The draft's expansion of the definition of "extreme circumstances" is very worrying. It seems to make the decision to fire nuclear arms a broad judgment call that only the President would be in a position to make. So far, those under the President have been able to disagree with and thwart an order to fire such arms. But under this draft, if the President arrives at work one day peeved because, say, he shot a triple bogey on one of his golf courses, he could order the firing of nuclear arms, and thereby lead to world annihilation, and there would appear to be little anyone serving under him could do about it. If that were to happen, well, goodbye everyone.
ANOTHER unsound idea, given to an unstable President. Isn't the source of malware difficult to identify with certainty ? What if we nuke China and later determine the source was N Korea? And, didnt Bush and the other war criminals destroy most of Iraq's infrastructure in the opening of an unjust and illegal war?
1
The promulgation of this nuclear strategy is more diagnostic then the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. The issuance of this draft and the terrifying possibility of it's adoption is prima facie evidence that a change in leadership is an urgent necessity.
Swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. Not smart.
1
The one and only sane "nuclear strategy" is to abolish all nuclear weapons, even unilaterally. Only a psychopathic, homicidal idiot would even contemplate using any weapon of mass destruction. Insanity thy name is Trump (and almost every D&R member of Congress, which funds our arsenal of WMDs.
1
Just when you thought it could not get any crazier ...
1
Insane. Just insane. What a legacy we are leaving our children, a world in which nuclear-armed countries (and, yes, the other nuclear-capables will have to adopt the same insane policies) claim the right to unleash global destruction for just about any reason.
1
Has the world gone completely nuts?!?! How about creating off-line and even analogue backups for critical systems, rather than threatening a nuclear holocaust?
2
So, know the Republican response to someone, probably unknown attacking the internet is to nuke someone, anyone? Even a third grader would see that this is really, really, really, stupid. Nuclear winter is not a sane reaction to a cyber attack.
1
I guess now that our president was declared mentally competent, he can take a minute off watching cable tv and/or golfing to approve this. I feel safe.
S-I-C-K period. Exasperating, this current crop of thugs and their lackies--here, there and everywhere.
Wait. Have we just admitted that we are incapable of competing with other nations in the cyber-warfare arena? That we might retaliate with nuclear weapons when the culprit might be—as our president suggested—some 400lb hacker dressed in pajamas?
2
Old saying: 'When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.'
4
Dr. Strangelove is looking more prophetic every day.
4
Why not? Cyber can be a WMD as well.
What's the nuclear half-life of an algorithm, professor? How many creatures will die of coding sickness?
2
"Why not?"
Ponder the question for more than 5 milliseconds.
1
This is a great idea! It's just like in the summer of 1914, when Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany backed Austria-Hungary to the fullest, making sure Russia knew that if it attacked, it would face the full might of the Germany army. With Russia thus deterred by the German leader's tough talk, the maintenance of peace was guaranteed. Now that was leadership!
Oh wait.
5
"A newly drafted United States nuclear strategy that has been sent to President Trump for approval would permit the use of nuclear weapons to respond to a wide range of devastating but non-nuclear attacks on American infrastructure, including what current and former government officials described as the most crippling kind of cyber attacks."
So, the Pentagon, to which Trump has given a lot of blanket authority has decided to "suggest" re-writing the nuclear use policy and sent it to Mr. Blowhard for his rubber stamp? Okay.
I don't normally fancy myself a conspiracy theorist but It was less than believable Hawaii had a 38 minute "mistake", informing the islands that their inhabitants were going to be blown up- followed by a "false" warning in Japan, a country that issues apology cards if a train is late-
Now... put those two false alarms into the context of this quote from the article: "It said that could include “attacks on the U.S., allied, or partner civilian population or infrastructure, and attacks on U.S. or allied nuclear forces, their command and control, or warning and attack assessment capabilities.”
"or warning and attack assessment capabilities."
Have our defense/alert systems already been compromised? Are we, the American people, being kept in the dark by a Pentagon that wishes to escalate to a nuclear strike?
All the while a Cheeto owned by our adversary is in command of the same. Maybe these attacks are just "tests" by our Joint Cyber Task Force w/ RU.
2
So we are back to the "Launch On Warning" scenario. Crews at remote weapon launching systems would have orders to send their deadly packages to destroy predetermined targets as soon as communications with Washington D.C. were severed.
1
Nothing justifies an attack by a nuclear weapon.
5
Deaths from a crippled infrastructure are on an entirely different scale from those caused by a nuclear attack. This is the very definition of disproportionate retaliation outlawed by international law.
To be so cheap as to not make the changes necessary to protect our infrastructure-- changes which have been urged on us by experts for many years-- and instead resort to threats (and presumably, if it comes down to it, acts) of mass murder via hydrogen bomb is disgustingly immoral. But tax cuts for the rich are valued above the prudent and sane protection of our country.
America is quickly becoming not just an international pariah, but a dangerous international psychopath. What a disgusting place this will be if trump isn't run out of town, tarred and feathered, before his first term is up. If he somehow dodges this bullet, our republic is gone.
(See Freedom House's recently released report, "Democracy In Crisis; Freedom In the World, 2018" to put this in wider context. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FH_FITW_Report_2018_Final_S...
2
What's next? Really bad insults? Lunacy reigns.
How crazy can we become? A hacking by someone or entity and we nuc them? The Russians hacked our elections are we going to nuc them? Why not figure out better internet security?
3
Is this government - and I use the term loosely - completely nuts?
1
"Pentagon Suggests Countering Devastating Cyberattacks With Nuclear Arms"
I thought this was some headline from the Onion. What's really scary is it's not !
2
The likeliest scenario for Armageddon. See "Zero Days."
1
A nuclear response to a CYBER ATTACK? How insane are these people! Do they not understand nuclear weapons?
2
As we lose our soul of freedom and respect for other people's our own soft power dwindles. Immigrants and bright young foreign students avoid our poisonous atmosphere. The merchants of death who presently control our government become much more militant and repulsive.
This is only a small part of the destruction of our country that the Republicans and their bullying have accomplished. Secretary Nielsen looked like a Nuremburg accused as Corey Booker rightfully skewered her morals as well as those of her boss.
1
I have emailed The Whitehouse several times to tell them how utterly, spittingly disgusted I am by Trump and all of them. Strangely, it doesn't seem to have worked yet because here they are, threatening all life on Earth on a random weekday.
What could possibly go wrong with Trump having access to the nuclear codes when a country (or an entire continent) he deems substandard commits some heinous act, like sending some of its citizens to the U.S. to study or to work? The horror show that is Trump gets worse by the nanosecond. It's like having Rod Serling permanently living in your bedroom closet!
Oh, well — goodbye, everyone! It was fun while it lasted! If there's an afterlife, let's all meet up for brunch real soon!
1
Trump's biggly, beautiful, high, very high - with thorns and stuff - southern wall may not save us after all. Perhaps that money will be best spent modernizing and securing our nation's network communications. Problem is, what Trump's base doesn't see, doesn't exist (fake news).
Was the Stuxnet computer virus that we and Israel used to infect and cause the self-destruction of Iran’s uranium enrichment centrifuges a sufficient provocation to justify their using nuclear weapons (of course they had none)?
Think about it. This is simply a rationalization for a very powerful nation to use its very powerful weapons on others who might attack using their asymmetric but potentially still powerful weapons. It does nothing except to codify the principle that animated the mutual deterrence during the Cold War - if you attack us, we will destroy you. It’s probably a natural enough thing for Donald Trump, who loves to say and to have said about him that he hits back ten times as hard. It does, however, bring into question the difficult matter of attribution and immediacy. For example, we decided after quite a while that North Korea had been responsible for the attack on the computer network at Sony Pictures, but are we sure enough of that to justify nuking them? And to do so weeks later? If they believe that, then I guess they would be deterred from making a more serious cyber attack. But with or without this new formula, I imagine they already know that. And I also imagine a more equal nuclear adversary like Russia or China already knows that it is their nuclear weapons that will determine our response to a cyber attack, not a policy pronouncement.
1
Is this preparing us for the possibility of Trump using a nuclear attack? Why don't I feel good about this?
1
It's preparing us Times readers for more bogus claims about cyber attacks.
How does one measure victory in a nuclear war?
3
Using nuclear weapons to deal with a hacking attempt is akin to using a shotgun to kill mosquitos.
1
Could we maybe have the State Department actually staff up to historical levels? War is only the answer when diplomacy fails. Can we at least give diplomacy a try?
1
We were able to survive the Cold War based on the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction, that both sides would annihilate the earth and no one would win.
Now our President will decide if we can have a limited nuclear exchange, the key word here is exchange of nuclear weapons. The likely atomic exchange will destroy our planet, all because someone thought we could win a limited nuclear war.
1
This article is extremely misleading. The headline boldly states that the Pentagon is suggesting that cyber attacks be countered with nuclear retaliation. but buried in the article is this line in reference to the types of attacks that would trigger a nuclear response: "The draft does not explicitly say that a crippling cyberattack against the United States would be among the extreme circumstances." Reading the headline, I was thinking that the new proposed policy is that a cyber attack will result in nuclear retaliation. That is not the case.
2
Manipulating us to use nukes first might be precisely what an adversary wants.
America needs a DARPA for strategic thinking to complement the one already in existence, which essentially is only devoted to more efficiently effecting decisions made by the traditional, widely scattered loci of strategic thinking currently in place.
Nowhere in the article is there any indication that the Nuclear Posture Review considers ways to minimize American targets for others to attack, to make our infrastructure less vulnerable to cyberattacks through disconnection, rather than by playing a never-ending cat-and-mouse game with adversaries trying to hack into our electric grid and other networks. It would be much cheaper and less deadly to make an attack on us less productive and, thus, less desirable for an adversary. Unfortunately, without currently non-existent good leadership placing appropriate restraints on the process, our consumer-addicted society which is busily hooking up its homes, cars, finances, and everything else to the internet, is simply putting a huge bullseye on our nation.
As well, there is no substantial indication that any consideration is being given to the fact that nuclear weapons would be largely useless in asymmetric warfare, the kind we are likeliest to face, even if "sponsored" by a state power. Nor will the threat of nukes deter those willing to give up their lives. Yes, to the contrary manipulating us to use nukes first might be precisely what someone wants.
2
The Pentagon has drafted a new policy on the use and development nuclear weapons, including development of smaller nuclear warheads for use in limited situations. lt will soon land on the desk of our VSG In Chief, who has spoken many times of his fascination with the size and potential use of our nuclear arsenal.
This is not some international tit for tat, or escalating theats. This is not playing with plastic soldiers out in the backyard. This is real life. These smaller warheads are approximately the size of the atomic bombs dropped by the USA on Japan. I strongly recommend that our VSG In Chief read John Hersey's 'Hiroshima' for some education on the use and aftermath of 'smaller' bombs.
Oh wait a minute...he doesn't read.
Sounds like that Russian torpedo is some kind of "Doomsday Machine." When is Vlad going to announce it, perhaps at the next Party Congress with Premier Kissov? Unfortunately, we don't have President Muffley these days, instead went off the nuclear rails by putting President Turgidson and his big button into office.
1
Well that's a very proportional response. Will we have to run for cover while the promise of a brave new world unfurls beneath the clear blue skies? [PinkFloyd - The Wall]
4
It's always interesting that anti-military activists are so opposed to small scale, tactical nuclear weapons. They always assert that any use of nuclear weapons will inevitably and immediately escalate to armageddon and nuclear annihilation of all life on Earth. I believe their real fear is that there are many scenarios where tactical nuclear weapons might be used without escalation to full-scale nuclear war. Suppose, for example, that Pakistan and India go to war again, and one of them pops off a small nuke. How likely is it that the USA, Russia, China, England, France, North Korea and Israel will see that as a reason to fire off their nuclear arsenal at each other? Suppose that one of the major powers makes a decision that they can attack forces of another major power in an isolated sector of the world, betting that the other side won't use a nuke. If the other side pops off a tactical nuke in response, still in the isolated sector of the world, will the other side escalate, or decide they bet wrong and back off? Suppose N. Korea, in a fit of lunacy, fires a nuke at Guam, and the USA retaliates with one tactical nuke on Un's nuclear facilities...will China start a full blown nuclear war against the USA? The real risk seen by the anti-nuclear activists is that a small-scale nuclear war will start, one side will win (instead of "there are no winners in nuclear war"), and we won't have armageddon after all.
There are NO scenarios where ANYONE wins a nuclear exchange. And as soon as one side starts using them, there WILL be an exchange. What terrifies most normal people is people like you pretending that nuclear war is winnable.
1
If our power grid is vulnerable to a cyberattack (which it is), why don't we invest the money we spend on nuclear weapons on the power infrastructure?
9
There must be more money to be made in nuclear weaponry than infrastructure repair.
1
This is a huge concern of mine. I know that there are power companies in the US which are now staffed by foreign workers using H1b visas. This is not good - we should have loyal Americans in charge of our power grid. Not to mention ports and transportation hubs...
2
Not only are we seeing diplomacy taking a back seat, we are not giving diplomacy its due place in our approach to handling foreign affairs. There is increased focus on military to seek solutions. Is this the best approach?
To start off, we will do well to bring all parties together, to address the concerns on cyberattacks.
While it is important for us to have a nuclear strategy in place, any action to be initiated should only be as a last resort, when diplomacy fails.
4
Trump must leave office ASAP, for the world to survive. He should be impeached of course, but in today's political climate this does not seem a realistic hope. How about negotiating with him on his own terms to get him to leave office. He is an expert on "the art of the deal". What would it take to negotiate a deal, where he leaves office at his own volition in return for an amount of dollars large enough for him to close the deal? Whatever the price, the over-arching need for survival of our civilization, now in balance because of Trump, would make it possible to raise the funds.
2
I doubt that any nation attacked by the USA with a "small" nuclear weapon will view it as such. Would we, as individuals, react any differently if we were shot by a small bullet or a large? No. Why do we assume a nation would react any differently if attacked by a nuclear bomb? A nuke is a nuke and, after being attacked, any nation would strike back before any meaningful damage assessment was completed.
I can't speak for anyone else but I would prefer to live without electricity than not live.
4
This leads us down a dangerous path. If we do change the policy, we will go down a slippery slope of finding more and more excuses to justify using nuclear weapons. Other countries will respond in kind and countries without nuclear capabilities will accelerate their nuclear programs.
4
I hope there will be no mistake on the source of such a cyber attack....because it will be too late for an apology, isn't?
IMHO this is completely insane as a strategic thinker.Cyberwar should be handled by a civil authority, no need to have the military involved in this, not at all!
5
Continuation of this historically insane defense strategy of more and bigger bombs by all political leaders is such a terrible path to nowhere. The larger question is what can we do with the money that the government plans to waste on futility? A country that offers its citizens peace, prosperity and hope are the most significant weapons against tyranny. Give up the bomb protocol and invest in healthcare, infrastructure, job training, education....
3
Just for my understanding, Mr. Mattis is one of the "adults in the room", who is looked at as a moderating influence on the irascible and volatile President, right? Hmmm, odd.
Besides, as we have found out repeatedly, one of the problems of cyberwarfare is identifying the actual source of an attack. So, and I'm going out on a limb here, imagining that one would need actual PROOF of GOVERNMENTAL Chinese or Indian or Canadian or ... DIRECTION behind an attack, prior to deciding to drop a nuke or seven, not just a nagging suspicion that behind the hacker collective there might very well be an SVR agent or so, this is escalation for escalation's sake. It's a sop to the military-industrial complex. It's a way to hide a weak hand. It's an admission that in an assymetric war environment, with all its non-state actors, the US is at a loss.
Which doesn't mean that this is a very worrisome development, of course.
2
Just as the hawks in the Kennedy administration were insisting on a nuclear first strike during the Cuban Missile Crisis, so do the hawks in our military are itching to pull the trigger. Fortunately, Kennedy was president at the time, and this was during a real threat of nuclear missiles in Cuba that could strike multiple U.S. targets... not over a cyber attack! Today, with so many nukes, what's to stop any nuclear armed country in the world from retaliating? Trump is pouring fuel on this fire daily, talking about nukes like its some ultimate deal making advantage with no consequences, getting the military stoked, who are in turn telling Trump just what he wants to hear. One nuke goes off in the world, it's over.
never the most useful of Commenters here, we imagine today that:
1) the nuclear-arms industry must do some promo like this to keep itself relevant and fully funded,
2) some hacker is right now figuring how to channel a cyber-attack traceable only to West Palm Beach.
The first thing our government should do to show dangerous adversaries that we mean business is to deal with the attack on our 2016 elections. What's being done about that?
Why would they take us seriously if they can get away with hacking our presidential election?
3
The ultimate defense against a cyber attack is the so-called 'E-Bomb'. It's a standard nuclear weapon that is detonated at the height of several miles above an adversary's city. There is little blast damage, but the resulting electromagnetic pulse will burn out most electronic devices and systems. If it is known where an attack comes from, then this will promptly put an end to it.
This does not take into account sophistication and redundancy - which would make such an approach useless and wasteful. For all the money we have spend on the military, NSA and security in the US, it is absurd that such heavy-handed means are considered outside of declared war.
1
Have you ever heard of IP address spoofing?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_address_spoofing
We are so unprepared and would be so devastated by such an attack that the only way the Pentagon sees to forestall it is to make such a threat.
2
The proposed $1.2 Trillion upgrade of the US nuclear arsenal is part of President Barack H. Obama's legacy. Like the surging stock market, the plummeting U-3 rate and the projected 4% growth in the GDP, Obama's vision is the driving force behind the commitment to maintain nuclear supremacy. Trump would be lying again if he took any credit for Obama's work.
A nuclear attack, including an attack employing the kinder, gentler nukes that Trump is fond of, is almost certain to be met with an overwhelming and immediate nuclear attack on the initial user of nuclear weapons. Quite simply, nuclear powers will not tolerate another nuclear power using such weapons on an ongoing basis because of the intense, long-term damage they do to the places they are detonated.
Responding to electronic warfare and infrastructure sabotage with nuclear weapons is crazy. Perhaps that is the point of this nuclear posture document. Perhaps the idea is to send a signal that the United States is so wild and dangerous that it will use nuclear weapons if energy or communication systems are targeted. But such a belligerent and rigid strategy just begs to be trolled by terrorist attackers from non-state organizations that intermingle with innocent civilian populations in multiple countries.
Instead of becoming a giant version of the unstable nuclear pariah North Korea is made out to be, the United States should be working on defensive strategies to counter the unconventional modes of attack unfriendly forces are developing. Some of those counter measures, such as electronic jamming and hijacking of the sort Russia has advanced, can also be used as counter strike or even first use weapons without triggering an all but certain nuclear bombardment of American cities and military installations.
2
It’s no coincidence this new policy has surfaced as this president has turned over to the pentagon America’s defense strategy. We have seen twice in a week false alarms sending citizens into a panic. This has exposed the lack of understanding about the survivability of a nuclear exchange.
We are going back to old thinking and our President seems determined to have what he believes an ability to use small nuclear weapons to get a better deal, he is a child with a loaded gun amused at the power he possesses, and can’t wait to justify a first use.
There is no doubt he has any understanding of his actions, and no intention of being educated. I am deeply concerned and bewildered at this moment, he is locked and loaded and is completely unfit.
1
What is the matter with all of us humans? Have we lost our minds? Do we hate each other enough to destroy civilization? We seem obsessed with destroying ourselves. What is so important beyond life itself that we ready to destroy much if not all of civilization for it?
Why don't we try a arms control conference and save ourselves, not to say a lot of money.
2
When in doubt, actually read the document.
For example. "Gary Samore....a top nuclear adviser to...Obama, said much of the draft strategy "repeats the essential elements of Obama declaratory policy word for word"-"
For example. "The draft does not explicitly say that a crippling cyberattack against the United States would be among the extreme circumstances."
Elsewhere. "There are other differences with the Obama..policy. The draft strategy embraces...production of a new generation of...nuclear weapons...some of which were under development during the Obama administration".
"In most cases, the...plan would simply move forward nuclear weapons that Obama endorsed".
"The price tag for a 30-year makeover...was put last year at $1.2 Trillion". That was Obama's proposed makeover of the US nuclear arsenal.
Like the surge in the financial markets and the plummeting U-3 rate, this Nuclear Posture Review is part and parcel of President Barack H. Obama's sterling legacy. Trump would be lying again if he said it was his idea to spend a $Trillion to refurbish US nukes. it was all Obama's idea.
2
Having worked for the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency on the protection from nuclear weapons, I fear this ridiculous march to their use. Those who have done this have NO IDEA of what they par playing with, and with the insecurity of cyberspace are just looking for excuses for a war which can kill all of us, or drive us back into the caves.
1
Give U.S. law enforcement and the military authority to strike at cyberterrorists and criminals anywhere.
Ban the use of any sort of spoofing software or hardware
Enable computers to block all attempts at access.
Ban any unauthorized entry into any computer, even if it cuts into someone's profits.
Manipulating us to use nukes first might be precisely what an adversary wants.
America needs a DARPA for strategic thinking to complement the one already in existence, which essentially is only devoted to more efficiently effecting decisions made by the traditional, widely scattered loci of strategic thinking currently in place.
Nowhere in the article is there any indication that the Nuclear Posture Review considers ways to minimize American targets for others to attack, to make our infrastructure less vulnerable to cyberattacks through disconnection, rather than by playing a never-ending cat-and-mouse game with adversaries trying to hack into our electric grid and other networks. It would be much cheaper and less deadly to make an attack on us less productive and, thus, less desirable for an adversary. Unfortunately, without currently non-existent good leadership placing appropriate restraints on the process, our consumer-addicted society which is busily hooking up its homes, cars, finances, and everything else to the internet, is simply putting a huge bullseye on our nation.
As well, there is no substantial indication that any consideration is being given to the fact that nuclear weapons would be largely useless in asymmetric warfare, the kind we are likeliest to face, even if "sponsored" by a state power. Nor will the threat of nukes deter those willing to give up their lives. Yes, to the contrary manipulating us to use nukes first might be precisely what someone wants.
3
This strategy is typical from the military which is the reason we always had a civilian as Commander in Chief to control the horrific insane tactical responses like this one. No nuke should go off. Our nukes are capable of producing a life extinction event, humans, animals and plant life to name a few would perish. The military mindset is to win at all cost. This is why sane people at the helm were necessary. We have an incompetent Congress and a Pretend King Trump a scenario that is so dangerous I cannot even gasp. Of course this leaked out for certain Czars to take notice. But can we afford that this was just a shot across the bow from our military? Come on, we can retaliate without weapons. No matter what cyberattack it is, we can survive. What we cannot survive is a nuke going off. Are we there yet?
2
Is there no sane person in the Pentagon now? This is ridiculous. Nuclear weapons should be destroyed world-wide, not used to threaten people who defy the United States.
1
Are they suggesting that the US lacks computer savvy and therefore cannot respond to cyber attacks in kind rather than using nuclear weapons?
That is, if the attacker is identified, which takes a while sometimes. Is the strategy to drop a nuclear weapon on the country we "think but are not sure" did the cyberattack? Are we waiting to be sure who did the attack and then nuke them?
what is the definition of a large cyber attack? how much infrastructure needs to be affected to deserve this kind of response? Is one kind too few, are 10 too many?
in the meantime, the enemy is spending peanuts in carrying out a cyberattack while the US will spend 1.3 trillion for its nuclear arsenal.
Is this making sense to the military brainiacs??
1
Exactly - what on earth has the NSA been doing to develop proper strategy to mitigate these issues?
1
“Facing reality” has long been used as an excuse to be pessimistic and regressive. The “reality” is: humans are more capable of cross-cultural communication, compromise, understanding, and progress than ever before. But many would rather lay down our greatest power, words, and pick up big sticks.
Did Bill Gates ever once consider that his extremely profitable, illegal monopoly and its lack of attention to security could cause a nuclear war?
Rich people don't have to be burdened with such things today. Given all of the money in the valley, one would think it could create more secure technologies. China is doing it. Russia is doing it.
Only a tyrannical government would consider killing millions for an act that could be theoretically carried out by a single individual, small group, or other non state actor. Even if the US was thrown into disarray for a brief time due to loss of power, loss of internet, or loss of telecommunication, a nuclear response would still be disproportionate, and thereby violate the most fundamental rules of just war. Keep in mind, this policy shift is not a measure to protect the common US citizen. It's a measure to protect the wealth of a few.
35
Hi Preston, I agree. And with this unnerving revision of our United States nuclear strategy, we are edging closer to mutually assured destruction. We are accustomed to thinking of a tyrannical government, only as a dictatorial state outside of our own borders. However, the truth is that today we have no assurances that our own government might not fit the definition of tyrannical, that is a government that operates outside of the will of the people. And, I do not limit that remark to a rogue president unfit for the job. There is little doubt that the US unilateral refusal to continue mutually observed nuclear disarmament was the biggest failure in a feasible plan to protect our citizens from foreign aggression. And that departure from nuclear armament reduction was not in accord with the majority of eligible voters of our country. It was in accord, however, with those that General Eisenhower warned us against, the rogue government within our own government.
We're in a very disturbing strategic position. It leaves nuclear planners to issue the usual doom and despair comments in the NPR to get increased funding for weapons:
"It called the strategic picture facing the United States quite bleak, citing not only Russian and Chinese nuclear advances but advances made by North Korea and, potentially, Iran."
This sounds like the same threats that Trump issues to get attention on him.
Mattis's statement fails to explain how nuclear escalation benefits the Russian strategy. Relying on nuclear escalation in the past has lead to the MAD policy. Has Russia found a way to bypass that?
""Russia is adopting “military strategies and capabilities that rely on nuclear escalation for their success,” Defense Secretary Jim Mattis wrote in an introduction to the report."
In the proposed strategy in this new NPR, it would become possible for computer hackers to cause a nuclear holocaust. The MAD policy is based on only nation states having the wherewithal to mount a nuclear capability, whereas any hacker can possibly disable a country's communications infrastructure. A nuclear response to this would lead to a massive nuclear exchange. It would not deter hackers.
Finally, low-yield tactical nuclear weapons can lead to a massive nuclear exchange. If the logic is to release tactical nuclear weapons to deter cyber threats, then the logic can be to release large scale strategic weapons to deter the use of tactical weapons.
6
This seems reasonable --- blow up the planet if we can't play fantasy football.
Some excellent thinking in the Pentagon.
12
Hacking is exactly the sort of thing a third party, such as an ISIS cell or an angry Topeka high school dropout, would use to cause two countries to go to war. This has "In retrospect, mistakes were made..." written all over it, to the detriment of millions of innocents.
18
The deep state is out of it's mind. You cannot even tell where cyberattacks come from. Every weak state will be attacking us, launching malware while spoofing being their enemies.
To nuke a country on the basis of a malware attack is insanity.
18
Actually, the Dark Net from which most of the cyberattacks are coming is taking a hit. If there is one thing the unethical hackers hate more, it is the ethical hackers who invade their "space."
2
This idea is so amazingly terrifying that it is difficult for me to believe that anyone in their right mind could even think about it. What is wrong with us????
Perhaps the billions of dollars we waste on excessive military hardware would be better spent on an effort to counter cyber-terrorism with cyber-defense. But this would mean that smart people who know mathematics and science would be more important than the Generals.
17
"Perhaps the billions of dollars we waste on excessive military hardware would be better spent on an effort to counter cyber-terrorism with cyber-defense. "
Or psychotherapy for all. Our entire nation should be on suicide watch.
1
In addition, does anyone worry that the geniuses who want to deny global warming might think that a nuclear winter and global warming would cancel each other out?
9
No nuclear winter for me and mine, please!
1
So, trump's big button will become much bigger, and easier to use. Have these very stable geniuses seen what a nuclear bomb can do?
11
Since most of us don't have access to Pres. Trump to tell him nuclear weapons use is insanity how about we tell Congress? (They're lame, but they're all we have.) How about if we visit our Congresspeople's and Senators' home offices -- 40 hours a week! -- to tell them to End the Whole Nuclear Era? People in Wash. D.C. can go to the embassies of China, Russia, U.K., France, Israel, India, Pakistan, and, I wish, North Korea but they don't have an embassy -- to ask them to meet all together to abolish nuclear weapons from the Earth. Isn't it about time we New York Times readers start dedicating our own lives to ending the nuclear era?
7
So who would we attack? Seems to me a cyberattack could occur from anyplace by anyone and not necessarily tied to a specific country.
10
Cyber-attacks are an interesting conundrum since a massive, cripping cyber-attack could be considered an "act of war."
However, using Facebook and Twitter to install an enemy nation's preferred candidate could also be considered an "act of war."
I, however, am not going to worry about nuclear attacks since I am also certain that one will happen within the next three years. So why worry about the inevitable?
5
Nowhere in the article is there any indication that the Nuclear Posture Review or anything else is considering, let alone working on, ways to minimize targets for others to attack, to make our infrastructure less vulnerable to strategic cyberattacks through disconnection, rather than by playing a never-ending cat-and-mouse game with adversaries trying to hack into our electric grid and other networks. It would be much cheaper and less deadly to make an attack on us less productive and, thus, less desirable for an adversary.
As well, there is no substantial indication that any consideration is being given to the fact that nuclear weapons would be largely useless in asymmetric warfare, the kind we are likeliest to face, even if "sponsored" by a state power. Nor will the threat of nukes deter those willing to give up their lives. To the contrary, manipulating us to use nukes first might be precisely what someone wants.
What America needs is a DARPA for strategic thinking to complement the one already in existence, which essentially is only devoted to more efficiently effecting decisions made by the traditional and scattered loci of strategic thinking currently in place.
19
Low-yield nuclear weapons, yeah, right. ANY proliferation of weaponry, especially nuclear, is not acceptable. Trump, McConnell, Ryan, and the rest of this administration meddle daily with dismantling our country and placing the world in dangerous territory on many fronts. The elections of 2018 and 2020 can't arrive soon enough.
11
if trump still hasn't accepted what most/all of our national security officials believe, that russia was involved in hacking the dnc and others to affect our last presidential election, who does he think is trustworthy enough to make the final call before a nation gets incinerated for hacking? doesn't that need to be determined before you give the pentagon authorization to use nuclear weapons against a hacking government?
3
While we should never minimize the risk of a cyber attack by one of our adversary states, how do we respond to a massive cyber attack from a non-state actor? Who do we nuke when the attack comes from an unidentifiable source?
We need to focus more attention and resources on hardening our systems against cyber intruders of all sorts. The Christmas bonus that Trump and Congress just gave to big and small business should have been structured to provide the most benefit to those companies taking serious action to protect their systems against intrusion. Instead, they will nibble around the edges, using their windfall to buy back stock and increase executive comp. Meanwhile, we should start a pool at $10 a chance where we put in bids to name the next company that gets hacked and loses personal or business data.
4
I disagree with many of the comments here. Foreign countries who would launch an attack that cripples our economy and destroys our electronic infrastructure must know that they do so at their own peril. I would cripple their country tenfold with a like cyber response, but nothing should be taken off the table. If we draw red lines, foreign entities need to know that if they cross them, there will be an overwhelming response.
2
Oh, great! Are we about to replicate the Peter Sellers movie "Dr. Strangelove or; How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb?" We need to back up all our cyber systems and invest heavily in technology and infrastructure, not simplistically believe that a push-button nuclear solution is a sane solution in today's world!
10
Make no mistake, any use of nuclear weapons will mark the end of all civilization . We will plunge into a nuclear winter and any survivors of that time will be living in conditions worse than those who dared to "Go west!" when Europeans first immigrated to the US. They had trees. We won't. They had plenty of flora and fauna to eat. We won't.
By "we," I mean all of us: Americans, Chinese, Russians, Koreans, Iranians, and all of the unfortunate countries between us.
To even consider using nuclear weapons is surely a sin of the most grievous sort.
8
I've been reading a lot of scary stories for the last year but this one was, by far, the most terrifying.
12
We are moving closer to our own "Road Warrior" reality. I am glad that my children remain childless. With Trump ready to push the "Biggest Red Button", our future is in doubt.
3
@alderpond
I too am happy my children are childless. And that is the very saddest part to this whole story.
1
China, North Korea, and Russia are connected to global networks via physical nodes that are called network exchange points (IX or IXPs). You can deny them access at these points; remove their network addresses from routing tables, or declare their known network addresses as "non-route-able".
As a result, all data, voice, and financial traffic (SWIFT) will cease with those countries. They will be totally cut off; which would be as catastrophic or more so than any small scale nuclear attack. Let's use some common sense here. Nuclear weapons are not solutions.
5
They're building their own secure networks. They won't need our profit-driven insecure networks anymore.
1
Do we now have a stand-off where cyber trumps nuclear? Can this be the longed for answer to ridding the world of nukes?
Small nukes used on N. Korea would harm our allies S. Korea and Japan. Small nukes used on Iran could contaminate the middle east. Why build such weapons?
I remember Sakharov well. He proposed getting rid of nuclear weapons. I wrote to the Phiadelphia Inquirer calling them out for burying it in the back pages. Their response was "we may have missed something." This was many years and a desperate arms race ago, but maybe it's not too late.
If our adversaries can use cyber to defang us and vice versa, doesn't that finally make nukes obsolete?
6
On the other hand, a population which is not fully engaged with their smartphones is a stronger population... in a perverse way, killing our internet could make us stronger.
1
I don't see anything in the 2010 NPR that would have prevented the US from retaliating with nuclear weapons against a cyberattack by Russia, North Korea, etc. I don't think that much has changed except perhaps some difference of emphasis. The US still appears to be saying that it can do the same things that it could have done under Obama.
3
Given the expanded grounds for the first strike use of nuclear weapons, the plans to greatly expand the US nuclear arsenal, the belligerent love of war expressed by Mr. Trump, and the fact that the US has broken agreements with three separate nations that had limited their development of WMDs ( Libya, Iraq, and Iran) I would suggest that it has become a moral imperative for nations such as North Korea, Iran, and Cuba to develop nuclear forces as soon as possible. The only language that a rouge racist state like the US understands is force.
3
The use of nuclear weapons in response to cyber attacks sounds tuff but is probably an exercise in chest thumping. Look how long it took American intelligence agencies to agree that it was the Russians who hacked into our election. Having a nuclear response to a cyber attack could likely start a nuclear war with the wrong adversary.
4
What would prevent other countries from taking the United States out first, since we are so trigger happy? They might consider it a pro-active maneuver rather than crippled reactive one. The people suggesting such a thing are irresponsible.
3
Pretty sure I can survive without lights, a phone, even money - but what I cannot survive is global thermonuclear war.
9
This is an excellent example of why it's a lousy idea to entrust policy decisions of war and peace to the military. Dr. Strangelove lives!
12
Not yet one year of a Trump presidency and we are considering the use of nuclear weapons. It is complete insanity and beyond comprehension that such use is being proposed.
I want to hear loud and insistent opposition from Congress to this lunacy, and commitment to prevent this proposal from advancing.
Who but deranged persons would consider the use of nuclear weapons. Do they not remember the consequences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Do they not understand the horror of such use?
5
This is insanity. We have excellent conventional weapons systems. More importantly, we have many big brains here who could figure out how to protect our cyber infrastructure if our government treated the issue as a priority. We deploy a nuclear missile, they will deploy a nuclear missile. Goodbye planet Earth.
7
Mad Dog Mattis and The Con Don want to show their "muscle". I swear, that's all they have between their ears.
WE THE PEOPLE must not allow this war-mongering to continue. My sign, when I march this Saturday, January 20, will say "NO WW3". What will your says?
We need 300 MILLION people marching and/or demonstrating around the world to show The Con Don and his Top 1% Global Financial Elite Robber Baron/radical religion Good Old Boys' Cabal that we do NOT agree with the world they want to create.
Hit The Streets!
https://www.womensmarch.com/
7
Ever think they're just trolling us with some of these ideas? Is there even a way to prove that an entity which you could launch a nuclear attack on had been responsible for a cyber attack?
Luckily the Stable Genius in Chief would never resort to these measures. Right?
6
When you have the national security state being run by white nationalists this is what you get - as if ANY race could escape the use of modern nuclear weapons. We are moving backwards at hypersonic speed.
17
Are they kidding us? :-O. No, no, no!
9
Who's in charge here??
10
Other than jerking each others' chains, what good can come from a potential nuclear attack response to anything? Is feeling powerful about being willing and able to obliterate an enemy worth the risk of what would come after such an act? Goodbye to humanity and most other forms of life on earth. Then, of course, there would be no more cyber-attacks to worry about!
15
Beyond insane, this moronic nuclear "strategy" represents the ultimate example of militaristic madness. The first mushroom cloud response would inevitably result in a 'right back at you,' and in no time at all the entire globe would be very effectively incinerated. Nukes need to be removed from the world's already bulging arsenals. Can the military industrial complex not grasp the concept that their livelihood would be permanently eliminated right along with all the world's misbegotten conflicts? Where is the United Nations? Nukes must go, not blow.
3
Sure! What could go wrong? And we really do need to give our current leadership more flexibility with the Nuclear arsenal. Dr. Strangelove on line 2...
24
The Pentagon misses the point of future attacks on the USA. It still has the cold war mentality of using Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD. The Pentagon should be and hopefully is increasing spending on cyber defense. It is thought this avenue that we will defend against cyber-attacks not threatening to detonate a nuclear device. The next war with a major foreign power will begin with cyber-attacks. Now is the time to prepare, the warfare of our fathers and grandfathers is a thing of the past the future is now and forward thinking men and women need to set the standard at the Pentagon.
14
There are no winners in nuclear war—perhaps nature will survive, in time, but certainly not man. The greatest threat, however, is not nuclear weaponry—the insanity of those in position of power who advocate such a course is.
34
I suspect that most Americans have no idea what would happen if our computer and communication systems all went down; for openers, no power, no banks, no airplanes, no phones, no any complex system anyplace.
Even in a small area, we're talking massive damage, and deaths.
What's bonkers, of course, is to handle the problem with yet another, "Mine is bigger than Obama's!" move.
21
You are correct, but of course it would be survivable for millions of people - any nuclear exchanges would not.
Note: you left transportation and medical systems off the list.
1
The notion that a cyberattack can be thwarted by threatening nuclear attack is unsupported. And the possibility of triggering the nuclear annihilation. of a country of choice by making it appear as the origin of a cyberattack actually is an incentive to warped minds, not a deterrent at all.
32
In 1947 the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists established the Doomsday Clock to warn the public "about how close we are to destroying our world with dangerous technologies of our own making". The closest it has ever been to "midnight" was in 1953 when it read 2 minutes. At the time, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were in the early days of developing and testing the first hydrogen bombs. I remember those years in grade school, where we would hold monthly drills for what to do in the event of a nuclear attack. We would file down to the basement, sit next to the wall and put our heads down between our knees. The furthest it has ever been from the fateful final hour was in 1991 when it read 17 minutes to midnight. The Cold War had ended and the Russians and Americans had signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. How innocent we were to think that the threat of nuclear war had ended.
I can only hope that we humans will survive this era too but, sadly, there are no guarantees. The world needs to learn to choose leaders wise enough to lead us in the right directions on multiple critical, existential issues. So far, that has not been the case. Here in America we only seem to lurch back and forth from one election to the next and the future remains up for grabs.
12
I forgot to add that the Doomsday Clock currently reads 2 and a half minutes. That is the closest (or latest) it has been since 1953.
5
The world has not seen a nuclear weapon used since the first and only two were dropped on Japanese cities over seventy years ago. One thing that has ensured this has been a sharp distinction between nuclear and non-non nuclear weapons and when both might be used. All the major nuclear weapons holding countries have at some point flirted with fuzzing this distinction and then have backed away from the idea. Some military types wanted to nuke their enemies during the Korean War when things were not going so well for them: since then 'not going too well' using conventional arms has been rejected as a rationale for going nuclear. Similarly, countries have experimented since the 1950s with 'mini-nukes' that might be used in battlefield situations only to full back from the idea (OK, so Obama fuzzed this a little).
In short, the guiding principle has been this: nuclear weapons are not to be used as first strike weapons; and they are to be used only in response to nuclear attack.
This principle is not only tried and true. It is a rational way to keep this particular nuclear genie in the bottle.
13
The world is changing and, in many ways, not for the better, for the very technology we so treasure and think so little of in our daily lives, can and, in all likelihood, will be used against us at some time in the future. We see routinely how even small, non-critical disruptions can sow chaos. Look at what happens when one airline's or one of the FAA's regional computers crash and travel is totally disrupted across the nation. Imagine a coordinated, multi-facet disruption.
Many will see "nuclear" and immediately scream no, even when our enemies would have no hesitation in kind. People need to actually consider what a dangerous situation it would be for an enemy to shut down our power grid, attack our satellites in space, close the banking system in one fell swoop...and then what? Would that be step one to disable us and launch an attack against us? What if one such assault cascaded into another?
One need not be paranoid to accept the tragic reality that we, and yes, others, are quite vulnerable in some very obvious ways, ways that would not just be inconvenient but potentially lethal. To pretend "it's not that serious" is sheer folly. We have a obligation to make it quite clear that any such attack on our critical infrastructure would be considered an act of war and responded to in the strongest possible manner. Tying one hand behind our back is not a wise option.
The notion of expanding our nuclear aresenal and allowing a nuclear first response might not be so frightening if we had a rational president and Congress at the helm who had a clear understanding of the consequences and actually cared about doing what is best for this country.
Nuclear war is a nightmare. Stop pretending it is a solution to anything.
1
"even when our enemies would have no hesitation in kind."
Is this a joke?
1
Nowhere in the article is there any indication that the Nuclear Posture Review or anything else is considering, let alone working on, ways to make our infrastructure less vulnerable to strategic cyberattacks through disconnection, rather than by playing a never-ending cat-and-mouse game with adversaries trying to hack into our electric grid and other networks.
As well, there is no substantial indication that any consideration is being given to the fact that nuclear weapons would be largely useless in asymmetric warfare, the kind we are likeliest to face, even if sponsored by a state power.
What America needs is a DARPA for strategic thinking to complement the one already in existence, which essentially is only devoted to more efficiently effecting decisions made by the traditional and scattered loci of strategic thinking currently in place.
3
this is insane.... they need to flood our cybersecurity department with more dollars... not blow up the world... are they nuts?
13
I am disgusted.
28
It's pretty sad that we as a society are more concerned with a story about the President's physical, than we are about a story concerning the expanded nuclear capabilities the President is most likely to acquire.
44
Yesterday I heard an interview with Daniel Ellsberg discussing his new book Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner. In the interview, he describes the effects of a nuclear winter on our planet, a subject we don’t hear about when talking about a nuclear strike. Before the Pentagon and the President make plans to expand nuclear options, they must explain the full impact of what nuclear war would bring to our world.
http://kalw.org/post/your-call-daniel-ellsberg-exposes-dangers-doomsday-...
41
Nuclear Winter is a possible outcome of a massive nuclear exchange between to superpowers. No one is suggesting that the US would launch a nuclear strike against Russia over a cyberattack.
The potential for a "nuclear winter" was first espoused by Carl Sagan. It was debunked when he declared that the massive oil well burns across Kuwait, set by Hussein's retreating armies, would cause exactly that. Nothing of the sort came close.
Never will. And world wide life-threatening radioactivity from a major mutual exchange, in wind and sea, as in "on The Beach", is also a fiction, unsupported by analysis.
Terrible idea, as it escalates the risk of nuclear warfare. Whole populations and habitable areas of the planet do not deserve to be wiped out over cyber-crime, period.
114
While I think there is a significant difference between cyber crime and cyber terrorism, I don't think a nuclear response is justified.
The other side to that argument, of course, is that a truly devastating cyber attack can totally cripple vital infrastructure. Imagine if the critical systems at hospitals and/or water treatment plants across a region or entire country were rendered inoperable. The consequences would be undoubtedly dire. What is an acceptable response to such an attack? What is necessary to act as a deterrent to one? What level of certainty is required as to the identity of the perpetrator before a strike can be authorized?
For many people, there is no justification for a nuclear strike. Obviously there is no discussion to be had here for those people because the answer is always "no."
For anyone who is open to some sort of justified nuclear strike, this development presents a great deal of moral deliberation. Is a nuclear attack justified only in response to a first strike? Are there other types of attacks that justify such a response? If so, what level of harm justifies one? Where is the line?
These questions obviously fuel the, "This is why it should never be acceptable," argument, but in a world where our enemies will almost certainly have access to nuclear weapons, is there really any deterrent to inflicting complete annihilation on us besides reciprocity?
It's a nearly impossible moral situation, because everyone has a different "right" answer.
14
Thank you. I am one of those people who say "no.", but you present a case why it is possible to think such,
You might change your mind when the radioactivity hits you. But then it is too late.
So if Americans, en masse, lose access to their smart phones through a cyber-attack, that could warrant nuclear retaliation? Let's be clear, any use of nuclear weapons would almost certainly ensure at least, the complete collapse of civilization (and ensuing massive death toll and damage), and likely hasten humanity's extinction. Even the very rich would be impacted!!
60
It is disgusting to consider using nuclear weapons against civilians, but no, using nuclear weapons would not cause civilization to collapse unless the exchange involved thousands of warheads. The long term global environmental impact of the US nuclear terror attacks against Japanese cities was negligible, and in fact we murdered far more civilians using incendiary weapons on Tokyo than we did by dropping atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
1
It is inevitable when a power like the USA loses moral authority, that all it will have left if violent authority.
130
Loses moral authority or loses technological advantage?
2
Moral authority. Cybercrime is like guerrilla warfare, it's asymmetrical.
3
On the off chance that anyone in the White House reads these comments, you better explain "moral authority".
1
You have got to be kidding. Why not a crippling cyber counter-attack ? Or is the US admitting that it is losing the war to defend its electronic control and communications networks, and incapable of similarly attacking a foe ?
And why do I think that Trump would never use this against Putin (proven to be making regular intrusions against us), but would instead immediately use it against North Korea ?
37
This was reported more than a week ago by the guardian; and fair play...from over here the actions of the trump administration are terrifying. Almost as if the decisions were being made by an aging narcissist who knows he probably wont be around too much longer and does nto care about anyone else.
32
Seriously? We’re going to respond to a cyber-attack by launching nuclear missiles? Has the whole government gone nuts? How about a program that funds research and development to train for preventing such attacks and creates cyber weapons to respond? An agency similar to NASA could be created so the best a brightest computer wizzes can develop counter measures. Are we as a country at the point of admitting that we are technically behind Russia and North Korea? Maybe if we made our top colleges more affordable we wouldn’t be.
If were are physically attacked by conventional or nuclear weapons that’s one thing, but To basically give up and say we are going to nuke you because we are technologically incapable of defending from a cyber-attack is ludicrous.
94
So much for the vaunted “Generals” babysitting President Donald J Trump. No one in their right mind seeks to expand the use of nuclear weapons. President Trump apparently doesn’t have the common sense to tell these guys to go back down the rat hole. One thing is for sure, expanding nukes - or the role they can be used in - is a surefire way to bankrupt the military.
25
Actually, the surefire bankruptcy is for the nation as a whole. A strong electorate in peril is what Churchill and the United Kingdom, complete with ethnic divisions.
1
And that would include Russia?
7
This is total insanity. Incinerating untold numbers of innocent human beings and other forms of life and causing horrific destruction to the environment not only at the site of the attack but potentially all of Earth is not a sane response to a cyberattack. It is total insanity and totally evil.
115
It is not a sane response.....to anything!
Sounds like humans, well some of them anyway, have decided if they can't beat devastating climate change, they might as well join it.
45
trump wants to win the election and this is his plan....and the republicans line up behind him ....truly we are ruled by insane people.
Watch former Secretary of Defense ,William Perry, on Stanford online "Living at the Nuclear Brink". Kleenex ( for tears) and bottle of scotch may help. God, please save our threatened planet.
8
Under this plan we could attack Russia with nuclear weapons if they initiate a cyber attack agains us?
Here's your tweet Mr. Trump......
"Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"
28
And this thoughtful quote unjustly cost Robert Oppenheimer his security clearance. This is how American government officials treat intelligent social democrats . Remember, we are all in this together....
2
New danger from the republicans.
Nuclear attack over cyber attacks!!! I cant believe this madness!
22
Here we go—again.
5
Are we ALL insane!?!?! This is one of the worst suggestions I've seen from this administration. Will our 'reality tv show' president PLEASE go watch 'Dr. Strangelove' and watch George C. Scott's performance? Good grief.
16
Any use of nuclear weapons is insanity
56
OMG, just what is needed. More than $1T in extra nukes. When will the warmongers ever stop?! We have a gazillion more weapons than anyone ever needs for anything, and yet the military (and their vendors and lobbyists) tout more nukes. With the liar and impulsive twit in the WH we are all surely doomed. Just think how many starving children in the world could be fed and educated with $1T.
Shame on each and every one of you that didn't vote for HRC, and shame on each and every repub that lies enables and coddles the lunatic in the WH. Hope your bigotry and sexism and hatred and cruelty and anger was worth it when world incineration occurs.
65
"Shame on each and every one of you that didn't vote for HRC,.."
What makes you think Hillary Clinton would not have endorsed this nuclear re-armament program, which was started by Obama? During the 2016 presidential campaign, she was calling for "no fly" zones in Syria--which would have led to direct confrontation with Russia. And as Secretary of State, she backed the NATO attacks on Libya, which resulted in the destruction of that country. Finally, it is the Democrats who gave the military $80 billion more than Trump requested in the last budget. We continue to have this insanity because both major political parties support it.
1
The starving children's lobbyists don't play golf with trump. But the defense contractor's lobbyists do.
You mess with my Hard Drive I get to nuke you?
25
But never vice versa!
So now we are what we accuse Iran and N Korea of being. Strong work Mr Prez, I feel safer already. Threats are easier than the hard work of diplomacy.
13
Sanger and Broad missed a superb opportunity to challenge former assistant defense secretary Andrew Weber to explain how the "radical new policy" will blur the line between nuclear and conventional weapons. Many critics of U.S. nuclear forces typically throw out this old canard. Furthermore, they should have pushed Weber to unpack the logic behind his claim that the new policy will increase the likelihood of a nuclear war. What's the empirical evidence for that claim? What's the logic? What is the probability of nuclear war breaking out without the policy changes?
I think another reasonable perspective is that with additional U.S. nuclear use options involving lower yield warheads, the United States could more easily respond in kind to Russia's first use of nuclear weapons in a European military contingency, rather than having to employ higher yield weapons typically found on U.S. long-range ballistic missiles. (I'm not going to bring up the B61 option with dual-capable aircraft because I'm not convinced that the aircraft can penetrate Russian air defenses found in Kaliningrad, western Russia, and possibly Belarus.)
I strongly recommend a course in the effects of nuclear weapons before thinking about using them. They are much more terrible than anyone knows in politics. Working on the Industrial Hardening Manual to protect American industry from a nuclear weapon taught me there is no way to use them.
This is the madness of political operatives working from political prejudice and technical ignorance.
3
This is a very scary scenario. The United States has lost so much of its soft power possibilities that I doubt anything can be done to ameliorate the situation, short of changing our entire attitude towards the rest of the world and emphasizing our values and bring America again to the forefront of decency and inclusiveness. Americans must band together for the sake of our future, our tolerance and our beneficence. We can do it and the world wants America to do it. Working with 86 countries and countless ambassadors, I am sure that it would be welcomed as an exciting turnaround designed to bring people together and stress our brother/sisterhood and hope for the future. It's a must! Other countries that are open love our culture, our generosity and our values. It can be done and our leaders can do it. That's what we all need, including our children, grandchildren and all who seek a peaceful life.
6
"Emphasizing our values". Your personal values, like those of millions of people in this country, are, I am sure, very noble ones. Unfortunately, one cannot say the same thing of the values of those who have controlled the country's politics from the beginning.
1
I may have misread the article, but one thing I don't understand is why we are not developing the most advanced cyberdefense and the most advanced cyberoffense? If there's going to be a back and forth, I like the idea of knocking out the opposition's feet from underneath them instead of 'small nuclear weapons.' We should be 'fighting' with a 22nd Century approach rather than the arms escalation of the Cold War.
54
"I don't understand is why we are not developing the most advanced cyberdefense and the most advanced cyberoffense? "
It's like the Wall, useless but a boondoggle and the source of hundreds of billions of dollars of corruption.
1
Mr. Obama left the nation without a viable strategic or tactical nuclear response capability. His reticence and passivity to new Russian and Chinese military deployments and new research and development of missiles, torpedoes, and cyber weapons by enemies of the United States has left our nation very vulnerable to conventional, asymmetric, cyber and even nuclear strikes by our adversaries. The reduction in American retaliatory capability and also visible deterrence has been interpreted as a signal to our adversaries to continue on their current path. America's adversaries believe that they can act without fear of an American response. The invasions of Georgia and Crimea along with deployment of new missiles in Eastern Europe are examples of the disregard of American deterrent policy. China also views the U.S. as toothless as it builds military bases from new sand islands in the Pacific. North Korea continues its taunts and threats and has engaged in cyber attacks on American allies.
The threats to the United States are real and growing. Mr. Trump would be wise and not reckless to approve of a new, robust American military posture. The recklessness of Mr. Obama has placed our nation at great risk. It is time to engage in realistic assessment of all threats and to create new policy, weapons and necessary strategic and tactical deployment policy and use and to do so quickly and with great resolve. Our freedom, safety and very survival is at risk.
5
Under Obama the US spent more on defense than Russia, China, North Korea, and India combined. The issue isn't that we don't have the capacity to use overwhelming force. The issue is that we've become sufficiently civilized (most of us) to understand that as Asimov once wrote "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent".
3
“Mr. Obama left the United States without a viable strategic or tactical nuclear response capability.”
Jay—respectfully, that is just such an outrageously false statement that it undermines your credibility.
We had approximately 1400 deployed warheads as of 2016 with another 4000 stockpiled. Not to mention hundreds of missiles, nuclear capable bombers and submarines.
You can argue whether upgrades are necessary or worth the cost and risks (e.g. escalation or proliferation). But you can’t say we currently don’t have a viable nuclear capability.
2
We do not have a new strategic policy for nuclear response. Obama dismantled much of what was deployed and ready and refused to put in place new systems as the Russia and China exploited Obama's deep fear of meeting the challenges and violations that both of those nations engaged in. Obama failed to act or responded in any way as those nations escalated there aggression. Placing nukes in storage gave the strong impression to Russia, China, Iran and North Korea that the U.S. was withdrawing its commitment to defend its allies and itself. It was a signal of being exhausted and disinterested. That meant that the U.S. would either have to respond with a massive strike or continue its passivity and watch as those nations advanced their militarists adventurism. Obama was weak, fearful, indecisive, and unable to grasp the magnitude of the real threats posed to the U.S. and its allies. Obama's "Pivot to the Pacific" was an empty threat.
We do not have the ships, planes, missiles, new tanks or land, sea and air forces necessary to defend our nation. We spend more than other nations to maintain our safety and security and the safety of others. We need more than one nuclear option. Obama painted us into a corner. We have only 11 assault ships if its necessary to attack North Korea. We need 25. We need more subs and more destroyers, and new Aegis Cruisers. We need a new main battle tank. Obama left us in deep trouble.
1
The suggestion that a nuclear response to a cyberattack is a proportionate response would be ludicrous were it not being taken seriously. Such thinking implies two things. One, the country does not know how to protect itself from a form of attack for which it has had warning for years. NSA has failed and looks unlikely to succeed anytime soon except as a cyber boutique for other countries to pick and choose its cyber tools. Two, the military services are now in the business of protecting a crypto-totalitarian administration rather than the nation. John Kelly represents the face of the military, which no longer respects civilians, especially those not white and male, in matters of policy or deportment.
Talk of war, with anyone, anywhere, anytime, prepares us for war with someone, somewhere, sometime. My guess is sooner rather than later, perhaps this summer when Trump and Republicans need a conflict, even on a small scale, to rally people around a government otherwise unpopular before the fall elections.
41