55 AM |