Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiFirings and Hirings: The US Nuclear Arsenal Versus the People
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has announced the firing of two top Air Force officials for failure to adequately secure the nation's nuclear weapons, citing a report that found a "problem...not effectively addressed for over a decade." The individuals fired were the Secretary of the Air Force and the Air Force Chief of Staff. That's fine, as far as it goes. But why stop there?
The firing of these two men suggests that the problem is the adequate safeguarding of nuclear weapons and materials in the US arsenal. That is a serious problem, but it is only the tip of the iceberg. Even if we could assure the security of all US nuclear weapons, we would not have dealt with the larger problem of assuring the security of US citizens from nuclear weapons. It is not only our own nuclear weapons we must worry about, but those of all other nuclear weapon states as well.
What most Americans don't realize is that nuclear weapons do not and cannot protect us. They are not a defensive shield. All we can do with nuclear weapons is threaten their use against a country that would attack us and then hope that our threat is adequately communicated and believed, and that the leadership on the other side behaves rationally. In other words, deterrence (threat of retaliation) is a theory about how people may behave, and not a means of defense. We are staking the future of our country and the world on deterrence working under all circumstances. Whoever came up with this concept should be fired immediately.
In fact, some of the strongest proponents of deterrence during the Cold War are now calling for US leadership for a nuclear weapons-free world, precisely because they have concerns about the capacity of deterrence to provide for US security. Former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz have joined with former Secretary of Defense William Perry and former chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee Sam Nunn in pressing for a new approach to US nuclear policy. They wrote in a January 2007 Wall Street Journal article, "We endorse setting the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and working energetically on the actions required to achieve that goal."
Working to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons will require far more than firing two air force officials. In the current administration, it would require firing the president. He has failed to pursue US obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; threatened preemptive use of nuclear weapons; kept US nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert status; sought to develop new nuclear weapons; failed to support US ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to pursue missile defenses (or, more accurately, missile offenses); and has blocked proposals by Russia and China to ban the weaponization of space. The one nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia that the president achieved, the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), does not go as low in the number of weapons as the Russians proposed, has no provisions for verification, requires no dismantling of weapons taken off deployed status, and ends on December 31, 2012.
Both major party presidential candidates have said in general terms that they support the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons. McCain stated that he shares Ronald Reagan's dream "to see the day when nuclear weapons will be banished from the face of the Earth." However, he characterizes that dream as "a distant and difficult goal."
Barack Obama has stated, "A world without nuclear weapons is profoundly in America's interest and the world's interest. It is our responsibility to make the commitment, and to do the hard work to make this vision a reality. That's what I've done as a Senator and a candidate, and that's what I'll do as President."
Both candidates are short on details of how they intend to move forward. It is the responsibility of the American people to assure that the next president they elect have a solid plan for getting from where we are now to a world free of nuclear weapons and that he be ready to begin the process on his first day in office. It is certain that without determined US leadership a nuclear weapons-free world will remain a distant goal and the security of the American people will continue to be endangered by the threat of nuclear war, by design or accident, and by nuclear terrorism; and further, that our current arsenal of some 10,000 nuclear weapons will provide us with no protection.
David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. The Foundation's Appeal to the Next President can be signed at www.wagingpeace.org/Appeal.
14 Comments so far
Show AllIt's like the WOD. You can't stop drug taking so you may as well legalize it for harm reduction. At least it would make conservatives think twice before invading a country, killing, raping, pillaging, torturing, occupying a country and stealing their resources, and profiteering from mercenary contractors.
ezflyer, you're right let everyone have them. Who gives a damn. One goes the rest goes. Gule Gule.
the cold war is fought on different terms now. It is corporations at war not countries. The Iraq invasion could have been put together with a deal with Saddam for food, oil tech help and not one bullet used.
Now I know people will say what about Saddam and what he did? Do you attack a whole country for one or a few people?
ezflyer
Many years ago I proposed that the "nuclear nations" should give every country on Earth one nuclear bomb which could only be shown off in the inevitable annual military parade. Costa Rica exempted of course.
The first feeling I had when I first read about the missing nukes was this was the set up of IRAN and then the attack. Did you notice for several weeks the VP was no where to be found?
mcknight:
Agree, bring in the yes men and lets the bombs fly. \Is it me or it the web a bit wonky tonight?
On 9/11/2001 the Air Force failed to defend our country and 3,000 people were killed, billions of dollars were lost, and the situation led to war that has killed over 4,000 of our soldiers and Marines, and over a million civilians and is projected, in the long run, to cost the U.S. over three TRILLION dollars.
Hundreds of thousands of our soldiers are permanently disabled.
Why was no one in the military disciplined for the failures on 9/11/2001 which have had such disastrous consequences?
If it's not possible to have a nuclear free world, lets let everyone have nukes. Maybe then people would get some respect.
I harbor no inclinations re;the aircraft loaded with Nuclear Missiles, other than we WERE going to use them in a pre-emptive strike, this is why these USAF Commanding Officers were fired. If I am correct, please I don't feeling like going through archives so correct me if I am wrong, this aircraft was landed at a SAC base where it is a strategic take-off point for military actions. These guys were fired for knowing the truth, they didn't want to take a chance. Fallon was forced to resign, FIRED, albeit an Admiral, Fallon was a Commanding Officer but refused to give away any of his beliefs and voiced them, so OUTTA THERE!
In so far as the candidates, McInsane we know, Senator Obama, I will wait until I hear his speech with the Arab-American faction in a week or two, although I'm quite aware Iranians are Persian but Gazans are Arabic, which the Zionists still refuse to call them Palestinians only Arabs. Due to the old re and re-translated, one of the Abrahamic texts, Talmud, the Jews consider Israel to be intrinsically theirs and theirs alone no matter the cost or consequence.
If we have the 10, then why is it Israel is one of the few not on the 10 permitted to have Nuclear Proliferation agreed to by the US, WHY? So how in the world, c'mon Kissinger you Diplomat you, HOW and WHERE does this form of "I'll go if you go first" begin and end?
I suppose it's probably useless to remind people that the ultimate original intent of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) which entered into force in 1970 was to eliminate nuclear weapons. The NPT's Article VI requires all signatory states "to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control." The U.S. signed that treaty along with almost every other nation in the world. Only four nations are not signatories: India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea.
Obviously, like many other U.S. ratified treaty obligations that are "supreme law" according to its constitution, the U.S. pays lip service to this one only when it suits its own purposes in restricting others. Its own 'defence' policies, on the other hand, blatantly negate any treaty commitments it chooses to ignore, such as the undertaking not to use nuclear weapons against a non-NWS party except in response to a nuclear attack, or a conventional attack in alliance with a Nuclear Weapons State.
It is utterly beyond my comprehension how any other nation could or would possibly trust any international agreement of any kind (military, financial or otherwise) with such a country. The U.S., along with Israel, is a greater threat to world peace than ANY other country on earth and certainly a vastly greater threat than a country like Iran that is acquiring and using technology FULLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS TREATY RIGHTS so far as can be determined by U.N. inspectors.
Gates does not want incompetent war criminals leading his childkillers.
What's not mentioned is that such a nuclear shipment error is, for practical purposes, impossible. The mainstream is disinforming people that a missing warhead is as normal as a miss-shipped airline luggage, or misplaced car keys. As there should be for a nuclear warhead, there are so many security protocols, and so many personnel requirements and regulations, that there can be no "accidental relocation" without about thirty personnel performing such a "blunder" collectively. From the article listed below:
"A sophisticated computerized tracking system is used for nuclear weapons. Multiple sign-offs are required to remove the weapons from their storage bunkers.
"Nuclear weapons are transported from the storage bunker to the aircraft in a caravan that routinely includes vehicles with machine guns front and rear and guards with M-16s. All steps in the process are done under the watchful eyes of armed military police.
"Rules require that at least two people jointly control every step of the process. If one person loses sight of the other, both are forced to the ground face-down and temporarily "placed under arrest" by observant security forces. All progress stops until inspections are made to assure the weapons weren't tampered with.
"All nuclear weapons are connected to sophisticated alarm systems to prevent removal or tampering. They could only be removed from the storage bunker by turning the alarm off. And the squad commander clearly would not have authority to turn off the alarm."
Furthermore, there's no common mention by CFR controlled media that six warheads were moved, but only five recovered. This shipment of nuclear warheads had to be intentional. Are we headed for yet another Reichstag Fire/Operation Northwoods/9-11/New Pearl Harbor fiasco, this time nuclear?!
Here's a great article on what can only be clandestine US operatives stealing a warhead from a complicit Air Force:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread302187/pg1
Mr. Krieger is quite right. It is disappointing that this very imortant topic doesn't seem, based on comments, to get the attention of Commondreams readers. If the progressive public doesn't recognize the relevance of disarmament, not only in terms of military security, but also in terms of nuclear weapons and delivery systems' diversion of resources from more urgent pursuits like education, health care and renewable energy, who does?
The author makes a few generalities about the dangers and burdens of nuclear weapons and then he makes the following absurd nonsequitor:
"Working to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons will require far more than firing two air force officials. "
What? Defense Secretary Gates is not working to free the world of nuclear weapons. Has the author forgotten the name of our war president?
A far more insightful article on these firings was presented today at wsws.org,
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jun2008/airf-j07.shtml. Here are some excerpts:
Taken together, the claims of innocent errors as the explanation for sensitive nuclear devices being sent to one of the tensest areas of the globe and a nuclear armed flight in the midst of mounting war threats strain credulity. Both incidents strongly suggest that much more is taking place behind the scenes in the US military and state apparatus than the American people are being told....
While no doubt the incidents raised grave questions, the manner in which the two officials were forced to resign evinces a level of urgency that suggests that far more was involved than the release of an investigator's report....
Finally, in pursuit of its strategy of global militarism, the Bush administration has sought to portray the military as entitled to virtual veto power over the elected government, insisting that it is the commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan-hand-picked supporters of the administration's policies—who must decide the course of the wars.
Under such a government, a sudden shakeup within the top ranks of the military like this week's unprecedented simultaneous removal of a service's civilian secretary and uniformed chief—or for that matter the forced resignation of Central Command head Admiral William Fallon in March—raises a number of disturbing possibilities.
Was there more to the unauthorized flight of a nuclear-armed bomber last August than the government dares reveal to the American people?
Are the Air Force chiefs being sacked in preparation for using America's airpower in another criminal war of aggression, potentially against Iran, under conditions in which the Pentagon's uniformed command is already deeply dissatisfied with the over-extension of US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Had the near mutiny over military procurements, which apparently enjoyed the backing of powerful financial interests, gone further than has been revealed? Were they forced out to avoid a more open challenge to the civilian control of the military?
The answers to these and other crucial questions remained hidden behind a veil of "national security." Clearly, however, under conditions of a protracted decay of basic institutions of bourgeois democracy in America, the ever-increasing power of the military poses the most fundamental threat to the basic democratic rights of American working people.
Does anyone else suspect that the unprecedented firing of the two top officials in the Air Force might be the second act of getting rid of war skeptics like Admiral Fallon to clear the decks for an attack on Iran?