The whole situation seems so bizarre as to be beyond belief. On any given day, as we go about our business, the president is prepared to make a decision within 20 minutes that could launch one of the most devastating weapons in the world. To declare war requires an act of congress, but to launch a nuclear holocaust requires 20 minutes’ deliberation by the president and his advisors. But that is what we have lived with for 40 years. With very few changes, this system remains largely intact, including the “football,” the president’s constant companion.
McNamara at it again. And you know, it does seem kind of odd when you phrase is that way: Congress has to declare war, but the President can blow up the world without so much as a by-your-leave?
No Way To Win
I have worked on issues relating to U.S. and NATO nuclear strategy and war plans for more than 40 years. During that time, I have never seen a piece of paper that outlined a plan for the United States or NATO to initiate the use of nuclear weapons with any benefit for the United States or NATO. I have made this statement in front of audiences, including NATO defense ministers and senior military leaders, many times. No one has ever refuted it. To launch weapons against a nuclear-equipped opponent would be suicidal. To do so against a nonnuclear enemy would be militarily unnecessary, morally repugnant, and politically indefensible.
I reached these conclusions very soon after becoming secretary of defense. Although I believe Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson shared my view, it was impossible for any of us to make such statements publicly because they were totally contrary to established NATO policy. After leaving the Defense Department, I became president of the World Bank. During my 13-year tenure, from 1968 to 1981, I was prohibited, as an employee of an international institution, from commenting publicly on issues of U.S. national security. After my retirement from the bank, I began to reflect on how I, with seven years’ experience as secretary of defense, might contribute to an understanding of the issues with which I began my public service career.
At that time, much was being said and written regarding how the United States could, and why it should, be able to fight and win a nuclear war with the Soviets. This view implied, of course, that nuclear weapons did have military utility; that they could be used in battle with ultimate gain to whoever had the largest force or used them with the greatest acumen. Having studied these views, I decided to go public with some information that I knew would be controversial, but that I felt was needed to inject reality into these increasingly unreal discussions about the military utility of nuclear weapons. In articles and speeches, I criticized the fundamentally flawed assumption that nuclear weapons could be used in some limited way. There is no way to effectively contain a nuclear strike—to keep it from inflicting enormous destruction on civilian life and property, and there is no guarantee against unlimited escalation once the first nuclear strike occurs. We cannot avoid the serious and unacceptable risk of nuclear war until we recognize these facts and base our military plans and policies upon this recognition. I hold these views even more strongly today than I did when I first spoke out against the nuclear dangers our policies were creating. I know from direct experience that U.S. nuclear policy today creates unacceptable risks to other nations and to our own.
There’s no reason to have 3000 missiles anymore. China has what, 200? And they’re the only conceivably major exchanger left. Probably a good idea to minimize the “eradicate humanity” chances.
Is 3000 enough? We don’t have a credible superpower threat unless we have a nuke reserved for every city on the earth with a population above 100,000. If anti ballistic missile tech becomes popular, we may have to have 2 or 3 per city.
Russia still has lots. We might be on good terms with them now but it’s impossible to predict long term.
And MAD doesn’t really even apply to China - I don’t think they posess missiles capable of covering the entire country. For them it’s just plain ole Assured Destruction.
In any event, the entire point of the “assured destruction” part of MAD is just that - no matter what scenario plays out your foe faces a 100% probability of not surviving. This makes every scenario suicide, and thus they never get played out.
As soon as total destruction is no longer assured, you get into scenarios where you begin talking about things like acceptable losses. I’m no expert on game theory but I’d imagine this probably makes a nuclear exchange more likely than less likely.
In 2005? The US and Russia together don’t have anywhere close to 3000 missiles. I doubt Russia has more than 100 launchable birds at most.
The US now only deploys the Minuteman III and has downgraded the remaining fleet from MIRV meaning the ICBM deterrent is currently around 500 missiles/500 targets. That will be further reduced in 2020 when they are retired. Except for a couple Ohios the naval strategic force has also been severely downsized over the past decade.
China has nowhere near 200 launchers, it’s been a while since I checked but I thought their count was around 20.
ICBM and warhead decommissioning has been proceeding steadily for the past decade and will continue on for the next decade. We’ve come a long way from the 1980s.
Shame we’re not going to say put all that useful material to work in new civilian power plants or anything practical…
I think Jason is referring to warheads, not missiles.
In 2005? The US and Russia together don’t have anywhere close to 3000 missiles. I doubt Russia has more than 100 launchable birds at most.
The US now only deploys the Minuteman III and has downgraded the remaining fleet from MIRV meaning the ICBM deterrent is currently around 500 missiles/500 targets. That will be further reduced in 2020 when they are retired. Except for a couple Ohios the naval strategic force has also been severely downsized over the past decade.
China has nowhere near 200 launchers, it’s been a while since I checked but I thought their count was around 20.
ICBM and warhead decommissioning has been proceeding steadily for the past decade and will continue on for the next decade. We’ve come a long way from the 1980s.
Shame we’re not going to say put all that useful material to work in new civilian power plants or anything practical…[/quote]
Excuse me, 1000 missiles and ~12000 warheads. Not sure where the difference between that and McNamara’s 4500 warhead count comes from.
In any event, the entire point of the “assured destruction” part of MAD is just that - no matter what scenario plays out your foe faces a 100% probability of not surviving. This makes every scenario suicide, and thus they never get played out.
It also raises the cost of “accidental” exchanges to unbelievable levels. After all, you can’t stop once you start, so one accidental launch can destroy your nation, right?
As of SORT the US and Russia will be reducing their strategic arsenals to under 2200 warheads by 2012. As far as missiles go, more Ohios still in service than I thought, it’s 500 Minutemen III plus 14 Ohios x 24 Trident.
I’m not sure I see the point of the thread. A full scale release of strategic warheads would only be triggered as a counterattack against an all-out launch against the US. This is the classical MAD scenario. And you do have a very short 20-30 minute time window because after that the world is, well, over. However unlikely it is still a possibility and therefore requires the response mechanism in place for it to be a deterrent. A full scale nuclear exchange isn’t going to be triggered by a rogue missile or plane in 2005.
I’d be too busy recovering from being hit by lightning while being wheeled into an ambulance after surviving a commercial airline crash while flying to meet my long-lost twin to tell him I had won the lottery to care…
20 Mishaps That Might Have Started Accidental Nuclear War
It’s not really covered in the list, but note Castro also had nuclear weapons on Cuba during the crisis and pretty much it sounds like they would have been used if we invaded.
Lets be charitable and say it’s just out of the blue; next Wednesday night, a 100,000 resident city in China disappears due to an accidental launch by us.
Well, we hope Bush can get Chinese leaders on the phone while that bird is still in the air and sweet talk them out of a retaliatory strike. I dunno, maybe he can hold hands with them or something.
