http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-nuclear-zero-rhetoric-is-dangerous--and-unrealistic/2013/03/29/917f2036-987b-11e2-b68f-dc5c4b47e519_story.html
Obama’s ‘nuclear zero’ rhetoric is dangerous
By Douglas J. Feith, Frank J. Gaffney, James A. Lyons and R. James Woolsey,
Published: March 29
Douglas J. Feith was undersecretary of defense for policy from 2001 to 2005. Frank J. Gaffney is founder and president of the Center for Security Policy; he was acting assistant secretary of defense for international security policy in 1987. Adm. James A. Lyons was commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet from 1985 to 1987. R. James Woolsey was director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 1993 to 1995.
Recent threats from North Korea have led the Obama administration to reverse some of its previous decisions and to build up U.S. missile defenses. Welcome as that course correction is, the North’s recent missile developments and underground nuclear test should cause President Obama to rethink his basic approach to nuclear weapons policy. He should acknowledge that he was unrealistic in making it U.S. policy to achieve “a world without nuclear weapons.”
Whatever good and idealistic intentions may have motivated the initial rhetoric about “nuclear zero,” the practical effects of embracing this slogan are harmful. The goal of minimizing the possibility of nuclear war is not served when the U.S. president, in speaking of the subject, appears disconnected from reality.
We are part of a team of 20 professionals with extensive experience in national security and defense policy who recently sent an open letter to the president. In it, we argued that the United States’ triad of land-based, submarine-launched and bomber-delivered nuclear weapons has helped ensure strategic stability and discouraged proliferation of such weapons. We also warned that raising doubts about the reliability, effectiveness and sustainability of our nuclear deterrent may embolden our enemies and encourage our friends to build their own nuclear arsenals.
When Obama administration officials speak of nuclear weapons, they generally focus on audiences gratified by talk of disarmament, especially U.S. disarmament. Hence, the administration’s (1) opposition to developing a reliable, new nuclear warhead; (2) opposition to ever testing our warheads again; (3) support for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; (4) support for deep new cuts in nuclear force levels; (5) eagerness for a new treaty with Russia to make such cuts a legal requirement; (6) hints of funding cuts for U.S. nuclear infrastructure (in violation of earlier promises to increase such funding, which were pledged in 2010 to win Senate votes for the “New START” nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia); and (7) endorsement of “nuclear zero.” The president calls it “leadership” when he adopts such policies. He says other countries will more energetically oppose nuclear proliferation in Iran, North Korea and elsewhere if we demonstrate such leadership by constraining our own nuclear capabilities.
<snip>
The comments are great, there are about 75 of them so far:
Doug Feith? Wow, impressive Hiatt, How do you keep getting guys from the "chickenhawk hall of fame" to write in here?
[hr]
Has anyone thanked Mr. Feith yet for his help in getting North Korea to finally move forward with its A-bomb program? Thanks for playing along so well with President Bush's "ignore NK, and they'll back off" policy-brilliance. The world really NEEDED more nukes in the hands of nutcases, and nothing you could have done short of attempting and failing, to assassinate Kim Jong-il could have more surely prodded NK down the nuclear path.
Thanks a lot, Mr. Feith.
[hr]
Thousands of nuclear weapons have NOT prevented N.Korea from developing their weapons. The same is happening in Iran. "Team of professionals"? What about conflict of interest with money, careers. How can thousands of trigger hot nuclear weapons make our children safe? Who holds the triggers in Russia? Do they really believe accidents don't happen? Do they really think that nuclear material and arsenals are safe from robbery, accidents and losses? Just look at Fukushima. Accidents, misunderstandings, human stupidity happen. Just give enough time for complexity to play its hand. Who are these awesome 20 people? Is this the best they can come up with?
[hr]
A "team of 20 professionals with extensive experience in national security and defense policy" is a euphemism for a clique of militaristic neoconservatives who have a Strangelove-like affection for nukes as long as it is ourselves and our faithful allies that have them and it is just too bad if that makes nuclear disarmament difficult. How to deal with the logical notion that disarmament is best achieved with leadership by the country most responsible for nuclear armament in the first place? Raise fears of unintended consequences -- however improbable that may be coming from a group notorious for disregard of unintended consequences in the past.
As a side note; The neocons are yet again in conflict with the law of the land -- in this case, the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) -- which requires signatory states, including the US, "to achieve the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to undertake effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament".