Rumsfeld Fights Making Bush Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament Measures Permanent

San Jose Mercury News | April 27, 1969 | Jonathan S. Landay

[rightwing2]

San Jose Mercury News
April 27, 2002

Rumsfeld Reportedly Resists Firm Limits On Nuclear Arms

By Jonathan S. Landay, Mercury News Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his aides have been fighting a rearguard action against White House efforts to limit the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal in a treaty with Russia, senior administration officials contend.

At one point, President Bush had to order Rumsfeld to stop opposing a treaty now being negotiated that would limit the United States and Russia to deploying no more than 1,700 to 2,200 operational warheads each by 2012, said the senior officials, all four of whom spoke on condition of anonymity.

The United States and Russia deploy about 6,000 strategic nuclear warheads each. At a summit in November, Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to seek the 1,700- to 2,200-warhead ceiling. U.S. and Russian officials are to resume talks in Moscow on a nuclear arms deal this weekend.

Resistant to mandate

Rumsfeld and his top aides have supported Bush's decision to slash operational U.S. warheads to reflect a ``new strategic relationship'' with America's former Cold War rival. But they have resisted a formal accord binding the United States to a numerical ceiling, the senior officials said.

Instead, Pentagon officials have advocated in talks with Russia and in internal U.S. deliberations a political deal that would not be subject to legislative approval and would lack the force of law, the senior officials said.

Such an arrangement would make it easier for the United States to exceed the 1,700 to 2,200 limit if U.S. officials ever determined that more operational warheads were required because of an increased threat to U.S. national security.

Secretary of State Colin Powell and other senior officials have favored a legally binding accord because it would help Putin deflect critics who oppose his efforts to seek closer ties with the United States. Many hard-liners within the Russian military and parliament do not trust Washington to hold up its end of any arms-reductions bargain.

Powell, Vice President Dick Cheney and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice confronted Rumsfeld over the issue in March. The three reminded Rumsfeld that Bush had agreed with Putin to seek a pact that would require the approval of the Russian parliament and Congress, the officials said.

Several days later, Bush himself informed Rumsfeld that he wanted a legally binding treaty with Russia, officials said.

``The president's decision was communicated to Secretary Rumsfeld by the president himself, by the vice president and by the national security adviser,'' said one of the senior administration officials. ``Everyone understands that we want to work out a legally binding agreement with the Russians that will reduce both our strategic arsenals to more sensible levels.''

On March 13, Bush publicly affirmed his support for a legally binding deal with Putin, saying ``there needs to be a document that outlives both of us.''

Discord among aides

The senior officials said some Pentagon aides, however, had continued to try to stymie efforts to finalize an accord, which Bush and Putin hope to sign when Bush visits Russia next month. Their intent is to keep numerical limits out of a treaty and limit any legally binding aspects to procedures for verifying warhead cuts.

The Pentagon tactics include rewriting portions of working drafts of the treaty after they have been agreed upon by U.S. and Russian negotiators, officials said.

A White House official declined to answer questions about the issue, and a Pentagon official did not respond to a request for comment Friday. Rumsfeld is to hold talks in Moscow this weekend with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Ivanov.

[rightwing2]

This is confirmation of what I have been saying all along. Our fine Secretary of Defense has been working behind the scenes for several months trying to fight Bush's unilateral nuclear disarmament measures passed over the objections of himself and many of our top generals and admirals including Admiral Mies, who commanded STRATCOM until late last year. Rumsfeld is trying to spare the US strategic nuclear deterrent from evisceration at the hands of President Bush and foil Bush's and Powell's attempts to appease the Russian demand that these unilateral nuclear disarmament 'cuts' be made irreversible. May God bless his efforts and the efforts of some of his top lieutenants at DoD to put the US national security interest first for a change becuase nobody else in the Bush Administration including former arms control opponent Dick Cheney seems to be willing to do so.

[rightwing2]

NATIONAL SECURITY BUMP!

[Thud]

ping

[gcruse]

I have to interest in reviving the Cold War. We must do what we can to forge closer ties and relationships with Russia, and keeping an arsenal targetted at them makes no sense. That said, how does the threat of a Chinese nuclear buildup figure into this? Would we be unable to defend against it?

[Digger]

If you don't know what Russia is doing about advancing theirs it is huge. For your info it was POWELL under the inept Bush Sr. that got rid of the neutron bomb - all while the Chi-Coms are making many. This is treason in my mind.

[thinktwice]

Rumsfeld is positively the best person within Bush's administration.

[gcruse]

If you don't know what Russia is doing about advancing theirs it is huge.

Do you have a cite for that?

[rightwing2]

I have to interest in reviving the Cold War. We must do what we can to forge closer ties and relationships with Russia, and keeping an arsenal targetted at them makes no sense. That said, how does the threat of a Chinese nuclear buildup figure into this? Would we be unable to defend against it?

While the CIA and I disagree with your statement that Russia's nuclear arsenal is no longer a threat to the US, your question regarding the ChiCom nuke threat is a good one. Currently, the ChiComs have a nuclear arsenal about 25% the size of ours--2300 ChiCom nukes v. 9800 US nukes. Unfortunately for them most of their nukes are tactical and theater nukes, not the strategic-range nukes which constitute the backbone of our current arsenal. Currently, the ChiComs have no more than 100 strategic range nukes deployed on less than 35 ICBMs and SLBMs. As you know, the ChiComs have a goal which is to transform their country into a military and nuclear superpower before the end of the next decade.

In order to be a nuclear superpower, the ChiComs have to field a strategic nuclear arsenal which is roughly comparable to our own. For them to build up to our current level would be an unsurmountable task. However, given Bush's directive to unilaterally disarm the US of 75% of its strategic nuclear deterrent down to 1700 stratnukes, Communist China will be able to become a nuclear superpower and establish rough nuclear parity with the US with as few as 1500 strategic nuclear warheads on as few as 300 MIRVd mobile ICBMs and SLBMs. The Heritage Foundation published a study a few years back which estimated that the ChiComs had the technological and industrial capacity to build as many as 1000 ICBMs within a decade or two time.
>
Meanwhile, Russia, which fields a nuclear arsenal FOUR TIMES LARGER THAN THE US is not about to disarm itself of its nuclear arsenal and therein lies the real nuclear threat. By 2011 when the Bush evisceration of our strategic nuclear deterrent is complete, the US will no longer be able to deter nuclear attack from Communist China, will no longer have a large enough arsenal to be called a nuclear superpower and Communist China, a staunch Russian ally will likely have a nuclear arsenal very nearly as large and potent as our own! The US will at best be outnumbered two nuclear superpowers to one. At worst, the US will be downgraded to regional power status, while Russia and Communist China use their superior nuclear offensive and strategic defensive forces to dominate the rest of the globe.

[rightwing2]

If you don't know what Russia is doing about advancing theirs it is huge. For your info it was POWELL under the inept Bush Sr. that got rid of the neutron bomb - all while the Chi-Coms are making many. This is treason in my mind.

Treason indeed, but it was not Bush-Powell who got rid of the neutron bomb for it was never built beyond the prototypes tested, not even by Reagan. Russia is the only country in the world which retains the ability to destroy the US as a country with their superior nuclear arsenal. While Russia has not done much to advance their nuclear arsenal, they have been doing a lot to maintain and extend the lifetimes of what they got and that makes the Bush unilateral nuclear disarmament plan nothing short of a policy of national suicide.

[Paul Ross]

Get real about the cites. Are you truly interested in reading any, or accepting any truths adverse to your 'cold war' 'anti-nuke' mindset.? So is your call for citations...(a standard Lefty parrying maneuever when out-debated, btw) merely lazy or are you adverse to reading...? E.g., any one of any depth on this web site knows and reads Alamo-Girls massive national security compendium in her site. It would also answer your question about how dire is the existing balance of power with the Chinese. They already are not really deterred. It is only a matter of time now before the balloon goes up.

[gcruse]

So is your call for citations...(a standard Lefty
parrying maneuever when out-debated, btw)

My goodness.  The vitriol.

Asking someone to substantiate their statements
is a sign of deviousness.....?

Swallowing allegations whole
is the mindset of the naive.

[Scholastic]

Thanks! Bump to Rummy on this matter.

[Looking for Diogenes]

How are the weapons cuts 'unilateral' if both Russia and the U.S. make them? Everything in the article points to these as 'bilateral' cuts.

[afuturegovernor]

Grow-up! Everybody that disagrees with you is not commenting treason. If you don't like the policy, then state so rationally why. Throwing around words like treason, the only crime defined by the Constitution, corrupts proper use of the word.

[Orion78]

"This is confirmation of what I have been saying all along. Our fine Secretary of Defense has been working behind the scenes for several months trying to fight Bush's unilateral nuclear disarmament measures passed over the objections of himself and many of our top generals and admirals including Admiral Mies, who commanded STRATCOM until late last year. Rumsfeld is trying to spare the US strategic nuclear deterrent from evisceration at the hands of President Bush and foil Bush's and Powell's attempts to appease the Russian demand that these unilateral nuclear disarmament 'cuts' be made irreversible. May God bless his efforts and the efforts of some of his top lieutenants at DoD to put the US national security interest first for a change becuase nobody else in the Bush Administration including former arms control opponent Dick Cheney seems to be willing to do so."

---

Rumsfeld Fights Making Bush Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament Measures Permanent
Posted on 4/29/02 12:53 PM Pacific by rightwing2

"WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his aides have been fighting a rearguard action against White House efforts to limit the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal in a treaty with Russia, senior administration officials contend.

At one point, President Bush had to order Rumsfeld to stop opposing a treaty now being negotiated that would limit the United States and Russia to deploying no more than 1,700 to 2,200 operational warheads each by 2012, said the senior officials, all four of whom spoke on condition of anonymity."

Russian Defector Warns US against Planned Unilateral Disarmament Measures
Posted on 07/19/01 10:30:43 PDT by rightwing2

"At the request of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, military analysts are currently developing a new defense strategy, due in September, which will sufficiently reduce American combat readiness, defense capabilities and effectiveness. While it's very difficult to predict what could happen to America's defenses after this new strategy is implemented, there is no doubt that from that time onward the U.S. military will no longer be prepared to wage two major wars simultaneously."

[rightwing2]

Here are some key excerpts (part only) from an article worth repeating which refutes both the statements of GEN Butler calling for the abolition of all US nuclear weapons and the radical unilateral nuclear disarmament initiatives of President Bush by the Commander-in-Chief of STRATCOM, Admiral Mies:

Nuclear Arms Chief Questions Cut In Warheads By Walter Pincus,
Washington Post Staff Writer
July 15, 2001

The commander of U.S. strategic nuclear forces has forcefully, though indirectly, challenged President Bush's plan to slash the number of warheads and take intercontinental ballistic missiles off "hair-trigger" alert. Bush has said repeatedly -- most recently in a May 4 speech at the National Defense University -- that he would like to move quickly to reduce U.S. nuclear forces, unilaterally if necessary.

Adm. Richard W. Mies, chief of the U.S. Strategic Command in Omaha, told a Senate subcommittee Wednesday that it is "naive and mistaken" to believe "that the 'nuclear danger' is directly proportional to the number of nuclear weapons and, accordingly, lower is inevitably better." There is "a tyranny in very deep numerical reductions that inhibits flexibility and induces instability in certain circumstances," Mies said at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces. "Stability is the most important criterion as we assess further initiatives to reduce our strategic forces to the lowest levels consistent with national security."

Although Mies did not directly criticize the president's position, his remarks indicated that there is deep resistance in at least some parts of the military to reductions below 2,500 to 3,000 warheads, the level proposed during the Clinton administration for a possible third strategic arms reduction treaty with Russia. The United States now has about 7,000 warheads.

As the head of the Strategic Command, the admiral carries great weight inside the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has recently made two visits to Omaha to talk with Mies and other officers there as part of a review of strategic deterrence. Completion of that review, originally scheduled for this month, has been delayed until fall...

[rightwing2]

How are the weapons cuts 'unilateral' if both Russia and the U.S. make them? Everything in the article points to these as 'bilateral' cuts.

The cuts will only be bilateral if you trust the Russians to keep their agreement to reduce their nuclear arsenal below 2000 stratnukes. I don't. The Russians have broken every arms control treaty they have ever entered into with us. Why should we expect them to act differently when it is not in their interests to do so. Look, the Russians will take measures to feign compliance as with past treaties, but they will keep their missiles MIRVd and will retain cold-launched "refire" missiles and non-deployed nuclear missiles neither of which will be covered by the treaty. The truth is that the US has no idea how big the Russian nuclear arsenal really is. We can only make educated guesses, but the CIA estimated that they may have undercounted Russian strategic nukes by up to 4,000 warheads. The US has always embraced the minimum estimates for the Russian nuclear arsenal in the interests of furthering the arms control process and appeasing the Russians. This time will be no different.

[rightwing2]

Too bad Rumsfeld isn't president. Bush is either stupid or crazy. The Chinese are preparing for a war with us day and night, and Bush thinks it's just great for us to disarm. I fear we are now approaching the final days of America, and no one except Rumsfeld seems to give a damn.

I agree. Interestingly enough, I recently read a political analyst predict that Cheney would retire in 2004 due to health reasons and that Bush might choose Rumsfeld or one other guy probably Powell as his running mate for the 2004 election. If he chose Rumsfeld he would probably win, but if he chose Powell his conservative base would desert him en masse and the few extra liberal votes he got would be insufficient to put him over the top. Anyway, Rummy is definitely presidential material. As for Powell, he should have been fired for urging Bush to appease the ChiComs with the April 2001 EP-3 incident. Our apologies to the ChiCom hostagetakers were nothing less than humiliating.

[Paul Ross]

Yes when it is clearly a disengenuous ploy...as was yours, and as evidenced by your response. You merely prove that your intentions were in fact dishonorable. If you were serious, you would just be busy reading at AG's site, instead of riposting with spurious guilt-trippery.

[Cold Heat]

They only want to put the old obsolete crap in storage for christ's sake. The U.S. would like the Russians to do the same. Big frikken deal.

[rightwing2]

They only want to put the old obsolete crap in storage...The U.S. would like the Russians to do the same. Big frikken deal.

Oh really? Well then, since Bush is unilaterally disarming the US of 75% of its strategic nuclear deterrent, I guess that means 75% of our nukes are obselete? Yeah, right. And I guess destroying all of our most modern ICBMs--the MX Peacekeeper and their W-87 warheads put in storage, which are the second most modern warhead in the arsenal are considered "obselete" to you, but the Minuteman IIIs built in the mid-1970s that we are going to keep are the state-of-the-art stuff, huh? And how about those four "obselete" 3rd or 4th generation Ohio guided missile submarines with their "obselete" Trident missiles that Bush is scrapping? Oh yeah, I guess you are the expert on the US nuclear arsenal.

[Cold Heat]

Officially mothballing a bunch of crap is not the same as eliminating it. Most of this is likely NATO and is not required to wave beneath the Ruskie's nose anymore. It cost alot of bucks to maintain units to deploy these weapons that will likely never see the light of day.

What we need is floating somewhere in the South China Sea right now. The immense size of the deterent is not really needed and we are not tossing them out. We are only proposing they be put away for a rainy day. I cannot find a reason to object.

[rightwing2]

Officially mothballing a bunch of crap is not the same as eliminating it. Most of this is likely NATO and is not required to wave beneath the Ruskie's nose anymore. It cost alot of bucks to maintain units to deploy these weapons that will likely never see the light of day. What we need is floating somewhere in the South China Sea right now. The immense size of the deterent is not really needed and we are not tossing them out. We are only proposing they be put away for a rainy day. I cannot find a reason to object.

So I guess virtually the entire US nuclear deterrent is a "bunch of crap?" Don't forget that it is that "bunch of crap" that was the only thing that stood between us and the Communization of the entire globe during the Cold War. Today, it is the only thing that stands between us and Sino-Russian alliance global hegemony. I wouldn't be so cavalier about junking it anytime soon, if I were you. As for the question of what is "NATO", the US deploys exactly 150 airdeployed tacnuke dumb bombs in Europe. The rest of our 9800 nukes are in the US and are mostly strategic, not tactical weapons. Contrary to what you say it is quite cheap to maintain nuclear forces as opposed to increasingly expensive to maintain conventional forces. That is why Eisenhower decided to focus on nukes to deter the Soviets and build down our conventional forces to 12 Army divisions in the 1950s in order to save billions of dollars on military spending. Its also why the Russians have been able to maintain their nuclear forces at current levels.

I'm not sure what you are saying by "what we need is floating somewhere in the South China Sea right now". If you are referring to the US Seventh Fleet that was deprived of all their nukes by Bush Sr. in 1991, think again. Our carriers are sitting ducks to the ChiCom Sovremenny destroyers with their supersonic Sunburn and Yakhont conventional, EMP and nuclear-armed ship killers, against which the US Navy has no defense. As for your idea of putting our nuclear deterrent away for a rainy day, that defeats the entire rationale for having them. They do not serve deterrent purposes if they take a few weeks or in this case six months to redeploy. The reason should be obvious to you, Russia could take out Washington, DC and virtually our entire deployed nuclear deterrent at a whim leaving us naked to a countervalue attack against our cities.

If we follow the Bush anti-nuke plan and disarm down to a mere 1700 strategic nukes, of which only the sea-based portion will remain on alert, the US will no longer be able to deter a nuclear first strike from the superior offensive nuclear forces of the Russian Federation. However, even if Russia did not attack us, but merely overtly or covertly retained even half of the strategic nukes it has now, the US would lose its status as a nuclear superpower by disarming itself of 75% of its nukes as Bush has ordered and you support. 1700 nukes is well before what the anti-nuke wacko and Commie front crowd have saying we should do for years. They called for a reduction in the US arsenal to minimal deterrence levels which was considered to be 2000 strategic nukes. By disarming to this low level, we will encourage Communist China to build up to nuclear parity with the US by deploying about 1500 strategic nukes which would take as few as 300 MIRVd strategic missiles, which they could easily deploy within the next decade or so. Once the US has so disarmed itself Russia and Communist China will together be able to dominate the world. Don't fall victim to the fallacy that whatever that Bush does regarding our national security is good because he's a Republican just like us.

[Cold Heat]

Still fighting the cold war huh!

Carry on!

BTW, What I referred to as floating nukes is our sub fleet. More than enough to take China out now.

Ten years is a long time, and things can change.

Those nukes you are so worried about being stored are likely in the bunker already. Clinton probably caused that to happen during the draw down. The admin is likely trying to get something out of the Russians anyway.

But go on and make your arguement! Your true reason to make it is to criticize Bush. That much is clear.

[Askel5]

Bush is either stupid or crazy.

He's a useful idiot. If you'll notice -- with the exception of Carter, that sincerely stupid and nasty member of the Riley Salon -- our premiere useful idiots are groomed either from birth or, at the very latest, high school.

To be fair ... Reagan wasn't an idiot and neither was Nixon. But Reagan was useful for his sincerity (be it arguing human life or calling the collapsible Soviet Empire evil). And Nixon was simply too clever by half and misunderstood the fact he was not really a part of the Inner Ring who worked him over in creating the Watergate Wound of a dialectic they could pick to bleed at will the next 30 years.

[Askel5]

Thanks for the flags. It's like watching a car wreck.

I cannot for the life of me figure out how it is that -- with each completion of yet another communists objective -- folks keep chirping about how we won the Cold War simply because the Soviets' perestroika (re)formation appeared to be a collapse. They'll sing the praises of Sun Tzu as the day is long and fail to see the truth about Russia's "weaknesses" staring them in the face.

Rumsfeld has finally chalked one up in my book.

I'll admit I've been prejudiced against him since he had to divest his biotech and other stocks to return for another tour of "public service". Perhaps his private sector spoils haven't quite muddled his thinking along with the rest of the "It's the Economy, Stupid" crowd.

[lewislynn]

Those nukes you are so worried about being stored are likely in the bunker already. Clinton probably caused that to happen during the draw down. The admin is likely trying to get something out of the Russians anyway.

---------

Your true reason to make it is to criticize Bush. That much is clear.

And yours is to defend at any cost?

[Paul Ross]

GWB is proposing to dismantle all of our Peacekeepers...the best land-based missile we ever made. All of them. Meanwhile the Minuteman III's which were supposed to be updated, were in fact seriously impaired as to both range and accuracy under the Clinton administration's loving care. So the facts are, what they are proposing to do is dismantle all the good stuff, and then leave us only with the crap to use your metaphor. Meanwhile the Russians get to keep their good stuff, super state-of-the art which are off-road mobile-in-fact, ABM-stealth evasive FOB/MARVs (and yes they can likely carry far more warheads than ever advertised or admitted to).

[Cold Heat]

I don't pretend to know the details of the current active arsenal and what the exact plans are to modify it. Anything published is largely conjecture.

I do know this, the cold war is...........over! China has taken Russias place as a strategic threat and the situational defense strategy has changed. The goal should be to eliminate all of the stuff, everywhere! But we obviously cannot do that unilaterally. If your expertise makes you correct in your assertions then perhaps you are in the wrong business.

So far, everyone on this forum who have attacked the proposal are Bush bashers, libertarians ,conspiracy buffs and "no current freeper by that name" types.

I have little regard for those opinions.

[rightwing2]

Those nukes you are so worried about being stored are likely in the bunker already. Clinton probably caused that to happen during the draw down. The admin is likely trying to get something out of the Russians anyway. But go on and make your arguement! Your true reason to make it is to criticize Bush. That much is clear.

Obviously, you are not one to fret about such things as numbers of nuclear weapons in our arsenal and the Russian arsenal or such quaint archaic "Cold War" matters as the nuclear balance and Mutual Assured Destruction. The truth is that in establishing a credible nuclear deterrence strategy against the country that a recent CIA cites as the #1 nuclear missile threat to the US, numbers still matter a great deal as Admiral Mies testified in his comments that I posted above. Under Bill Clinton, the US destroyed two-thirds of its TOTAL nuclear weapons going from 30,000 to 11,000 warheads. Clinton also downsized the US nuclear arsenal from around 10,000 strategic nukes to 7200 stratnukes. It was a traitorous act for him to do so, however, not nearly as traitorous, dangerous, and perhaps even suicidal as the much more severe unilateral nuclear disarmament cuts Bush is now implementing. Bush has ordered that the US unilaterally disarm our strategic nuclear deterrent from 7200 stratnukes in 2001 to around 1700 by 2011. He has already disarmed us down to 6000 statnukes last year after less than a year in office, the same number that we believe the Russians have although we really have no idea what the true size of their arsenal is. The CIA has admitted that the Russian nuclear arsenal may be up to 4000 stratnukes higher than public estimates, but to publicly admit that might hurt arms control efforts with Russia. THIS MEANS THAT RUSSIA COULD HAVE AS MANY AS 10000 STRATNUKES TODAY! Bush has already begun dismantling our MX missiles--which serve as the very core of our ICBM force.

If Russia keeps the bulk of her strategic nuclear weapons as I believe she will, the US could be faced with a three to one Russian nuclear superiority over the US strategic nuclear arsenal a decade from now. RUSSIA ALREADY HAD FOUR TIMES AS MANY NUKES THAN THE US THANKS TO BILL CLINTON EVEN BEFORE THE BUSH 75% UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT CUTS OF OUR STRATEGIC DETERRENT BEGUN TO BE IMPLEMENTED LAST FALL! Anyway, you may not admit it, but it would be quite difficult (actually it would be impossible) to deter a Russian nuclear first strike if Russia had 5000 deployed strategic nukes and we had 1700 deployed strategic nukes, all but about 1000 (the SLBM warheads) of which would likely be dealerted per Bush's recommendation. THAT WOULD GIVE THE RUSSIANS A FIVE TO ONE 'READY TO FIRE' RATIO OF NUCLEAR QUANTITATIVE SUPERIORITY OVER THE US IN 2011. Our 700 or so dealerted weapons and our other nukes in storage would be absolutely useless to deter a pre-emptive nuclear attack against us. They might as well have been destroyed.

However, for nuclear blackmail purposes, the Russians have been pressing that the US destroy its retired warheads to make their nuclear superiority over the US and the change in the correlation of forces in favor of Russia permanent. If you actually think that 1700 strategic nukes can deter a Russian first-strike in 2011, then you are putting your head in the sand. And of course, I did not even include Russia's 8500 SA-10 ABMs, including 1750 neutron armed versions each theoretically capable of shooting down multiple warheads at a time (and probably the entire US strategic nuclear arsenal if fired simultaneously at Russia in 2011) in my calculations. The US in contrast has no ABMs at the present time thanks to US Presidents from Jimmy Carter to Bill Clinton. The bottom line is that if Bush's unilateral nuclear disarmament of 75% of our strategic nukes are fully implemented, the United States will soon be entering the most dangerous period of its 226 year existance. If Bush follows through on his radical pledge to denuke this country, he will be making the world safe for nuclear war at worst and Sino-Russian global hegemony at best.

[Cold Heat]

Get a grip!

[verity]

There will always be enough megatonnage to eradicate mankind! The real issue is the willingness to "pull the trigger."

[rightwing2]

I cannot for the life of me figure out how it is that -- with each completion of yet another communists objective -- folks keep chirping about how we won the Cold War simply because the Soviets' perestroika (re)formation appeared to be a collapse. They'll sing the praises of Sun Tzu as the day is long and fail to see the truth about Russia's "weaknesses" staring them in the face. Rumsfeld has finally chalked one up in my book.

Yes, it is very disheartening that even those who call themselves "conservatives" today have regressed to the policy positions of the radical anti-nuke disarmament crowd of only 15 years ago. Too many so-called "conservatives" even those who profess a dedication to a strong national defense are completely and willfully ignoring the true national security threats the US faces today. The threat is not from rogue states which have a few nukes at most, but from KGb-led Russia and Communist China. In their enthusiasm at our recent "victory" in the Cold War, they do not realize that with the ascension of KGB hardliner, Vladimir Putin to the Russian Presidency and the formal signature of a new Sino-Russian alliance against the United States, that a New Cold War has begun. Under President Putin, Russia is biding its time until the US disarms and transforms NATO from a military alliance into nothing more than a regional common house security arrangement including Russia and the still largely Communist-led states of Eastern Europe before it will resume a more overt hostility to the United States and its foreign policies abroad. Under President Putin and his KGB cronies, Russia is on the verge of achieving, without a single drop of Russian blood being shed, what the Soviets could only have achieved through a nuclear first strike--namely the unilateral nuclear disarmament of 75% of what remains of the US strategic nuclear deterrent.

[rightwing2]

Meanwhile the Minuteman III's which were supposed to be updated, were in fact seriously impaired as to both range and accuracy under the Clinton administration's loving care. So the facts are, what they are proposing to do is dismantle all the good stuff, and then leave us only with the crap to use your metaphor. Meanwhile the Russians get to keep their good stuff, super state-of-the art which are off-road mobile-in-fact, ABM-stealth evasive FOB/MARVs (and yes they can likely carry far more warheads than ever advertised or admitted to).

Interesting comment regarding the Clinton Administration's dumbdown of our Minuteman III ICBM fleet. I'm not sure I had heard of that. Would you please be so kind as to enlighten me?

[Willie Green]

Rumsfeld is positively the best person within Bush's administration.

I'm afraid I can't share your enthusiasm for Rumsfeld, although it is a matter of splitting hairs.

IMHO, Rumsfeld is a little too quick to adopt whatever expensive whiz-bang, high-tech, bells and whistles technology that military planners can envision. And he finances his dreams by eviscerating the tried and proven conventional capabilites that we already possess. Although I fully support military R&D and technological advancement, I don't believe that we need to pursue the pace of transition that Rumsfeld is taking. We are no longer in an arms race -- we are at the top of the heap and merely have to maintain our lead. No sense breaking into a sprint!

That said, I also see no reason to maintain an aging Cold War nuclear arsenal with multiple factors of overkill. I have no problems with reducing the vast quantities of antiquated design warheads in favor of a nuclear deterrence of more sophisticated design, but fewer numbers.

[rightwing2]

I don't pretend to know the details of the current active arsenal and what the exact plans are to modify it. Anything published is largely conjecture. I do know this, the cold war is...........over! China has taken Russias place as a strategic threat and the situational defense strategy has changed. The goal should be to eliminate all of the stuff, everywhere! But we obviously cannot do that unilaterally. If your expertise makes you correct in your assertions then perhaps you are in the wrong business. So far, everyone on this forum who have attacked the proposal are Bush bashers, libertarians ,conspiracy buffs and "no current freeper by that name" types. I have little regard for those opinions.

Thank you for being so forthright in expressing your lack of knowledge regarding the current and planned US nuclear arsenal--details which I have been working diligently to fill you in on, but which you have prematurely dismissed as out of hand as some kind of "Bush bashing." Look, my only agenda is supporting policies which are in the best interests of safeguarding the national security of this country. Unlike you, I maintain no loyalty to one man as you do with Bush particularly if he does something dangerous and stupid as here which might well result in the deaths of millions of Americans through nuclear means a decade or two from now.

Sure, I have opposed Bush's policies where they have been in egregious violateion of the US national security interest as here. I have also commended him on his good policies such as his announcement to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, which was probably the best thing he has done since becoming President! I have supported him against the Democraps whenever and whereever he has supported a more conservative course. I even protested for him and against Algore's attempt to steal the US Presidency in front of the Supreme Court building on the day before they issued their final decision in December 2000. Hardly the actions of a "Bush basher" I should think. Be sure and let me know if you disagree.

Unfortunately, you are falling into exactly the trap that so many who consider themselves pro-defense "conservatives" are falling into. You think that because the Cold War is "over", therefore it naturally follows that Russia is no longer a threat and its massive nuclear arsenal which is far and away the largest and most powerful in the world may be safely discounted, and that therefore there is no danger or harm in the US destroying its nuclear arsenal since China is the only "threat" country and China only has 24 ICBMs and 12 SLBMs according to the CIA's latest estimates. The CIA and I would beg to differ from your dangerously idealistic and naive outlook. The Russians have never kept a single one of the arms control treaties they have ever signed as a study commissioned by President Bush Sr. showed in 1992 and subsequent studies have confirmed. They are not going to keep this "START III" Treaty arrangement either because it is not in their interests to do so. It is only in their interests to verify that the US is disarming itself of everything it says it would while Russia keeps much of the nuclear threat forces that it promised it would discard. Radically altering the current nuclear balance in favor of the Sino-Russian alliance is the surest, quickest path to Russia and Communist China replacing the US as the global hegemon. Don't think they won't take advantage of US nuclear weakness in the future because they will.

[ex-snook]

Thanks for the ping. To simplify things.

LOOK-LOOK-LOOK Bush wants to be reelected.
SEE-SEE-SEE - Bush wants to please everyone even the anti-nukers.

As long as Bush smiles while being barebacked by McCain and Daschle in domestic policy and barebacked by Sharon, Kristol and and a lineup of neo-cons in foreign policy, his approval rating will not falter.

If Bush feels like standing up instead of bending over, he may decide to fight off the gang-bangers. That would be good for Americanism and conservatism but bad for re-election. Ball is in his court.

[Paul Ross]

I voted for GWB, and spent thousands getting him elected. Did you? Whether I had done so or not does not make my informed opinion any the less...merely because said opinion controverts a plainly delusionary and simplistic world-view about the the fluid world situation, and the capability of the Russian Strategic Forces. If that makes me a Bush-Basher, so be it. I am sure Karl Rove and you see eye to eye on everything.

[Paul Ross]

Overkill factors, eh? Multiple no less. There is no overkill if, say, hypothetically, a Sino-Russo First Strike annhilates our entire retaliatory capability.

Top of the heap, eh? Do you have any idea of the capabilities of the Russian's Topol-M? Ever hear of its secret "plasma stealth cloak"? Straight out of Star Trek if true. The ONLY thing you said which was true is that our deterrent is aging. Interestingly enough, our nuclear-device design is more susceptible to aging than the Russians. We use yield-enahncing techniques which require repeated refurbishings at 10 year or so intervals. The russians long-ago opted for a more stable warhead that has a much longer shelf-life. Rumsfeld is not so much whiz-bang, bells and whistles, as just desperate to restore capabilities that were eviscerated by Clinton...and GWB refuses to give him the money to do so. So he is hoping against hope that some technology improvements may bridge the gap. But don't think he is really optimistic about it. I really feel for him. What a hell GWB/Rove has made. And all so unnecessarily.

[Paul Ross]

Big time bump. Ditto to every thing you said.

[Willie Green]

say, hypothetically, a Sino-Russo First Strike annhilates our entire retaliatory capability.

IMHO, there is a greater probability that Janet Reno will make the cover of the SI swimsuit edition...

...in which case, I'd prefer being vaporized in a nuclear attack anyway.

[Paul Ross]

Sigh, there won't even be a popgun to retaliate against the Russian first strike which the GWB-UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT is making all but inevitable. The Russians ABM then mops up everything else. I.e., the Russians would survive. We wouldn't. Do you really think that the UNANIMOUS opposition of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to GWB's insane plan is just pure venality and short-sightedness? Ronald Reagan would not have thought so. In fact, if Ronald Reagan were with us today, I have no doubt he would be speaking up and, if forced to, would break his 11th Commandment of 'Speak no ill of a fellow republican.' GWB/Rove would leave him no choice.

[Paul Ross]

So we are to rely on YOUR humble opinion and NOT that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the DIA, the CIA, and the continuing expressions of hatred for the USA by Russian Strategic Rocket force commanders???

As for Reno, I think it more likely she will be in the Playboy centerfold than that a fluid world situation would not see the Russians exercise a clear nuclear blackmail threat after GWB does his irreversible deed against us and our national security.

[Cold Heat]

The CIA and I would beg to differ from your dangerously idealistic and naive outlook. The Russians have never kept a single one of the arms control treaties they have ever signed

Neither have we!

Here is where we differ. It is in the perception.

I view what is left of the USSR as a struggling state with no further desires for world domination.(at this time).

I see the rogue states and China as the entities who have a axe to grind with the U.S. Our military strength far out weighs them.(at this time)

The Russians need us far more than we need them in the long run. Parody with the remaining nuclear powers is believed by many to be the next step in total nuclear disarmament. The rogue states will still be a problem and they have to be dealt with first. Missle defense is a step in that direction. In ten years, China will have come alot further toward democracy. The Taiwan issue will still be a problem however.

No nation has ever used the bomb except us. That fact alone causes ulcers in the stomachs of the Chinese. We have them by the nuts and they don't like it. This is why I feel we are making the reduction case to Russia. We are trying to give them some reason to believe that we will not re-arm Japan.

This is what I see and how I see it. 1700 nukes should be enough. No body is likely to make a first strike except a rogue nut case.

Something else to consider, I think the Clinton admin gave the w-88 to China intentionally. Just like we gave it to Israel and other Nato allies. This game of RISK is way over my pay grade as I have admitted but I spent enough time duckin and coverin in the 50s and 60s to the point where I have become desensitized and flip about the whole situation. Many people of my generation would push the damn button just to get it over with! That fact in and of it's self scares the hell out of me!

Don't ever call me naive!

[Willie Green]

So we are to rely on YOUR humble opinion and NOT that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the DIA, the CIA, and the continuing expressions of hatred for the USA by Russian Strategic Rocket force commanders???

Since the United States is not governed by a military junta, YES!

[Cold Heat]

I voted for GWB, and spent thousands getting him elected. Did you?

I sent what I could afford. Even charged it!

No, I do not see eye to eye with Rove. But, he does perform the function of taking heat off the president.

If the best you can do is accuse me of supporting my president during a time of war, then I will accept that criticism with bells on!

[Askel5]

I trust God will forgive me my being utterly fascinated by the "former" Soviets in particular and particularly enjoying the irony of their pronouncements, headlines and editorials in the NYT, Financial Times and Pravda's penchant for speaking bald faced truths from time to time.

It's an embarrassment to be castigated ever for bashing what amounts to the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man sporting a ten-gallon and wearing a big Chicom Yellow smiley face as he does the commies' dirty work with his Clean Hands and -- all the while -- transforms his own turf into a police-state of birth-controlled long pigs willing to trade freedom for security, the wisdom of suffering for a pain-free haze that's occasionally punctuated with the sheer ecstasy of Sexual Liberation as the Supremes hand them abortion, pornography and cyber child-sex on a silver platter and Bob Dole slips 'em a treat from his and Liddy's pharma friends to keep them erect.

[Askel5]

Even charged it!

Oooh ... extra points for incurring debt in the process.

Our Public Servants at the Fed thank you.