Apparently I’m Mister Contrarian today.Â Foreign Affairs has some letter writers disagreeing with one of their articles on the US nuclear weapons capability.Â I agree with the letter writers, with the exception of the Russian because he’s clearly not correct in saying there’s been no strategic weapons reductions.Â (There’s been a dearth of interminable meetings with negotiations, sure, and that’s mainly because an agreement that’s nontrivial is already in place, albeit without customized logo mugs for all the participants.)
Here’s the deal, from the guy at OSD who might know something about it:
This administration has continued the policy of previous administrations in that it does not rely on the ability to conduct a nuclear first strike to ensure the survival of the United States. The Department of Defense’s force posture of dispersed ICBMs and survivable ballistic missile submarines is designed to make clear to any adversary that might contemplate a first strike against the United States that in the aftermath of such an attack the U.S. military would retain the ability to respond with such devastating force that an aggressor could not stand to gain. This is not a first-strike posture.
PETER C. W. FLORY is Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy.
How more clear can that be?Â Where’s Herman Kahn when we need him?
One Response to “Still More Analysis With Which I Strongly Disagree”
Trackback URL for Still More Analysis With Which I Strongly Disagree: