Mutually Assured Destruction
During the “Cold War” we avoided a nuclear “hot war”, one with shots being fired, by the United States and the Soviet Union having enough nuclear firepower to each “assure” the other that a nuclear attack would cause an annihilating retaliation. Therefore, why would anyone wanting to live start a war which insured his or her own destruction? This used offensive weapons (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles with nuclear warheads) as defense against the offensive use of similar weapons against us. This theory was called Mutually Assured Destruction. This worked. Well, it worked to keep the cold war from becoming hot, but who wants to live in constant fear of nuclear holocaust? So Ronald Reagan introduced a truly defensive weapons package, the Strategic Defense Initiative, or S.D.I. sometimes referred to as “star wars”.
S.D.I. became a political issue almost immediately and was widely opposed by those on the democratic side, including John Kerry. Some believed that it would not work. Some simply opposed it because a Republican proposed it. Some actually argued that if we had this, that Mutually Assured Destruction would only work one way. We could fire a nuclear “first strike” at the Soviet Union and they could not hit us back because of this protective umbrella. So they actually did NOT want this protection for us in order to protect the Soviet Union. I never understood that last one, “Don’t defend yourself because your enemy will be defenseless.”
Despite the fighting, some steps were taken toward S.D.I. If the system or a part thereof ever was deployed I have not heard of it. But, I suspect that it would be higher than top secret and I would not have the security clearance. There is disagreement to this day as to whether or not the technology could accomplish its task, that being to destroy Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles fired at the U.S. before they could cause their devastation. But, there is little disagreement among thinking people that it was one of the biggest factors, if not the biggest factor in bringing about the end of the cold war. President Reagan was once at a nuclear summit with the Soviets when he was told in no uncertain terms that the U.S. had to abandon S.D.I. before any nuclear reductions could be discussed. President Reagan stated that the talks were over and left. At that very moment the Soviet leadership knew that they could not keep up with the U.S. building offensive AND defensive weapons, and thus was the beginning of the end of the cold war. The Soviets were soon back at the bargaining table, this time with hat in hand.
You may be asking, what in the world does this have to do with today?
First, let’s compare and contrast today’s enemy, terrorists, with yesterday’s enemy, the Soviet Union. Yesterday’s enemy was a country with clear borders, a military taking commands from the top, and they had a will to live. Mutually Assured Destruction worked because they did not want to die. The leadership understood this, and kept their military in line. And having a stationary position in the world, we could easily see to it that the correct people “paid” should there ever have been an attack.
Today’s enemy is not limited to one geographic location, frequently lower level operatives make decisions without the leadership’s direct orders, and at least some the low level foot soldiers are willing to die for their cause. The bin laden’s don’t have the guts to kill themselves for the cause, but the little guys get sent on suicide missions all of the time. Their Assured Destruction does not work because, at least the little guys expect to die anyway, even if the terrorist leadership wanted to stop things, some of the little guys either could not be reached, or would fight on anyway. And, had we wanted to kill bin laden and some top aides in September/November, 2001, we could have dropped some nukes in Afghanistan and probably accomplished that, but that would have killed a whole lot of innocent people along the way. America would not do that. Terrorists know this, and they counts on it. Like a child hiding behind his mother’s skirt for protection, terrorists hides among innocents for their protection.
Second, let’s compare and contrast strategies. We have already established that Mutually Assured Destruction will not work with this new enemy. However S.D.I., if it works, could help against this new enemy. Not in the same way. Against the Soviets S.D.I. meant that in a conventional type war (conventional in that it is state on state) using unconventional weapons, the Soviets knew they would loose. They eventually collapsed under the financial pressure of trying to keep up. The leadership of the terrorists already knows that they cannot win. And if they thought it through, the rank and file would too. This does not stop them.
If terrorist were to get their hands on some old Soviet nukes, the Mutually Assured Destruction theory would not stop them. Who would we fire back at? However, if we had a S.D.I. in place, that may stop the missiles. This would protect us, and give us time to determine where they came from and take out the enemy.
Those who opposed the S.D.I. program in the 80’s were proven wrong when it played such a key role in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Today, had the S.D.I. program been fully backed in the 80’s it is possible that we could have a fully deployed S.D.I. If we today had a fully functional S.D.I. the threat of a terrorist using ICBM’s against us would be reduced. I do not know a lot about the science. I do not know if the program could work. I do know that a lot of people smarter than I say that it can be done. As well a lot of people smarter than I say that it cannot be done. If the former are correct, then it would appear that not only were those who opposed the program wrong in the immediate need, as has already been established, but they may have cost us a tremendous tool to use to defend us against a terrorist who gets a hold of a nuke in the future.
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
S.D.I. became a political issue almost immediately and was widely opposed by those on the democratic side, including John Kerry. Some believed that it would not work. Some simply opposed it because a Republican proposed it. Some actually argued that if we had this, that Mutually Assured Destruction would only work one way. We could fire a nuclear “first strike” at the Soviet Union and they could not hit us back because of this protective umbrella. So they actually did NOT want this protection for us in order to protect the Soviet Union. I never understood that last one, “Don’t defend yourself because your enemy will be defenseless.”
Despite the fighting, some steps were taken toward S.D.I. If the system or a part thereof ever was deployed I have not heard of it. But, I suspect that it would be higher than top secret and I would not have the security clearance. There is disagreement to this day as to whether or not the technology could accomplish its task, that being to destroy Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles fired at the U.S. before they could cause their devastation. But, there is little disagreement among thinking people that it was one of the biggest factors, if not the biggest factor in bringing about the end of the cold war. President Reagan was once at a nuclear summit with the Soviets when he was told in no uncertain terms that the U.S. had to abandon S.D.I. before any nuclear reductions could be discussed. President Reagan stated that the talks were over and left. At that very moment the Soviet leadership knew that they could not keep up with the U.S. building offensive AND defensive weapons, and thus was the beginning of the end of the cold war. The Soviets were soon back at the bargaining table, this time with hat in hand.
You may be asking, what in the world does this have to do with today?
First, let’s compare and contrast today’s enemy, terrorists, with yesterday’s enemy, the Soviet Union. Yesterday’s enemy was a country with clear borders, a military taking commands from the top, and they had a will to live. Mutually Assured Destruction worked because they did not want to die. The leadership understood this, and kept their military in line. And having a stationary position in the world, we could easily see to it that the correct people “paid” should there ever have been an attack.
Today’s enemy is not limited to one geographic location, frequently lower level operatives make decisions without the leadership’s direct orders, and at least some the low level foot soldiers are willing to die for their cause. The bin laden’s don’t have the guts to kill themselves for the cause, but the little guys get sent on suicide missions all of the time. Their Assured Destruction does not work because, at least the little guys expect to die anyway, even if the terrorist leadership wanted to stop things, some of the little guys either could not be reached, or would fight on anyway. And, had we wanted to kill bin laden and some top aides in September/November, 2001, we could have dropped some nukes in Afghanistan and probably accomplished that, but that would have killed a whole lot of innocent people along the way. America would not do that. Terrorists know this, and they counts on it. Like a child hiding behind his mother’s skirt for protection, terrorists hides among innocents for their protection.
Second, let’s compare and contrast strategies. We have already established that Mutually Assured Destruction will not work with this new enemy. However S.D.I., if it works, could help against this new enemy. Not in the same way. Against the Soviets S.D.I. meant that in a conventional type war (conventional in that it is state on state) using unconventional weapons, the Soviets knew they would loose. They eventually collapsed under the financial pressure of trying to keep up. The leadership of the terrorists already knows that they cannot win. And if they thought it through, the rank and file would too. This does not stop them.
If terrorist were to get their hands on some old Soviet nukes, the Mutually Assured Destruction theory would not stop them. Who would we fire back at? However, if we had a S.D.I. in place, that may stop the missiles. This would protect us, and give us time to determine where they came from and take out the enemy.
Those who opposed the S.D.I. program in the 80’s were proven wrong when it played such a key role in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Today, had the S.D.I. program been fully backed in the 80’s it is possible that we could have a fully deployed S.D.I. If we today had a fully functional S.D.I. the threat of a terrorist using ICBM’s against us would be reduced. I do not know a lot about the science. I do not know if the program could work. I do know that a lot of people smarter than I say that it can be done. As well a lot of people smarter than I say that it cannot be done. If the former are correct, then it would appear that not only were those who opposed the program wrong in the immediate need, as has already been established, but they may have cost us a tremendous tool to use to defend us against a terrorist who gets a hold of a nuke in the future.
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home