In times of reducing defense budgets, nuclear weapons are not a good choice to find savings. by James Luko
(centrist)
Monday, November 7, 2011
In 1990, Professor Constantine Menges, former National Security Aide to President Ronald Reagan and CIA Officer, asked me “ are you a NUT?”
This was my class on International Security Policies at the Elliott School for International Affairs, The George Washington University. I was the ONLY student in this class to answer YES, by all means!
A N.U.T. Is a “Nuclear Utilization Theorist” as is Henry A. Kissinger. Meaning, theoretically, you advocate the “limited” use of nuclear weapons to prevent losing a conflict which threatens your national security- as opposed to all-out nuclear war, MAD (mutually assured destruction.)
Today, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is proposing drastic cuts in the US nuclear weapons arsenal. At a time when budget negotiations call for “at least” 750 billion dollars reduction in the defense budget over the next 10 years, this is the worst time to even publicly announce such an idea.
Nuclear weapons are “force multipliers” and create the barrier between tactical loss (Vietnam, Iraq) and strategic loss- meaning losing the big war, like WWII. Iraq and Afghanistan are sideshows against the broad national security horizon and have always been counted in America's capability to fight 1 ½ wars simultaneously (reduced from previously being able to fight 2 ½ wars- 2 major wars and one minor one).
Today, we are easily fighting two “half” wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, as we are planning to drastically cut our force levels overall, it is now more than ever paramount to maintain a large nuclear weapons force in order to overwhelm several potential aggressors- Russia, China, Pakistan and Iran, with limited nuclear strikes while leaving a large residual counter-force. (meaning, even after using nuclear weapons and absorbing a counter-attack, the U.S. would still have a sizable nuclear arsenal with the ability to deliver them.)
A nuclear arsenal is NOT inexpensive to maintain, but, as “force multipliers” they are now, more than ever, indispensable to keeping potential aggressors at bay while America' licks its economic wounds and downsizes its conventional forces at the same time.
The enemy reads our actions, in this case, they see an America which can ill afford its large military while at the same time, reeling economically making it particularly vulnerable. When you are down, this is the time the enemy thinks of kicking you- and this is where overwhelming, reliable and accurate nuclear forces stops the aggressor from formulating such ideas.
Keep the Nukes
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of James Luko only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
James Luko is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
