I suppose it is too much to ask the new Messiah to get his facts right, especially on defense issues. But then again, Barack is soooo special. Check out Barack's comments posted last October. He proposes three things that, on the surface, seem eminently reasonable--stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq, cut the missile defense system, and set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, which includes taking "ICBM's off hair trigger alert." Watch it for yourself.
/p>
Most of this is your normal political boilerplate. Devoid of specifics and unlikely to be implemented. For example, if Obama wants to go into a general election and argue that a missile defense system should be cut, good luck. That plays right into the hands of the Republican message machine that will portrary Democrats as cowards unwilling to protect America.
What is really troubling, at least to me, is the amateur advice Obama is relying on. He asserts that U.S. ICBM's are on "hair trigger" alert. Sorry Barack, not true. But don't take my word:
The Arms Control Association says differently:
November 2007Q1) If "hair-trigger alert" and "launch-on-warning" are incorrect terms for describing the status of US forces on alert, what is the proper term?
A1) U.S. nuclear forces are not on "hair trigger" alert. The term "hair trigger" ignores the safeguards, deliberate actions, and procedures required in order to employ nuclear weapons. The U.S. nuclear force posture has evolved since the end of the Cold War. Only a portion of the operationally deployed U.S. nuclear forces is maintained on a ready alert status. No strategic bombers, 450 Minuteman III IBCMs, and a small number of SSBNs at sea are on alert at any given time.
U.S. policy is not to rely on a "launch on warning" strategy. U.S. strategic forces are postured to provide maximum flexibility so the U.S. is not faced with a "use or lose" dilemma. A major strike on the U.S. would be required to eliminate the responsive ICBM capability. The ICBM force could be launched prior to impact, but only if the President were to direct such an action. In addition, should the ICBM force not be able to respond, the U.S. SSBNs at sea could deliver an overwhelming response if directed by the President.
Should the international security situation call for it, the U.S. could bring its nuclear forces to a higher state of readiness (i.e., "generated alert"), putting a larger portion of its submarines to sea and returning heavy bombers to alert, to increase their survivability.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 22 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
