For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ateral-nuclear-disarmament-wrong-people-happy
Nuclear weapons
Opinion
Unilateral disarmament will make some people happy – including the wrong ones
At its most basic level, the argument that unilaterally eliminating America’s nuclear arsenal will automatically make the country safer is illogical
Dr Blake McMahon and Dr Adam B Lowther
Monday 11 January 2016 10.30 EST
When the former secretary of defense William Perry commented on 6 January that “The probability of nuclear calamity is higher today, I believe, than it was during the cold war,” he was technically correct. Unfortunately, he was correct for the wrong reasons and offered the wrong solutions.
Opponents of nuclear weapons like Perry often argue – as he did last week – that the risks of accident and miscalculation trump the benefits that a robust nuclear deterrent can provide. But there has never been an accidental launch or detonation of a nuclear warhead and, while there have been three dozen American mishaps in which nuclear weapons were present, no accident has ever resulted in a nuclear blast. Our nuclear weapons are designed specifically for safety during such accidents. The last US mishap involving nuclear weapons occurred more than 30 years ago – meaning that the military’s safety record has been perfect for longer than most of the airmen and sailors operating the weapon systems have been alive.
And new nuclear powers are not starting from scratch in preventing accidental detonation or misuse of their nuclear weapons. They actually have an even better track record of nuclear safety than the United States and Russia because they have learned from our mistakes and they have been aided by both nuclear powers in securing their own weapons.
The United States, for instance, has spent more than $100m to improve the safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Russia similarly seeks to provide surety and security assistance to nuclear states with which it has close diplomatic ties. China has a rather complex system of ensuring security, which includes preventing the mating of delivery vehicles and warheads. And we all use a range of intelligence methods for determining when accidents occur.
Besides, eliminating the United States’ nuclear arsenal would have little impact on the safety and security of other’s nuclear arsenals – and it’s unlikely that other nations would simply follow our lead if we unilaterally disarm.
Perry, like other abolitionists, also argued that the prospect of a nuclear “miscalculation” leading to war is so high that it justifies the elimination of America’s nuclear arsenal. Their claims illustrate how poorly many of these former officials understand modern nuclear doctrine, operations plans, command and control systems and the military’s ongoing effort to prepare for a wide range of scenarios through exercises and war games.
The cyber threat mentioned by Perry is certainly greater than it was during the cold war, but when nuclear abolitionists insinuate that because we do not know if systems are penetrated, therefore they must be penetrated, they are taking a leap in logic. Claiming that compromise of nuclear command and control systems is bound to occur ignores the successful history of these systems as well as the benefits associated with incorporating new technology.
Perry’s comments, though, should be viewed in the context of his larger belief – which he has outlined in articles and speeches since 2008 – that the United States must continue to shrink the size and capability of its nuclear arsenal because we will achieve greater security and stability by decreasing America’s ability to destroy an adversary. But nuclear deterrence has had a seven-decade record of success in preventing large international wars that were common before these weapons were invented; nuclear weapons have created a safer world.
Any abolitionist argument generally relies on the dubious belief that nuclear weapons are no longer, if they ever were, necessary. A casual reading of the news reveals the precarious nature of this claim; our adversaries understand the enduring relevance of nuclear weapons and have sought to increase their own capabilities.
The Russian military is modernizing its entire nuclear force – warheads, aircraft, and missiles. President Putin reportedly aims to replace at least 70% of Russia’s Soviet-era intercontinental ballistic missiles by 2020. The new Kh-102 nuclear cruise missile can already strike the western US from launch points in eastern Russia; we have no way to stop those missiles.
China is developing the ability to launch ballistic missiles from submarines; once operational, these submarines will give Beijing a true “nuclear triad” along with the country’s strategic bomber and ground-based missile force. They are also developing new road-mobile missiles, which are already difficult to track and destroy during a conflict.
Just last week, North Korea conducted a nuclear test of what it claims was a thermonuclear weapon. If true, this would represent a major leap forward in the country’s nuclear program because thermonuclear devices are more powerful and difficult to build.
At its most basic level, the abolitionist argument – that unilaterally eliminating our nuclear arsenal will automatically make Americans safer – is illogical. When burglaries in a neighborhood increase, few people reason that the best way to reduce them is to remove the locks on their doors. Rather, they seek to preserve security against growing threats by increasing their vigilance and their ability to deny or defeat criminals.
While we agree with Perry that there is growing instability in the world and among states with nuclear capabilities, we prefer to follow the same course of action as most Americans would take in preventing burglaries in their neighborhood. Maintaining a nuclear arsenal of unrivaled capability is central to providing the security the nation requires; unilaterally eliminating them or allowing them to obsolesce will simply leave us vulnerable.
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the air force, the Department of Defense, or the US government.
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ateral-nuclear-disarmament-wrong-people-happy
Nuclear weapons
Opinion
Unilateral disarmament will make some people happy – including the wrong ones
At its most basic level, the argument that unilaterally eliminating America’s nuclear arsenal will automatically make the country safer is illogical
Dr Blake McMahon and Dr Adam B Lowther
Monday 11 January 2016 10.30 EST
When the former secretary of defense William Perry commented on 6 January that “The probability of nuclear calamity is higher today, I believe, than it was during the cold war,” he was technically correct. Unfortunately, he was correct for the wrong reasons and offered the wrong solutions.
Opponents of nuclear weapons like Perry often argue – as he did last week – that the risks of accident and miscalculation trump the benefits that a robust nuclear deterrent can provide. But there has never been an accidental launch or detonation of a nuclear warhead and, while there have been three dozen American mishaps in which nuclear weapons were present, no accident has ever resulted in a nuclear blast. Our nuclear weapons are designed specifically for safety during such accidents. The last US mishap involving nuclear weapons occurred more than 30 years ago – meaning that the military’s safety record has been perfect for longer than most of the airmen and sailors operating the weapon systems have been alive.
And new nuclear powers are not starting from scratch in preventing accidental detonation or misuse of their nuclear weapons. They actually have an even better track record of nuclear safety than the United States and Russia because they have learned from our mistakes and they have been aided by both nuclear powers in securing their own weapons.
The United States, for instance, has spent more than $100m to improve the safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Russia similarly seeks to provide surety and security assistance to nuclear states with which it has close diplomatic ties. China has a rather complex system of ensuring security, which includes preventing the mating of delivery vehicles and warheads. And we all use a range of intelligence methods for determining when accidents occur.
Besides, eliminating the United States’ nuclear arsenal would have little impact on the safety and security of other’s nuclear arsenals – and it’s unlikely that other nations would simply follow our lead if we unilaterally disarm.
Perry, like other abolitionists, also argued that the prospect of a nuclear “miscalculation” leading to war is so high that it justifies the elimination of America’s nuclear arsenal. Their claims illustrate how poorly many of these former officials understand modern nuclear doctrine, operations plans, command and control systems and the military’s ongoing effort to prepare for a wide range of scenarios through exercises and war games.
The cyber threat mentioned by Perry is certainly greater than it was during the cold war, but when nuclear abolitionists insinuate that because we do not know if systems are penetrated, therefore they must be penetrated, they are taking a leap in logic. Claiming that compromise of nuclear command and control systems is bound to occur ignores the successful history of these systems as well as the benefits associated with incorporating new technology.
Perry’s comments, though, should be viewed in the context of his larger belief – which he has outlined in articles and speeches since 2008 – that the United States must continue to shrink the size and capability of its nuclear arsenal because we will achieve greater security and stability by decreasing America’s ability to destroy an adversary. But nuclear deterrence has had a seven-decade record of success in preventing large international wars that were common before these weapons were invented; nuclear weapons have created a safer world.
Any abolitionist argument generally relies on the dubious belief that nuclear weapons are no longer, if they ever were, necessary. A casual reading of the news reveals the precarious nature of this claim; our adversaries understand the enduring relevance of nuclear weapons and have sought to increase their own capabilities.
The Russian military is modernizing its entire nuclear force – warheads, aircraft, and missiles. President Putin reportedly aims to replace at least 70% of Russia’s Soviet-era intercontinental ballistic missiles by 2020. The new Kh-102 nuclear cruise missile can already strike the western US from launch points in eastern Russia; we have no way to stop those missiles.
China is developing the ability to launch ballistic missiles from submarines; once operational, these submarines will give Beijing a true “nuclear triad” along with the country’s strategic bomber and ground-based missile force. They are also developing new road-mobile missiles, which are already difficult to track and destroy during a conflict.
Just last week, North Korea conducted a nuclear test of what it claims was a thermonuclear weapon. If true, this would represent a major leap forward in the country’s nuclear program because thermonuclear devices are more powerful and difficult to build.
At its most basic level, the abolitionist argument – that unilaterally eliminating our nuclear arsenal will automatically make Americans safer – is illogical. When burglaries in a neighborhood increase, few people reason that the best way to reduce them is to remove the locks on their doors. Rather, they seek to preserve security against growing threats by increasing their vigilance and their ability to deny or defeat criminals.
While we agree with Perry that there is growing instability in the world and among states with nuclear capabilities, we prefer to follow the same course of action as most Americans would take in preventing burglaries in their neighborhood. Maintaining a nuclear arsenal of unrivaled capability is central to providing the security the nation requires; unilaterally eliminating them or allowing them to obsolesce will simply leave us vulnerable.
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the air force, the Department of Defense, or the US government.