If you needed any more proof that the American political establishment has lost its mind and is bringing the United States into suicide, this should suffice.
He may no longer be a defense secretary, but it gives insight into what the ruling governments think and how dangerous they are for America. He is deluded into thinking America needs to take the “moral high road” and dismantle, one of the 45 declared goals of Communism, Russia’s checklist for weakening the United States and opening the opportunity for attack. But then again, how can someone be so deluded into thinking disarming will lead to peace while the adversaries don’t disarm? The only other logical reasoning behind this belief is that it’s intentional.
For former defense secretary William Perry, the danger of intercontinental ballistic missiles was starkly illustrated in 1979, when the then-undersecretary of defense for research and engineering was woken up in the wee hours and told 200 Soviet ICBMs were headed for the U.S.
The scare was quickly determined to be a false alarm, Perry told reporters earlier this month at a Center for Media and Security event in Washington, D.C. But the realization that such a scenario could disastrously trigger a U.S. response stayed with him.
“Some people can dismiss the danger of a false alarm. I do not dismiss it,” Perry said. “It has a very low probability of happening, but a high order of disaster [if it does happen.]”
In addition to the frightening possibility that a false alarm could trigger the devastation of nuclear conflict, Perry said possession of the missiles was destabilizing, because it invited attack. The multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles, or MIRVs, which attached multiple warheads to a single missile, were especially troubling, he said.
The U.S. made an improvement when it “de-MIRVed” its ICBMS in compliance with the 2010 New START treaty, Perry said. However, Russia has been introducing MIRVs to its missiles, he said.
Finally, Perry said, ICBMs are simply not needed for effective nuclear deterrence.
“Between our submarine forces, as they are modernized in particular, and our strategic bomber forces, they’re not needed,” he said. “Any reasonable definition of deterrence will not require them.”
Full article: Former SecDef: Remove ICBMs From Nuclear Triad (Military.com)