The Sword of Damocles by Ira Schwartz
“Today, every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be habitable. Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident, or miscalculation, or by madness. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us.”
-John F. Kennedy (JFK)
In an address before the General Assembly of the United Nations on September 25, 1961
President Kennedy knew the dangers of nuclear weapons as did Eisenhower, L.B.J. Reagan, Clinton and George H.W. Bush. Ever since President Truman let the genie out of the bottle during World War ll world leaders have been trying to get him back in. 11 treaties to control the development and use of nuclear weapons have been enacted and adhered to since 1961*. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT) enacted in 1968 currently has 189 countries as signatories, including China, Russia and the United States. Clearly the world is concerned and has been trying to do something to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons for over 50 years.
But whole scale nuclear war is no longer the threat it used to be. Both Russia and China know such a war is not winnable. The real threat now is not nuclear war but nuclear attack from a terrorist group armed with a suitcase size nuclear device.
A report issued by the Combat Terrorist Center at West Point breaks it down like this;
“Within the counterterrorism context, it may mean that the United States missiles have the capability of hitting small, hard to find targets. Ideally, nuclear weapons make the cost of offensive action unimaginable, but this may not be true for all terror groups. Far from being deterred by threats to use nuclear weapons, terrorist may view the cost of nuclear war as lower than the political costs of backing down from a deterred threat. These factors make the deterrence of terrorist groups problematic. 2”
The Council on Foreign Relations issued a report titled, “Deterring State Sponsorship of Nuclear Terrorism.” In that report they state:
“Analysts have long argued that the central pillar of Cold War strategy—deterring nuclear war by threat of overwhelming punishment—is largely irrelevant in efforts to prevent the use of nuclear weapons by terrorist groups. They contend that the threat of retaliation is ineffective because bombs carried across borders or shipped in cargo containers lack the clear return addresses of warheads mounted on missiles, and terrorist groups, unlike states, do not present clear targets for retaliation.”
This would seem to be proven true by the 911 attack on the World Trade Center. Our nuclear weapons didn’t seem to slow them down one bit.
Speaking about nuclear weapons let’s take a little closer look at our arsenal. According to the “Office of the Deputy Assistance to the Secretary of Defense on Nuclear Matters”3 the majority of our ICBM arsenal is made up of Minute Man lll’s. The Minuteman lll was first deployed in 1969 and still employs a gimbaled inertial guidance system. Even with its new 5 Billion dollar upgrades it’s still hardly state of the art. This missile was designed to take out a city not a smaller target like the base of a terrorist organization making it impractical to use in the war on terrorism.
Most, if not all terrorists are prepared to die for their cause. And they are happy to take as many innocent people with them as they can. They could care less what the rest of the world does to their families or country. In their eyes the more people that die for their cause the greater the glory. So saying we will use nuclear weapons in retaliation to a large scale biological, chemical or nuclear attack on America by a non state sponsored terrorist group, and most are, is an empty threat at most.
This new treaty, “Measures to Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms” signed by President Obama and Russian President Medvedev simply builds on the foundations of all the past treaties. It also states several things in writing most of the world already knew. The United States will not strike any country first and will not use nuclear weapons against any country that does not have nuclear capabilities. The big exception to this rule is; said country must be a signatory of the Non Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. Both North Korea and Iran are not. This treaty also reduces US and Russian nuclear arsenals by 30%. That is a good thing.
Does this diminish our National Security? The military doesn’t think so, they are behind it 100%. At the White House news conference, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said,
"Through the trust it engenders, the cuts it requires and the flexibility it preserves, this treaty enhances our ability to do that which we have been charged to do: protect and defend the citizens of the United States," Mullen said. "I am as confident in its success as I am in its safeguards."
Besides we still have plenty of nukes to go around. What this does do is take us a few steps further away from nuclear annihilation of the human race and should allow us all to sleep a little better. And as far as not trusting Barack Obama to do the right thing? Remember even a broken clock is right twice a day. This just might be one of those days.
Copyright 2010 by Ira Schwartz. All Rights Reserved. Used with Permission
Labels: 9/11, Barack Obama, Cold War, Foreign Affairs, Ira Schwartz, John F. Kennedy, Russia
posted by Frank T. DeMartini @ 1:02 AM
18 Comments:
Hi Ira,
Excellent post. Just two points....
1) Our nuclear arsenal is about massive force.
2) Cruise missiles and UAVs are well designed to take out small targets.
Finally, I think the clock is showing itself to be fairly accurate and of pretty high quality!!!!
How many nuclear missiles do you need to light up the whole earth? My guess is about 100. Just the US alone has more than 1,600 nuclear warheads. UAV don't carry nukes and cruise missile's are a better choice but what do you do when the fallout blows over a friendly country. Ooops we're sorry we just irradiated a million of your citizens. Nuke are simply not practical any longer for the kind of warfare we are engaged in today. Thanks for the comment George. It is appreciated.
One would hope you are right. To be wrong has absolutely no upside.
And the enemy watched as his opponent foolishly, unilaterally gave up deterrence, leveled the field of battle and then attacked.
The immediate response is ….how naïve. The frightening words of analysis are “I guess” and “Ooops we’re sorry.” I find it amazing to here “Nuke(s) are simply not practical any longer for the kind of warfare we are engaged in today.” Practical and warfare often do not exist in the same universe as victory.
The point really isn’t nuclear weapons, it is superiority, overwhelming superiority, and the ability to embrace an adequate, immediate, winning, sometimes overwhelming defense, when justified, required and necessary for survival. When you wax poetic about too much or too many you are entering the realm of fine tuning a victory and in defeat “maybe just not enough.”
Have you noticed how people will listen to you when you are well informed, intelligent and able to articulate your ideas? Now tell me how many deadly conflicts were won with those tools. The WWI, WWII, Cuban missal crises, only a few disputes of many, et al were not resolved by detente.
And of course the argument of mistakes, bad guys and flat out misguided leaders will consume the rebuttal arena. Yes, turn the other cheek, and do it again, but when the head is no longer attached, something went wrong.
Now before you get upset, nobody favors a war over peace. We do favor survival however. I favor over-kill, not a mistake, to annihilation. I favor the advice of “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”
It is self defeating to say ten of yours, ten of mine, unless you promise to be in the first ten. Calm down, just hyperbole to make the point that things are often very different when we are directly affected, like those victims in the Twin Towers or those first victims in the Treblinka gas chambers. Would you have used nuclear weapons on Germany, if you had them then…because Germany wasn’t quite nuclear yet? If you say no I admire you consistency and question your sanity.
For the pacifists, God bless you, get behind me and I will defend you. Whatever you do don’t get in the way.
The question again is simple. Would you have dropped the two atomic bombs on Japan? Almost all of your arguments could be formatted to a challenge against. And of course there is that escape ‘that was different.”
In the final analysis the really tough decision are not in the arena of the compassionate, morally conflicted and slow to react, faint of heart, that is if you want to survive.
You and I are here debating this because millions died for that right and privilege. If you had a chance to prevent another holocaust, that event that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims never happened, a non nuclear event, by dropping an atomic bomb, a nuclear event, would you do it?
Wait a minute, the current Swords of Damocles has implied you will not be attacked with weapons you do not posses yourself. Less not get lost in all the exceptions that one might conjure up, proving the point of what a bad idea competitive disarmament just might be.
And I will concede to a discussion on what is enough, but it will never be anywhere near inferior to what our enemies possess. It would be foolish not to consider the combined capabilities of potential opposition.
Beef up that slender thread, don’t become another victim walking into the crematorium of Auschwitz asking the question “When did I give away too much to the enemy.” The memory is so fragile and faulty.
But most if not all of your arguments are based on conventional warfare theories. Regarding nuclear weapons we are no longer talking about simply destroying an enemy but destroying the Earth. The only place we humans have to live at this moment. No side wins in a nuclear engagement. No parades no celebrations only those that are dead and those that will die. So when you talk about giving too much away to the enemy I respond who is the enemy? And how many nuclear weapons do we need to be superior and why do we need to be superior? If we had just enough nuclear weapons to destroy every major city in Russia or China that would still be enough to destroy the whole planet. This has to stop somewhere or should we wait until the unthinkable actually does happen and mankind is totally erased from the face of the Universe. We came very close in the mid sixties and that should have tought us a lesson...It didn't. The next time we may not be so lucky.
To answer several more of your questions as I remember we did quite a number on Dresden without nuclear weapons. Leveled the whole city in one night. Also my mother in law lost her whole family in Aushwitz and no I would not have nuked Germany for it. I am by no means a pacifist and would defend this country with the last ounce of my blood if we were ever attacked but we need to stand for something more than being the biggest bully on the block. That doesn't impress people very much anymore. We need to get out of the 1950's, 60' and 70's way of handling world situations. Countries no longer do things because the United States says so. Military might is not so impressive anymore. Our defensive capabilities are quite impressive without the nukes and our civilization a lot safer.
Ira, your original blog could be right, I don't know. Like you said overwhelming nuclear superiority has been a world wide discouragement of the pursuit of a nuclear arsenal. As you say the terrorist threat has changed everything but that the US is the worlds biggest target for everything, terrorism or conquest. I don't think we have come very far from Germany 1940 to think that another situation like WWII could not happen!!
I'm like Anonymous and agree we should be far ahead of every other country, how far??? very far. We are NOT BULLIES!! We never have been!! don't join the hate the US Crowd!!!! "Walk Softly and Carry a BIG stick" was what Reagan said as he build up and upgraded out nuclear arsenal. It worked very well and we didn't BULLY anyone that didn't need a little BULLYING!!
Lets face it history proves that long periods of peace came through a single country or group of counties being in power. Human nature seems to make it impossible any other way and I want to be a free citizen of the country that's in power!!!
The slippery slop of appeasement is framed by Chamberlain
And the chilling word of Pastor Martin Neimoller
Here are a few things maybe not so esoteric.
First they came for the socialists and I did not speak out
because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then came for the Jews and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
And then they came for me and there was not one left
To speak for me
Pastor Martin Neimoller
And we soften the deterrent just to be compassionate? And 50K Holocaust survivors died last year in Israel. Sometimes we wish that “good” people would just get a grip on reality.
Over 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust, a worthy and poignant reminder. But this systematic murder of millions of Jews seems to overshadow the truth which included ethnic Poles, Romani, Soviet civilians, Soviet prisoners of war, people with disabilities, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witness and miscellaneous political and religious opponents which by any reasonable definition of Holocaust victims brings this total to between 11 million and 17 million people.
Even a few nuclear messages early on would have assuredly ended this horrible incident. But had that solution been used nobody could have rejoice in the unknown saved lives. The disaster avoided is always not provable. This is the rock bed of harden wisdom. And that is Occam’s razor. The evil prevent is always prophetic.
There is no force powerful enough and any deterrent too overwhelming that should not be stock piled in excess to prevent this evil.
Your wisdom escapes me still.
Anonymous as I said before my mother in laws entire family was wiped out in a concentration camp and do you really believe an evil mad man like Hitler would have cared if we nuked Berlin. He didn't slow down when we reduced Dresden to a flaming shell. 250,000 people died that night and he could have cared less. Kim Jong, Ahmadinejad or Bin Laden could care less about nuclear deterrants because they could care less about their people. The only way to deter terrorist attacks is with good intelligence not over whelming nuclear superiority. And by the way guys who are we supposed to be deterring anyway. The argument you both are putting forth is an old argument for times when world powers actually fought wars. If there is another world war it won't be started by the big three and nuclear superiority won't stop it but it sure might end it along with all of us in the balance.
You would survive in my world.
It boils to a choice. Am I willing to die in defense of a principle like liberty and equality or will I compromise my existence with appeasement and an unwillingness to embrace the ultimate deterrence, MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction, which might inescapably be intertwined with excessive, superior nuclear capability and a “star wars” delivery system?
I pray that I would have the courage for I believe that excessive deterrence is superior to watching our allies crushed, it is superior to pacification, it is superior to an unacceptable standard of living, it is superior to living under oppression, and it is superior to surrender.
In that context more deterrence, imagined or real, is better, even given the risks, which are colossal considering the current global nuclear world stage. Less is indefensible. In short I live with my brethren, free, or we all are at risk. And freedom is worth that colossal risk.
Reagan envisioned a post-deterrence world where free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant retaliation to deter a Soviet attack (or an attack from Iran, Russia, China, North Korea et al) and where we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies. Define post-deterrence. Define who is an ally. And what would we defend them with?
Have we notice how the threat has metastasized rather than diminished? And have we analyzed how the recent treaty just signed attempts to down size an unverifiable enemy arsenal. Further have we analyzed the treaty’s restrictions on our own defensive capabilities? If we refine “star wars” technology (delivery/intercept systems), defense systems we are in violation of the treaty. Yes trust but verify. One is impotent without the other.
Ronald Reagan’s speech on Deterrence November 23, 1982 applies, only the numbers of players have increased.
“But unless we demonstrate the will to rebuild our strength and restore the military balance, the Soviets (now possibly Iran, Russia, North Korea and China), since they are so far ahead (or catching up at light speed), have little incentive to negotiate with us.” And if we disarm while the threat is still there, building a nuclear stockpile, in Iran, Russia and China et al, any incentive for any meaningful negotiations will diminish if not disappear. Has anyone been following the effect of deterrence on Iran? An exactly who did not attend the April 12, 13, 2010 Obama Nuclear Security Summit?
Over-caution wins out every time.
again I go back to my original argument states like Iran and North Korea could care less about nuclear deterrence. The people left who have seen the detonation oreffects of a nuclear weapon used in war are diminishing as the years go by. As is human nature so is the fear these weapons bring as a deterrence. It appears we see the world through two different set of glasses. You see the world as if almost every country is a potential enemy and you would have our policy reflect that. I see the world as containing specific threats that need to be addressed individually. It appears our military has been looking through the world with the same glasses as I have as proven by the way our military strategy has changed over the last 30 years. Sprawling wars fought by super powers that drag the whole world in no longer seems to be the flavor of the day.
Wow so much to digest. I agree with those saying we still need superior strength to deter the would-be abusers! And let's face it they are many! Russia and China put up a front, but arm anyway. Russia stopped us from putting missile defense in Poland, and now, all of those folks just died in the plane- Snakes on the Plane anyone???? I do not trust communist, dictator, marxist,socialist, etc. driven leaders.We need strong missile defense and not to be backed down by even Russia - We have lost our way, and if we lose our strength, we won't be here to defend the innocent - I go with MAD and BIG Stick! Sorry! Because I would not trust many of these countries in a poop house with a muzzle on!
Gammy Sparkles
As always Gammy even if I don't agree you put up a good argument and I respect your opinion. Thanks for the comments.
Ira
And what would you accept to change your opinion?
One can look at Kennedy’s argument in two ways. The first is to accept it simply as stated. It takes an intellectual curiosity to search for the real meaning beneath the homily, if in fact that was implied. The allusion might be to force humanity to do battle with feathers, a psychologist’s therapy, where people express their violent aggression, and nobody really gets hurt. Nice work if one can get it.
But another scenario is more potent, clever and resides in the realm of statesmanship. That hypothesis is the concept of assured self destruction. It is always best to have something concrete in your arsenal of persuasion, influence, arguments, wiles, and yes, weapons. The suggestion that one has more than enough to vaporize the planet can be real or a bluff. The exaggeration, if it is that, doesn’t really matter as long as the opposition believes it. So the statesman over exaggerates. The fool, Saddam Hussein for example, embraces the facade of a bluff and was taken seriously to his demise. The clever, deadly, opposition mounts the Trojan Horse strategy, disarm, accept a false victory, and expose your weakness.
It is one thing to say I am going to punish you if you attack. That is straight talk. Or one can say “what would your family do without you if we were forced into a nuclear war.” “Somebody, possibly everybody, is going to die.” And the cheat here is the planting of the natural, that human, that genetic seed of desire for survival, that it is most likely going to be you who will not survive. And someone proffer’s the stratagem, terrorists don’t care if they die. Then why do they need the false fanaticism of religious purpose. Survival is in our DNA. It makes no difference how one wins this argument as long as they win. And the tool of winning is deterrence. The battle of the archangels was solved by expulsion, not coexistent. And it was their choice.
It was quite possible that Kennedy was saying with finesse, be nice or you will be sorry. Only he was politically correct in his semantics. I believe one of the prior comments would have labeled that “bullying for peace.”
The Obama administration is willing to throw Israel under the bus. And we are doing this for support of Sunni Arabs. This is throwing in the towel from preventing Iran and North Korea from having nuclear weapons. We restrain our allies, open the door to proliferation for our enemies and substantially, unnecessarily and dangerously weaken our national offensive and defensive capability. The smell of Munich is in the air. Tell me why 78% of Jews nationally support Obama? In Israel Obama’s support has been reported at 4%. This is hardly an example of homogeneous solidarity, wisdom, security based rationality, that any patriot, any historian, any victim of oppression, that might cause many, with some justification, to be tempted to feel a creeping sense of abject betrayal. And the Jews and Christians are not speaking up, they are not speaking out, the wisdom of V Pastor Martin Neimoller not withstanding. Why? This was the mind set of former NY mayor Ed Koch, recently interviewed on the subject, an occasional ray of wisdom in a world otherwise lost in the fatuous, vacuous attempt to befriend our enemies, to often an oxymoron.
Watch the “Couple” (2004) and even revisit “Schindler’s List” (1993). Yes, the message is old but like history; if it is ignored we are doomed to relive it. Having led the horse (us) to water (history) many times, why will it not drink (learn)? One cannot benefit from a sunset or history if one does not open their eyes. Two plus two will always equal four until one chooses to make a mistake.
We will never know what Kennedy really meant and to surmiss is only at best conjecture. We must take his words at face value because that is all we have. And as far as watching the couple or schindlers list I get my information first hand from someone who lived through the camps and watched her family killed in the gas chambers. I don't need a hollywood interpretaion of the facts. If you choose to live in a paranoid world where the boogy man lives behind every rock that is your choice. I choose to live in a world where you know where and who your enemies are and they understand you could destroy them without destroying the world in the process. That is the real deterrent the fact that they know you could hurt them and their cause without hurting anyone else. That removes the "terror" from terrorism. Nuclear weapons time has passed as sure as large cars with gas guzzling V8 engines and cathode ray tubes in our electronics. It's time the world grew up and realized this and you know what; most of us do. And this has nothing to do with Obama throwing Israel under the bus. In fact this has nothing to do with obama at all. He is just continuing what a half dozen other presidents started almost immediately after the second bomb was dropped on Japan. I want a better world for my kids and that world doesn't include the ability to destroy itself a thousand times over. And again I ask you "Who are our enemies"?
Let me start with those who want to kill me. I would rather live in a good country than in manacles.
It is the advent of intercontinental ballistic missiles which poses an incomparably greater threat of surprise attack than terrorists. But it was after the murder of Israeli athletes by Palestinian agents at the 1972 Olympics in Munich that American officials shifted their focus to terrorists. And this concern mushroomed after Sept. 11, 2001.
During the 20th century small pox may have been responsible for 300-500 million deaths. It was eradicated in 1979. And if this biological is unleashed on America we will not mount a nuclear attack? By setting the example of a moral victory with nuclear disarmament President Obama is tying his own hands. He puts America at risk. He has no right or authority to risk America’s national security. With disarmament, he is optioning the bargaining position of nuclear supremacy, and national security now, for the very unrealistic chance of earning the Nobel Peace Prize.
Destroying nuclear arms, disarmament, or locking up nuclear material is far more effective than sealing our borders effectively. Why, because we do not have the courage to do it correctly. And if intercontinental missiles are the delivery instrument of destruction, conventional warfare is reduced to a police action. Delivery systems are a must. Star wars is a high probability. And the problem is never too many, it is did the last one do the job.
And we shoulder restrictions with a treaty that does not fathom a potential Armageddon, although we talk about it a lot. America’s policies have shifted from a reliance on nuclear deterrence to preventing foes like Iran and terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons. All of this in the midst of implying that chemical or biological weapons were not “worthy”: of nuclear response. Thus for “all the feel good talk in Washington this past week, President Obama knows he has much to do if he is to curb Iran, and silence those who think he is giving up America’s nuclear defenses for no gains.”
Oh, I know I could be wrong and I am diligently searching, changing my opinion when the facts are sufficient, and recognizing that going in a circle serves neither of us very well. Some of us, you see, are much like that young lad Oliver Twist in the Dickens novel asking, “more porridge (truth) please.” And we all know how that turned out. In this case we are starving for the truth, rationality and wisdom. I will take solace in preemption and dread the necessity of revenge. And I will play this dangerous game to win, giving away nothing.
One addresses one’s own strength in the context of personal experience in hope of communicating. It is only here that words have a special meaning.
I guess you're not looking hard enough because the facts are there. And who would you launch our nukes to if we had a terrorist attack by biological or chemical weapons. There is no way to trace it after all those weapons don't exactly leave vapor trails back to their country of origin. There are no real biological or chemical footprints and even if there were how can you prove that country willingly gave the terrorists those weapons? How do you know they weren't stolen? Your arguments are seriously flawed and you still live under the false security of a nuclear blanket of protection. That blanket no longer exists. With terrorists there is no clear country of origin to strike out at. So again, for the fourth time I ask, "WHO IS OUR ENEMY?"
That is the question mumbled many, many times as Holocaust victims shuffled in to the crematoriums. It is the questions on the lips of those 70 million who died under Mao Zedong. It is the question on the lips of those who died under Stalin. It is the question on then lips of the victims of Jenghis Khan. And I have answered it with the facts of 11 to 17 million Holocaust deaths. If you harbor my enemy, you are my enemy. You are either with us or against us. Simplicity is often too overwhelming. Are you a student of Newville Chamberlain? Within his philosophy you will stumble across a truth.
Our enemies, well maybe not yours, are anyone who would attempt to extinguish, to embark upon a plan, or seek to deprive us of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In the soul those last three principles, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” where do you find any aggression?
So, now ask me again for the fifth time and I will pray you revisit this comment for enlightenment, or for, at the very least, a legitimate answer, albeit one you disagree with. But do not forsake the answer just because it doe not suit you emotionally.
I grant you the last word on this issue.
As I stated before you are not the only one who remembers history. If history has taught us anything it has taught us that mankind will ALWAYS produce a Ghengis Khan an Adolph Hitler and a Saddem Hussein. What we need to do is recognize them in advance and do whatever we can to stop them. You toss around the holocaust as a justification to use military force when ever we feel like it. I believe it was you who asked me if I would use nuclear weapons, if we had them, on Germany when we learned about the holocost. I said "No." But to let you know I am not the only one who feels that way. As I said my mother-in-law and her sister survived the camps. The only ones out of a family of 15. I asked her what she would have done. She said while to this day she still has no love for Germany, she would not want to live the rest of her life with the death of millions on her conscience. What about you? Is your hatred so strong you can? Does death justify more death? And as far as who our enemies are, I guess by your desription that would include a little more than half the world. And just because I don't see things your way doesn't mean I don't have an open mind. I prefer to look into the future but remember the past not live in the past and not see the future. Thanks for the last word and the lively discussion. I just want to let you know that despite our disagreements I value and respect your position and hope you will continue to participate.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home