![]() ![]() There have been at least three false alarms in the United States that could have led to a mistaken nuclear war. Why? Because there is no way to know for sure (and you want to be sure) that the feared Russian attack is real. And the only sane decision is not to launch. ![]() Either way, Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming are toast.īut here is the rub: President Trump would have about 10 minutes to make this fate-of-the-world decision. So if Russia attacks them (no other country could), President Trump has only two options: launch the missiles before the attack arrives (and destroy Russia), or wait and let them be destroyed in the ground. They sit out in the open and everyone, including Vladimir Putin, knows exactly where they are. land-based missiles are highly vulnerable. What are Perry and Mattis talking about? Nothing less than a nuclear nightmare, in which atomic weapons are used by mistake. Last year, before he became defense secretary, Mattis asked if it was time to remove the land-based missiles, as “This would reduce the false alarm danger.” And, as former Defense Secretary Bill Perry has written, it would also address the concern that ICBMs “could trigger an accidental nuclear war.” This would save a boatload of money and take the missile states out of the crosshairs. The United States can safely phase out the existing ICBMs without replacing them. They are expensive, redundant, and above all, dangerous. In fact, the five ICBM states and the entire country would be better off if we did not have ICBMs at all. But what about the costs to Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming? Of course we want to prevent nuclear war, but do we need to throw the upper Midwest under the bus to do it? ICBMs would be very costly for Russia, mainly because the United States would retaliate with hundreds of nuclear weapons launched from submarines at sea. Related: Making America’s ICBMs Great AgainĪnd: Despite Objections, Pentagon Takes Step Toward Buying New Nuclear WeaponsĬost-imposing for whom? Yes, attacking U.S. In other words, the ICBM force provides a cost-imposing strategy on an adversary.” that any enemy that wants to take us on is going to have to commit two, three, four weapons to make sure they take each one out. ![]() 12, Mattis said, “It’s clear they are so buried out in the central U.S. Newly minted Defense Secretary Jim Mattis defended the ICBM and the nuclear sponge mission, although he did not call it that. Not only that, the Trump administration is planning to spend $100 billion to do it all over again. Even during the Cold War, analysts challenged this plan, claiming it was “madness to use United States real estate as ‘a great sponge to absorb’ Soviet nuclear weapons.” Their main purpose is to “absorb” a nuclear attack from Russia, acting as a giant “ nuclear sponge.” Such is the twisted logic of atomic warfare.īut it never made sense to draw a nuclear attack toward the United States, rather than away from it. Their primary mission is to be destroyed in the ground, along with all the people that live anywhere near them. The Pentagon is now planning to build a new, deadlier generation of these missiles, which are housed in underground silos.īut these intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, are not meant to be launched, ever. Each missile carries a nuclear payload many times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb, capable of killing hundreds of thousands of people. The United States currently deploys hundreds of nuclear missiles across Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |