A New Nuclear Strategy: Painting A Nuclear Bullseye on America

The only people within a country who would want to disarm that same country, making it vulnerable to enemies who routinely break treaties to gain first-strike capability, are the same people who want to destroy their own country. There is no excuse, ignorance or naïveté in such high levels as this. The only mistake is letting these people be in positions of power to destroy a nation from within. People continue to deny this, and will until it’s too late.

It doesn’t matter who wins the White House in November of 2016. They will have a mess they cannot clean up. Only God will be able to save the nation if it turns back to Him rather than being bent on suicide and lucky if it ever sees 2018.


The defense budget was sent to Congress on February 9th and already many are looking at ways to cut the budget further, even though the administration undercut the 2015 Fall budget agreement with Congress on defense spending by some $25 billion.

However, the administration largely supports the nuclear modernization accounts, increasing funding for the new strategic bomber, the Minuteman ICBM and the Ohio Replacement strategic submarine.

But others are proposing very radical nuclear ideas. One suggestion would eliminate entirely the Minuteman ICBM force and its three bases and 450 missiles–unilaterally.

Why would the United States, without our Minuteman missile force, make it easy, in fact tempting, for an adversary such as Russia, to take out the entire U.S. strategic nuclear forces in one or a series of very limited even surreptitious first strikes? 

But that is precisely what former defense secretary William Perry and the radical zero nuclear weapons crowd are now proposing. Under Perry’s proposal, the U.S. “target set” of remaining nuclear submarines and bombers on a day-to-day basis would consist of five military bases: three for bombers and two for submarines, and a handful of submarines at sea. That is it. From over 500 targets today to fewer than 10 in the future. It would be as if the United States painted a bulls-eye on its nuclear forces and declared to its enemies,” Come and get us.”

The elimination of the Minuteman missile force, as Dr. Perry recommends, would leave Russia with an alarming ratio — nearly 200:1 — of Russian warheads to American nuclear assets. This disparity could push the strategic nuclear balance toward heightened instabilities — exactly the opposite of what nearly five decades of strategic arms control between the United States and Russia have sought to prevent.

Perry says that the United States does not need the missiles for nuclear deterrence. He worries that because of Russia’s current reckless and cavalier attitude about the early use of Russian nuclear weapons in a crisis, an American President, fearful of a Russian first strike, might launch our Minuteman missiles in a crisis out of fear Russia might pre-emptively attack the “vulnerable” Minuteman missile silos.(1)

There are five key reasons why his proposal makes little sense.

Second, the Minuteman missile force is not in any way in danger of being launched or used recklessly or inadvertently. (6)

The nuclear force the U.S. now maintains of:

~ 450 silo-based land-based missiles and their associated launch control centers

~ 60 nuclear-capable bombers at three bases

~14 deployed nuclear submarines at two additional bases, of which 4-6 are at sea at any one time, makes the early use by the United States of nuclear weapons in a crisis unnecessary.

Why is that?

The U.S. nuclear force, including a robust ICBM fleet, cannot as a whole be eliminated by a first strike by an adversary without prompting a massive U.S. retaliatory strike in return. As noted earlier, there are more than 500 ICBM-related American nuclear targets spread over five extremely large Western states, plus submarines in the vast expanse of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. All of these forces would have to be eliminated simultaneously by an adversary in a first strike to prevent the U.S. from being able to launch a devastating response.

In short, even if one leg of the U.S. nuclear Triad were eliminated, the other two would remain able to fight back. Taking out all three simultaneously is simply not a feasible task; taking out only one leg makes no sense.

[Now there is however a very important caveat to this point. Russia or China could attack the US with a super-EMP nuclear warhead, detonated high above the central United States, and shut down not only our industrial infrastructure, most notably the electrical grid, but our nuclear command and control systems if they are not sufficiently hardened against such a threat.]

The third point is that if indeed the current Minuteman force were eliminated through obsolescence or attrition, the very international instabilities feared by Dr. Perry – such as Russia leader using nuclear weapons in a crisis – would emerge in a dramatic fashion. (10)

As the former Chief of Naval Operations warned, (12) a serious concern within the US Navy is that the oceans may in the future become transparent, and U.S. attack submarines now at sea would no longer be invulnerable to attack. If that should happen, that the seas were no longer opaque, Russia could over time surreptitiously eliminate American strategic submarines deployed at sea. Then, in a crisis, Russia might seek to hold our remaining assets at risk, either in port or on base, and try to coerce the U.S. to stand-down and surrender.

Again, why would the United States make it easier for its enemies to accomplish such an objective? America’s intercontinental ballistic missiles [ICBMs], the Minuteman force, are an insurance policy against such a potential eventuality. President Kennedy explained the Cuban missile crisis ended peacefully because as he said at the time, “Minuteman was my ace in the hole” in his negotiations with Khrushchev.

Eliminating Minuteman would not only be dangerous but unwise.

Full article: A New Nuclear Strategy: Painting A Nuclear Bullseye on America (Family Security Matters)

Comments are closed.