I was a member of a group that provided analysis to the Navy regarding deterrence, force posture and arms control issues. When you are part of that world it is easy to get caught up in the numbers and forget the big picture. In that capacity I was asked to do a study on the evolution of the Navy's strategic forces. It was then that I discovered how much politics, budgets, inter service rivalries, etc drove the process. Actual rational strategic needs were an afterthought. At that point I left that group and spent the rest of my career developing intelligence systems.
As far as I can see I don't think much has changed. Apparently the government has developed an integrated conventional/strategic strategy which involves low yield nuclear weapons to provide "in kind" responses as part of flexible employment schemes. In my opinion this makes things worse, not better.
Why do the number of nuclear weapons matter at this point?
What's the difference between 1,000 Russian nukes falling on America and 10,000 Russian nukes falling on America? Fifty nukes hitting our largest cities would probably be enough to crash the food distribution system, leading to mass starvation, and social and political chaos. Just taking out our ports might be enough to crash the economy and bring on the chaos.
We are now in yet another presidential election season where nuclear weapons will barely be mentioned. Reason, facts and expert articles have proven themselves completely worthless on this topic. The only way to have any influence is not with words, but with leverage. As example...
About a year ago I had the opportunity to have a series of exchanges with a prominent scientist, a former leader of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. We were discussing an open letter that about a thousand scientists had signed warning of the dangers of nuclear weapons. Of course this letter had no effect whatsoever, as anyone could have predicted.
And so I suggested that the science community APPLY LEVERAGE by going out on strike for some period of time. He immediately replied that this would never happen. And he was right. He was right. Not going to happen. They have the power. But they won't use it.
One of the key problems we face is that the elite class in general, and nuclear weapons experts in particular, are stuck in 20th century thinking. They keep saying and doing the same things over and over that have never worked for 75 years. Their real priority is not nuclear weapons, but their careers as experts. And that makes it impossible for them to speak the simple truth, that nothing they've ever suggested has made us any safer.
If there is a solution, it won't come from the expert community, but in the form of the next nuclear weapons detonation. If we're lucky that will be a limited event that is large enough to wake us up while being small enough to not prevent learning and change. If we're unlucky the turning point will be The Big One.
Nuclear weapons are a revolutionary technology which require a revolutionary response. We're never going to see a revolutionary response from those who have found a comfortable place within the elite class status quo.
So, how do we relate to the reality that experts on all political sides wish to spend billions on making the rubble bounce, and nothing anybody has said in 75 years has made us safer? It says to me that reason is impotent on this matter, and our best hope is the next detonation. What can we really do other than wait, pray and hope that seeing the next detonation will accomplish what reason can not?
Your article helps shine a light on the fact that the status quo routine at every level is leading us nowhere. So if we're going to do anything, it seems it should be something other than the same things which have been a proven failure for 75 years.
When any action consistently fails to meet any challenge shouldn't that cause us to question our fundamental assumptions?
What if it's not really nuclear weapons that are the problem, but those who would use them? What if we've aimed our thinking at the wrong target?
The number of weapons is determined by the strategic planners who use the arcane calculus of counterforce, countervalue, CEP, damage expectancy, single shot kill probability, redundancy, and many others factors. This results in numbers that well exceed what is needed for deterrence. The number of warheads needed to achieve McNamara's criteria of destroying 50% of industrial capacity and 25% of the population is approximately 100. A single Ohio class (or future Columbia class) carries that many. Two subs on patrol in both the Atlantic and Pacific provide a secure force to ensure deterrence.
It will take bold leadership to tame the entrenched organizations that drive nuclear force posture, and that can pursue global agreements to reduce the numbers. Sadly, I dont see any indications that his will happen.
Pat: I don’t know what your career experience has been but you are exactly right. Few understand that absurd targeting calculations - that basically only factor blast damage and not fire or radiation - result in extraordinary weapons requirements. Just as you summarize, we have many more weapons than reasonably required for deterrence. By at least a factor of ten.
I was a member of a group that provided analysis to the Navy regarding deterrence, force posture and arms control issues. When you are part of that world it is easy to get caught up in the numbers and forget the big picture. In that capacity I was asked to do a study on the evolution of the Navy's strategic forces. It was then that I discovered how much politics, budgets, inter service rivalries, etc drove the process. Actual rational strategic needs were an afterthought. At that point I left that group and spent the rest of my career developing intelligence systems.
As far as I can see I don't think much has changed. Apparently the government has developed an integrated conventional/strategic strategy which involves low yield nuclear weapons to provide "in kind" responses as part of flexible employment schemes. In my opinion this makes things worse, not better.
Keep up the good flight!
Why do the number of nuclear weapons matter at this point?
What's the difference between 1,000 Russian nukes falling on America and 10,000 Russian nukes falling on America? Fifty nukes hitting our largest cities would probably be enough to crash the food distribution system, leading to mass starvation, and social and political chaos. Just taking out our ports might be enough to crash the economy and bring on the chaos.
We are now in yet another presidential election season where nuclear weapons will barely be mentioned. Reason, facts and expert articles have proven themselves completely worthless on this topic. The only way to have any influence is not with words, but with leverage. As example...
About a year ago I had the opportunity to have a series of exchanges with a prominent scientist, a former leader of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. We were discussing an open letter that about a thousand scientists had signed warning of the dangers of nuclear weapons. Of course this letter had no effect whatsoever, as anyone could have predicted.
And so I suggested that the science community APPLY LEVERAGE by going out on strike for some period of time. He immediately replied that this would never happen. And he was right. He was right. Not going to happen. They have the power. But they won't use it.
One of the key problems we face is that the elite class in general, and nuclear weapons experts in particular, are stuck in 20th century thinking. They keep saying and doing the same things over and over that have never worked for 75 years. Their real priority is not nuclear weapons, but their careers as experts. And that makes it impossible for them to speak the simple truth, that nothing they've ever suggested has made us any safer.
If there is a solution, it won't come from the expert community, but in the form of the next nuclear weapons detonation. If we're lucky that will be a limited event that is large enough to wake us up while being small enough to not prevent learning and change. If we're unlucky the turning point will be The Big One.
Nuclear weapons are a revolutionary technology which require a revolutionary response. We're never going to see a revolutionary response from those who have found a comfortable place within the elite class status quo.
Excellent point. After a couple of hundred weapons, the rest are just there to “make the rubble bounce,” as the old Cold War saying goes.
Thanks Joe, I really appreciate your engagement.
So, how do we relate to the reality that experts on all political sides wish to spend billions on making the rubble bounce, and nothing anybody has said in 75 years has made us safer? It says to me that reason is impotent on this matter, and our best hope is the next detonation. What can we really do other than wait, pray and hope that seeing the next detonation will accomplish what reason can not?
Your article helps shine a light on the fact that the status quo routine at every level is leading us nowhere. So if we're going to do anything, it seems it should be something other than the same things which have been a proven failure for 75 years.
When any action consistently fails to meet any challenge shouldn't that cause us to question our fundamental assumptions?
What if it's not really nuclear weapons that are the problem, but those who would use them? What if we've aimed our thinking at the wrong target?
The number of weapons is determined by the strategic planners who use the arcane calculus of counterforce, countervalue, CEP, damage expectancy, single shot kill probability, redundancy, and many others factors. This results in numbers that well exceed what is needed for deterrence. The number of warheads needed to achieve McNamara's criteria of destroying 50% of industrial capacity and 25% of the population is approximately 100. A single Ohio class (or future Columbia class) carries that many. Two subs on patrol in both the Atlantic and Pacific provide a secure force to ensure deterrence.
It will take bold leadership to tame the entrenched organizations that drive nuclear force posture, and that can pursue global agreements to reduce the numbers. Sadly, I dont see any indications that his will happen.
Pat: I don’t know what your career experience has been but you are exactly right. Few understand that absurd targeting calculations - that basically only factor blast damage and not fire or radiation - result in extraordinary weapons requirements. Just as you summarize, we have many more weapons than reasonably required for deterrence. By at least a factor of ten.
BS
Hello, Joe..Were you at Kairos in the early ‘70’s? I was and appreciated your wisdom then and am grateful for it today.
Thank you! I was not at Kairos in the early 70s.. Don’t really know what that is.