Former SecDef: Remove ICBMs From Nuclear Triad

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.]”

He said unequivocally that his experiences made him believe the U.S. should remove ICBMs from its nuclear triad, which also includes strategic bombers and submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

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)

2 responses to “Former SecDef: Remove ICBMs From Nuclear Triad

  1. Perry is an IDIOT and that he’s in bed with Jerry Brown says enough. I’m guessing Perry has Alzheimer’s or he’s getting his pockets lined by folks selling conventional arms.
    I’m sick and tired of defending ICBMs, so here it is again (and I work INSIDE the Pentagon so I know what the hell I’m talking about — as opposed to this moronic former SecDef):
    1) ICBMs are the LEAST expensive of the Triad; SLBMs are the MOST expensive.
    2) ICBMs are the MOST stabilizing leg of the Triad; SLBMs are the MOST destabilizing.
    3) ICBMs are NOT on “hair trigger” alert (yes, you, too, Hillary). No Airmen or President can flip a switch and launch a nuke without serious consultation by a whole litany of senior civilian and military leaders. Period.
    4) ICBMs are not an all or nothing option. If used, they don’t ALL have to be used at once. They could be used one-sy, two-sy.
    5) The primary purpose of ICBMs is to DEFEND THE HOMELAND. Their purpose is to PREVENT an adversary (a seemingly increasing number of them nowadays) from attacking the U.S. homeland and killing millions of civilians (hopefully Perry, Brown, every global zero moron, and bleeding heart liberal first). So, I would have to assume that Perry and the rest of these dolts WANT AMERICANS TO DIE IN MASSIVE NUMBERS (because our adversaries sure as hell aren’t going to give up their nukes and they sure aren’t going to be our friends any time soon).
    6) Without ICBMs, we lose our hedge against ANY adversary because the home “bases” of the other two legs of the Triad are highly vulnerable to attack.
    7) Attacks by adversaries on the weapon platforms of the other two legs of the Triad are not easily attributal; that is, they offer an adversary(ies) a great deal of plausible deniability. Attacks by adversaries on our ICBMs are just the opposite.

    To everyone decrying the use of nuclear weapons in World War II on the Japanese homeland (which actually PREVENTED MORE civilian and military deaths by non-nuclear means over a protracted period of war than they caused), visit http://www.fallen.io/ww2/. Experiential proof that the existence of nuclear weapons and their deterrent value HAVE SAVED LIVES than they caused.

    (The views expressed in this comment are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the US government, the Department of Defense, or the Air Force.)

  2. Well without calling people idiots, Dr. Perry is correct.

    It turns out that the land based force and current US Missile Defense are both going to be mostly invalidated and pretty much made obsolete by Russia’s new SARMAT missile and YU series hypersonic maneuvering reentry vehicles, which the Russians themselves have made public. You can see it on YouTube.

    That does not matter much either, because Russia’s new “Status 6” nuclear-propelled and nuclear-armed TORPEDO, also made public on YouTube by the Russians themselves, and for which we have little to no defense, will be able to attack any US coastal area and destroy it without ever leaving the water to “fly”. So wen the Big One comes, you can say Bye Bye to New York, Washington DC, Miami, San Diego, LA, San Francisco and Seattle. Nothing will need to fly to accomplish that.

    Our land based missiles will do nothing against Status 6 except as a MAD response, if any are left after they are hit by the 6000 km cross range YU maneuvering hypersonic RVs moving at 11 km per second.

    WHY ARE THE RUSSIANS ON THIS PATH? THE FOOLHARDY PROVOCATION OF THE RUSSIANS BY THE RECKLESS EXPANSION OF NATO RIGHT UP TO THEIR BORDERS, and the fact that our warmongering NeoCons foolishly ignored Putin’s statements at the 2007 Munich Security Conference – you can find it on YouTube, fully translated.

    Then-Senator Jon Kyl can be seen in the audience taking notes…he did nothing later to address Putin’s clearly stated concerns. Bob Gates was there too – they ignored the pleas of Putin, so now you have your answer……

    Putin even offered further nuclear arms reductions and a treaty on weapons in space…the answer from the US? One could hear crickets in the silence.

    Work to even partially defend against these new “asymmetric” systems will cost about $3 Trillion over the next 30 years. So, add three Trillion more to the debt load of an already-broke country by being arrogant. Great for the Military Industrial Complex, bad for the American people.

    Bottom line: Nobody can win in a nuclear exchange and only one or two subs and a few bombers is enough to destroy all that matters in the world and provide the MAD.

    No sane person on either side would launch these terrible weapons, which are easily 1 million times the threat to Homeland USA of ISIS, the threat du jour which gets amplified daily by fools.

    As Dr. Perry correctly points out in his 2015 book, the real danger is for an ACCIDENT or MISJUDGEMENT. I personally know the guy who “sat on scope” the night of the incident cited by Perry, the guy who received the actual panicked phone call from NORAD, and provided the input that prevented the accident.

    I spent over 30 years hard core in the military and aerospace complex, deep in the missile, space, and missile defense businesses, and I also know my facts. Anybody who carelessly tosses nuclear war about is not qualified to be part of this decision.

    Perry is right. Fewer is better. Verifiable zero is best.