Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Rachel Maddow: A nuclear weapons strategy that’s stuck in the past
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rachel-maddow-a-nuclear-weapons-strategy-stuck-in-the-past/2014/02/28/906737f6-9ffa-11e3-b8d8-94577ff66b28_story.html
A nuclear weapons strategy thats stuck in the past
By Rachel Maddow, Published: February 28
<snip>
How is it, though, that were cutting all those things yet keeping the full complement of 1970s-era nuclear missiles in silos in Wyoming, North Dakota and Montana?
Like the drunk general said, those intercontinental missiles are an operationally deployed nuclear force. Theyre not in silos for storage; they are ready to fly. But do we really believe the generals drunken boast that those hair-trigger missiles are saving the world from war every day? Even if there is a scenario in which a threat to the United States is best handled by us firing off hundreds of nuclear weapons, B-2 bombers and Trident submarines could handily launch such weapons at any attacker on the planet who is kind enough to provide us with a return address. As Vladimir Putin considers his options in Crimea, do we really think he feels his decisions are constrained by our nuclear weapons .?.?. but not the ones on U.S. military planes or submarines, only the ones underground in Montana?
<snip>
Although no one has had to prevent an accidental missile launch by parking an armored vehicle on top of the silo doors since the 1980s (true story), were just not doing a great job handling the responsibility of those Minuteman 3s. And were not so much failing as succumbing to inevitability: In the absence of any realistic mission in which those missiles would be used, maintaining morale and 100 percent error-free rigor over decades is an almost existentially impossible challenge.
The real failure here is political: Civilian decision-makers need to make the call about the overall U.S. security strategy and the prioritization of military spending. At a time of cuts and reorganization, when hard decisions must be made about what to save and what to let go, continuing to throw billions of dollars down those silos is a failure of accountability and a failure to be realistic about what kind of wars we might conceivably fight in the future.
Initial reporting on the Pentagons proposed cuts described the goal of a military capable of defeating any adversary, but too small for protracted foreign occupations. After years of Iraq and Afghanistan, we dont want protracted foreign occupations anymore, so were planning for a military future without them. Unless someone wants or expects an exchange of hundreds of nuclear-tipped land-based intercontinental missiles with Russia in our future, it is nonsense for us to keep planning for that, decade after decade, at such high cost and with so much risk.
A nuclear weapons strategy thats stuck in the past
By Rachel Maddow, Published: February 28
<snip>
How is it, though, that were cutting all those things yet keeping the full complement of 1970s-era nuclear missiles in silos in Wyoming, North Dakota and Montana?
Like the drunk general said, those intercontinental missiles are an operationally deployed nuclear force. Theyre not in silos for storage; they are ready to fly. But do we really believe the generals drunken boast that those hair-trigger missiles are saving the world from war every day? Even if there is a scenario in which a threat to the United States is best handled by us firing off hundreds of nuclear weapons, B-2 bombers and Trident submarines could handily launch such weapons at any attacker on the planet who is kind enough to provide us with a return address. As Vladimir Putin considers his options in Crimea, do we really think he feels his decisions are constrained by our nuclear weapons .?.?. but not the ones on U.S. military planes or submarines, only the ones underground in Montana?
<snip>
Although no one has had to prevent an accidental missile launch by parking an armored vehicle on top of the silo doors since the 1980s (true story), were just not doing a great job handling the responsibility of those Minuteman 3s. And were not so much failing as succumbing to inevitability: In the absence of any realistic mission in which those missiles would be used, maintaining morale and 100 percent error-free rigor over decades is an almost existentially impossible challenge.
The real failure here is political: Civilian decision-makers need to make the call about the overall U.S. security strategy and the prioritization of military spending. At a time of cuts and reorganization, when hard decisions must be made about what to save and what to let go, continuing to throw billions of dollars down those silos is a failure of accountability and a failure to be realistic about what kind of wars we might conceivably fight in the future.
Initial reporting on the Pentagons proposed cuts described the goal of a military capable of defeating any adversary, but too small for protracted foreign occupations. After years of Iraq and Afghanistan, we dont want protracted foreign occupations anymore, so were planning for a military future without them. Unless someone wants or expects an exchange of hundreds of nuclear-tipped land-based intercontinental missiles with Russia in our future, it is nonsense for us to keep planning for that, decade after decade, at such high cost and with so much risk.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 1040 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Rachel Maddow: A nuclear weapons strategy that’s stuck in the past (Original Post)
bananas
Mar 2014
OP
bananas
(27,509 posts)1. The Space Shuttle fleet and our nuclear reactor fleet are also from the 1970's
After the Colombia disaster, we realized we had to retire the Space Shuttle fleet.
After the Fukushima disaster, we realized we had to retire our nuclear reactor fleet (although some are still in denial about this).
Are we going to wait for an ICBM disaster before we realize we have to retire our ICBM fleet?