Comments on: Key Senate Vote on the Reliable Replacement Warhead Coming Up http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/06/key_senate_vote_on_the_reliabl.php Comments and analyses of important national and international security issues Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:37:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Joel Whittemore http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/06/key_senate_vote_on_the_reliabl.php/comment-page-1#comment-145 Joel Whittemore Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:21:46 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/06/key_senate_vote_on_the_reliabl.php#comment-145 I am simply amazed at arguments that continually seek to marginalize the process of democracy. On June 19th Bob posted the following, "U.S. nuclear strategy is a U.S. self preservation issue related to defensive warfare execution. Therefore, as with other military strategy, it should not be the topic of a public national debate." We need to keep clearly in mind the difference between a military strategy and a national policy; and policies are, or in a democracy should be, the subject of national debate. Of course MAD wasn’t a real strategy; it was a policy and because it was publically announced it served its function. It is when policy is determined by a few “trusted people” behind “closed doors” and then held in secret for fear of displaying our intentions prematurely that it ceases to be effective; it is precisely then that democracy suffers and our preservation becomes tenuous. Preservation requires engagement, not abdication of citizenship. Isn't this precisely the reason why FAS was formed? It seems to me that democracy begets national security and that it is not the other way about. If it is the other way about, then precisely what is it that we are trying to secure? I am simply amazed at arguments that continually seek to marginalize the process of democracy. On June 19th Bob posted the following, “U.S. nuclear strategy is a U.S. self preservation issue related to defensive warfare execution. Therefore, as with other military strategy, it should not be the topic of a public national debate.”
We need to keep clearly in mind the difference between a military strategy and a national policy; and policies are, or in a democracy should be, the subject of national debate. Of course MAD wasn’t a real strategy; it was a policy and because it was publically announced it served its function. It is when policy is determined by a few “trusted people” behind “closed doors” and then held in secret for fear of displaying our intentions prematurely that it ceases to be effective; it is precisely then that democracy suffers and our preservation becomes tenuous. Preservation requires engagement, not abdication of citizenship.

Isn’t this precisely the reason why FAS was formed? It seems to me that democracy begets national security and that it is not the other way about. If it is the other way about, then precisely what is it that we are trying to secure?

]]> By: Bob http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/06/key_senate_vote_on_the_reliabl.php/comment-page-1#comment-144 Bob Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:47:12 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/06/key_senate_vote_on_the_reliabl.php#comment-144 As an FAS member, I am deeply concerned about the FAS position regarding U.S. nuclear strategy. You write ... "The nation can have, and should have, an honest debate about whether, and how many, nuclear weapons it needs but to argue that we should continue to design and build nuclear bombs that are capable of destroying whole civilizations in order to preserve a jobs program for scientists and engineers is truly, without exaggeration, insane." Forget the loss of jobs. It is not the real issue regardless what one individual writes. U.S. nuclear strategy is a U.S. self preservation issue related to defensive warfare execution. Therefore, as with other military strategy, it should not be the topic of a public national debate. It should be a private debate held behind closed doors among those people we Americans trust to formulate such strategy. Why would you want the U.S. to disclose our nuclear strategy and doctrine to potential attackers without a very valid reason to do so? Was MAD a real strategy? You also write ... "Is it too much to ask that we, as a nation, decide what nuclear policy is best for the continuing survival of the human race and then just let a few jobs changes fall where they may?" The loss of jobs is not a real issue. Forget the loss of jobs. We, as a nation, must decide what nuclear policy is best for the continuing survival of the United States. If the United States survives then the human race automatically survives. As an FAS member, I am deeply concerned about the FAS position regarding U.S. nuclear strategy.

You write … “The nation can have, and should have, an honest debate about whether, and how many, nuclear weapons it needs but to argue that we should continue to design and build nuclear bombs that are capable of destroying whole civilizations in order to preserve a jobs program for scientists and engineers is truly, without exaggeration, insane.”

Forget the loss of jobs. It is not the real issue regardless what one individual writes. U.S. nuclear strategy is a U.S. self preservation issue related to defensive warfare execution. Therefore, as with other military strategy, it should not be the topic of a public national debate. It should be a private debate held behind closed doors among those people we Americans trust to formulate such strategy. Why would you want the U.S. to disclose our nuclear strategy and doctrine to potential attackers without a very valid reason to do so? Was MAD a real strategy?

You also write …
“Is it too much to ask that we, as a nation, decide what nuclear policy is best for the continuing survival of the human race and then just let a few jobs changes fall where they may?” The loss of jobs is not a real issue. Forget the loss of jobs.
We, as a nation, must decide what nuclear policy is best for the continuing survival of the United States. If the United States survives then the human race automatically survives.

]]>