The third part of the equation is to reaffirm the problems of non-state actors with nukes, including low-yield radioactive weapons colloquially referred to as “Suitcase bombs.” Those are the real and imminent threat due to the nexus of illegal arms trafficking, narcotics and jihadis. The idea behind the speech is to show understanding of the need to underscore the moral disutility of nuclear weapons in order to get assistance from Western criminals and profiteers to prevent the transfer of fissile material to Islamic extremists or their patrons.

The problems with this policy (outside of the right wing backlash within the US) are at least threefold: 1) if everyone eliminated nuclear weapons from their arsenals that would leave the US as the unparalleled conventional power, thus there would be no deterrent to its assaults. No adversary with nukes will accept this; 2) Nukes are effective deterrents. One nuke in Iran’s hands will make the US or anyone else think twice before it mounts an assault for whatever reason (North Korea does not matter because it simply does not have anything other than South Koreans would want and even the SK’s do not want it THAT much). No matter where the Iranians may wish to target their nukes (Jerusalem, Riyhad, Ankara, Dubai or Kabul which is what they could realistically reach) and no matter the fact that they will be potentially obliterated in response, Iran having a demostrable nuke capability alters the strategic equation for all concerned. No wonder the Israelis are considering a pre-emptive strike, for which the Saudis and all other Sunni governments would be (secretly) grateful ; 3) because of the above, lesser nuclear powers or aspiring nuclear powers have no incentive to follow suit beyond supporting the reinvigoration of the NPT and quashing of non-state actor nuclear ambitions.

One final point. Any reductions offered in the US-Russia bilateral negotiations are easy concessions to the realities of the present era. Both countries understand that there is no such thing as MAD anymore given present weapons system accuracies (measured in meters after long ICBMS flights), so focusing on counter-value targets like cities is irrational given the counter-force capabilities such as hardened silos, bunkered storage or C3I left intact (both US and Russian nuclear strategy doctrines of the last twenty years speak to the utility of a “flexible response” nuclear war-fighting capability from the tactical to the theater and eventually strategic level). This gives priority to so-called tactical nukes designed for theater conflicts against adversaries devoid of a strategic response in kind, and makes reducing strategic nuclear weapons (especially land-based warheads) much more palatable given their diminished utility. War-planners in all of the nuclear states may wish to keep some strategic response in reserve, but the issue of nuclear weapons usage is now a tactical one–think Tora Bora and the utility of bunker busting tactical nukes as well as nuclear ASW mines in choke points, to mention just two possible (and practicable) options.

I tried to summarise this on Jim Mora’s panel session yesterday (April 7), but am not sure that my points got through. I shall write more about this in Scoop or kiwipolitico later. My reason for saying all of this is that am troubled by the lack of understanding of modern nuclear strategy in NZ, as well as its ideological polarisation.

Apologies for the long post.

The USA may be on its own as a superpower but given enough neglect of its armaments who knows if other countries may play along with America while secretly rearming themselves?

I wonder whether Obama will be remembered as another FDR or as the American Neville Chamberlain?

By the same token, I can allege that Obama is making a deal with the Vesuvian Marsh People to intevene if and when the Islamo-Fascists threaten us.

RENAULT: Marshes? What marshes? We are on a mountain.
RICK: I was… misinformed.

I wouldn’t try making sense of my comments. This will just hurt your head. For the record though, I think the USA has done some good things (beat fascism in WWII, drove back Serbian nationalism in the Balkans) and some crap things (Vietnam, collusion in Indonesia’s actions in East Timor). You see, I don’t just have a black/white view of the world. Sorry if you find this hard to understand. Nuance does require effort.

My original point was that your claims about super-secret US defence initiatives and Obama’s attitude to them are inherently unprovable, and so of little value. By the same token, I can allege that Obama is making a deal with the Vesuvian Marsh People to intevene if and when the Islamo-Fascists threaten us. Now -disprove it.

On the other hand, anyone after some laughs (mainly of disbelieving shock) at the expense of PB’s super secret US initiatives to save the world might care to view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Stare_At_Goats (soon to be a movie!)

I would rather find out about such military advantages by hearing one day that the US military just stopped Armageddon from happening, much to the dismay of the people who thought they were starting it; rather than hearing about them from a peacenik President who announces that he is giving them away.

As for AG’s comment above, the only way I can make any sense of it is that he presumes that NZ and the world would be better off without the USA’s protection of civilisation; better off under a series of Communist power blocs, Fascist dictators, and stone age Theocracies. You just can’t have a sensible debate with anyone that thinks that way.

Also the policy may lead to significant reductions in current stocks. By saying let us get rid of them all, he may get China and Russia to agree to reduction of greater than 50%.

China is increasing its nuclear stockpile and no amount of empty rhetoric from Obama is going to change that military reality. That’s what you get when you scrap SALT II and built your own anti-ballistic missile system for multiple site usage.

Now clearly several developments during the last presidency make it politic to restate this committment and I agree it is probably a good thing, but it is just a reiteration of the status quo, certainly of the status quo ante 2000.

The actual soundbite was

“The United States has been enriched by Muslim-Americans,” he said. “Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country.

“I know,” he said, “because I am one of them.”

However Al Jazeera reported it the way you described and who the hell knows how it came out in the Turkish and arabic translations.

Or more correctly B Hussein Messiah Obama’s TelePrompter declared he is a Muslim, either way I am sure that is going to go down like a ton of bricks in the USA.

Coutries, leaders, argueing symantics……

Roughly along the lines of … each B-2 Spirit costs near as US$1 billion in lifetime costs, but the US Army can’t afford to armour up all its HUMVEEs. Likewise there’s a push back against developing any more manned aircraft post the F-35, and instead focussing on UAVs.

So Obama isn’t necessarily looking to cut back on “capability spend”, as much as reprioritise it towards stuff that will actually be used. There’s no need to be 2 generations ahead of the rest of the world in fighter aircraft, when you can be 1 generation ahead and have all the Army travelling around in new mine/IED-resistant vehicles.

This change in thinking actually started under Bush, when Gates replaced Rumsfeld. Obama re-appointed Gates as SecDef, presumably endorsing this same change in thinking.

“Commenters above are right, Obama intends to take the axe to all US military spending, including secret programs.
I am sure that the US has some significant military advantages that most of us know nothing about. But I have shuddered to think what the fate of that military advantage could be when someone like Obama becomes President.”

Let me get this straight. Obama is to be damned for allegedly cutting spending to things that may or may not exist, giving the US some unspecified advantages over enemies that may or may not exist or come into being. I assume the point of this is that if and when something bad happens to the USA, it was Obama’s fault because he stopped the secret programme that would have stopped it (whatever it is)? This is brilliant. You guys sure lay your groundwork far in advance!

I agree with DPF it will be a major worry when disaffected little terrorist f*ckers start to have nuclear weapons within their grasp. I don’t see how reducing the stockpiles of the major powers will help this. But the USA doesn’t need to be able to obliterate the surface of the earth 5 times over. Once or twice should be enough!

Nukes can be planted in cities without the aid of a missile, of course.

Sleep well, everybody.

It is this kind of military advantage that I fear for.

The loss of US military secrets in the Bill Clinton years was frightening. It is about to happen again, only a lot worse.

I am sure that the US has some significant military advantages that most of us know nothing about. But I have shuddered to think what the fate of that military advantage could be when someone like Obama becomes President.

Regular Kiwibloggers will know what I have been saying all along about Obama. At best, he is the black FDR. At worst, he could be the black American Vidkun Quisling. I pray it ain’t so.

“You are more trusting than me…..”

Dead right, Nigel.

Who honestly believes that every government in the world with nukes could be trusted to not stash a few away in view of the day when all the other nations have done the honourable/stupid thing and disarmed?

Can’t you just hear Ahmadinejad on TV?

Hahahahaha (evil laughter) ……….fools……… Israel is no longer………and there is nothing anyone can do about it…….nothing!!!!!……. Hahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa…………

Why doesn’t he just go on about world peace as an “aspirational goal” by 2012 or something equally unrealistic?

Less nukes would be good (unless the aliens/zombies come!) but back here on planet Earth reality still applies. I would prefer a CinC who spoke of realities not pipe dreams.

And Bevan:

# Bevan (1418) Vote: Add rating 3 Subtract rating 0 Says:
April 7th, 2009 at 11:59 am

“Nah, nukes are fine in the hands of countries too afraid to use them for fear of being obliterated in the reply, frankly I think it was the threat of MAD which refrained the world from starting another global war since the end of WW2.

Its only when they get in the hands of countries not afraid of wiped out in the reply that worries me.”

The point, Bevan, is not so much countries not afraid of being wiped out, as the helpless citizens of countries with totalitarian nutters as leaders, who have no say in the matter.

And Lawrence Hakawai:

“…..The former Administration’s policy of Regime Change remains a powerful disincentive to leave yourself open to attack….”

Actually, given that most of the regimes that need changing do not in any way truly represent their enslaved peoples, regime change is really the only valid solution.