Russian Cheating

The Obama administration now says that Russian cheating on a new strategic arms agreement does not matter. America would still have plenty of nuclear weapons, and the Russians would never launch an attack. Let the Russians cheat if they like. There is nothing to gain by cheating. What will the Russians do with such an advantage? Will they attack? The administration says this will never happen because nuclear war is unwinnable. Nobody would wage such a war. If the American side is able to fire back at the Russians with a dozen missiles, the world will end, Columbus will fall off. There won't be a future for anyone. So let the Russians cheat.

This, of course, is the logic of people who do not understand nuclear weapons -- which can be used to neutralize an opponent's weapons. And once you have eliminated all the nuclear weapons of your opponent, you can force him to surrender. For how could a country without nuclear weapons resist a country that has nuclear weapons? This is fairly close, indeed, to the way in which World War II ended, with one side possessing nuclear weapons and the other side forced into capitulation.

Despite the environmental side effects, nuclear weapons cannot destroy all life on earth. Nuclear weapons have already been used and the world did not come to an end. Hundreds of nuclear weapons have been detonated around the world in tests. There is no end of the world, and Columbus has not fallen off. Studies on the effects of radiation have shown, again and again, that thousands of bombs might be detonated without killing everyone. Furthermore, the governments of Russia and China would not be building nuclear bombs today if these bombs signified the destruction of all life on earth. No country has, as its goal, the elimination of the human race. Their goal appears, rather, to be the elimination of a certain portion of humanity.

But the Obama administration wants a treaty with Russia, and the administration doesn't care if the Russians intend to break this treaty as soon as the ink has dried on it. Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., wanted to know why the president wants to negotiate a treaty if Russian cheating doesn't matter. The answer is simple. A treaty provides cover for the administration. President Obama wants to eliminate as many U.S. weapons as he can. But unilateral disarmament is politically controversial, so he must have a treaty with Russia before he can proceed. With a treaty in hand, he can talk about a world free from the threat of nuclear war. Everyone would then applaud, because everyone would feel relieved.

President Obama is very clear about this. The United States does not seek nuclear superiority over Russia. What we want is approximate parity. If the Russians nuke us, we will retaliate. It doesn't matter how many nukes hit us, or how many of ours hit them. One nuclear weapon will ruin your whole day. This is the thinking of the Obama administration. In strategic terms, this thinking is flat wrong and it is dangerous.

Reducing the number of nuclear weapons is destabilizing. For it is possible to launch a first strike which may destroy most -- if not all -- of an opponent's weapons before they can be fired. You may think that such a strike is impossible. But you would be mistaken. The radars and satellites used to detect a nuclear attack can be blinded or temporarily knocked out (by terrorist attacks, by sabotage, or by directed energy weapons). If you cannot see an attack coming, then your nuclear forces may be destroyed within 30 minutes, and your country would then be defenseless. Your enemy would then be in control of the entire earth. For the weapons possessed by Russia, and the nuclear defenses possessed by Russia, would make her invulnerable to the small nuclear powers -- who could not do much damage. And who, indeed, would choose extermination on the chance of doing partial damage to Russia?

The United States Senate will be asked to approve the president's treaty with Russia. Part of the debate hinges on Russian compliance. Will the Russians cheat? The administration doesn't want a discussion on this subject, because if anyone begins to investigate Russian compliance he will find that the Russians have cheated on nearly all the treaties they've signed. Once this becomes an issue, the treaty cannot be passed at all, and the administration's plans for disarmament will be shattered. So it is necessary, in fact, for the administration to say what is being said; namely, that Russian cheating doesn't matter. But then, we return to Senator McCain's question: If Russian cheating doesn't matter, then why negotiate a treaty? Why not begin a program of unilateral disarmament? That is, after all, what the administration wants. Only, the administration is afraid to say this openly. It sounds weak to say such a thing. It sounds stupid. So, in place of one stupidity, another is advanced; that is, Russian cheating doesn't matter.

The administration says that a smaller U.S. deterrent is sufficient to deter the Russians under any and every circumstance. America will always have submarines, hidden in the oceans, to fire back with. America will always have bombers at the ready, or ICBMs. But here is the truth. One missile, with one bomb, could disable the firing capability of all U.S. ballistic missile submarines by targeting the communications infrastructure that supplies those submarines with their launch codes. One missile, with one bomb, could destroy America's strategic bombers while they are loading up with bombs. Several dozen bombs could destroy our ICBM forces in their silos. This is because the U.S. strategic posture is vulnerable to a first strike. Add to this, America's vulnerability to massive terrorist assault (because the country's borders have not be properly secured). It is also possible for sabotage teams to cripple the country's early warning systems.
We should not be surprised to find out that all of these points are integral to Russia's war plan against America. But the Obama administration sees no danger, takes no precautions, and places the entire nation's survival at risk. For what reason? Supposedly it is done to achieve world peace. But I ask the mature reader, the wise reader, if world peace is possible? Look at history. When has world peace been possible? It is no more possible than the elimination of all disease, all poverty, all distress, or all stupidity. We live in a world in which disease, poverty, distress, stupidity and war are always with us. As long as we are human, as long as we live under human government, there will be war. And the only respite we have from war is found in readiness for war. If peace can be preserved, then strength is the preservative.

A Third World War has been prevented only on account of nuclear deterrence. Weaken the power of that deterrence, and you bring war closer. Therefore, if you want nuclear war the administration's policy warrants your support. If you seek to avoid such a war, then you must build more nuclear weapons and deploy them so that a first strike cannot succeed. Arms control agreements cannot save you precisely because the Russians will violate them.

About the Author

jrnyquist [at] aol [dot] com ()