More Bang for the Buck
Report: U.S. Must Modernize, Update Nuclear Strategy for New Century
BY: Destiny Albritton June 23, 2015 5:00 am Via The Washington Free Beacon
Unfortunately, this could be the future of battlefield readiness. (photo credit: AP)
(Everyone please…step back and take a deep breath. All too often, I see Obama getting entirely too much credit for the state of the world today. To equate the man with some kind of ‘evil genius Dr. No’ is preposterous. Sure, he’s trying to change the world pecking order to his liking, but not without resistance. I seriously doubt the world will blindly follow his every whim. Remember, in 16 months he’ll be history. When that happens, the world will most certainly find another equilibrium and go on. As for this article, I believe it highlights the importance of planning for what may lie ahead. Whether you blame ‘Dr. No’ or not, there will be life after Obama and I’d be damned prepared for it. Thatisall. – LS
America must change its policies regarding its nuclear weapons arsenal if it wishes to remain safe in the coming century, according to a new study from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
Clark Murdock, an expert in strategic planning and defense at CSIS, writes in the study, ‘Project Atom,’ that the effects of global nuclear proliferation will dominate American foreign policy between 2025-2050 if the United States does not revamp its policies today, including modernizing its nuclear weapons and seeking enhanced tactical nuclear capabilities.
“The value of nuclear weapons as a ‘trump card’ for negating U.S. conventional power was enhanced by the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 to prevent Saddam Hussein from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” Murdock writes. “If the United States apparently believes that it can be deterred by an adversary’s nuclear weapons, why wouldn’t a nonnuclear ‘regional rogue’ want one?”
The root of global nuclear ambitions lies in American strength, according to Murdock. The clout of the U.S. military leads non-nuclear nation-states to seek nuclear capabilities.
As the United States plans its nuclear posture for the 2025-2050 timeframe, Murdock recommends that the American inferiority to Russian nonstrategic nuclear forces should be addressed. Murdock says that a variety of tactical nuclear weapons, including some small-scale missiles, should be developed to counter Russian capabilities.
“U.S. nuclear forces were designed for a global conflict involving the exchange of thousands of high-yield weapons, not limited exchanges of low-yield weapons,” she writes. “Since most U.S. nuclear response options are large, ‘dirty,’ and inflict significant collateral damage, the United States might be ‘self-deterred’ and not respond ‘in kind’ to discriminate nuclear attacks.”
Murdock’s recommendations were based on two assumptions regarding what could happen in 2025-2050 in the absence of effective American nuclear weapons planing. The first assumption was that the United States could lose its deterrence ability because of a failure to prevent further nuclear proliferation. The second assumption was that there may be more than 11 nuclear powers after the year 2030.
Barry Blechman and Russell Rumbaugh, contributing authors to the study, also point out that China will be a major threat in the future.
“Still, given its 20 years of investments in building a more modern military and continuing economic growth, China could plausibly threaten the United States’ ability to conduct specific military actions in regions near China’s coasts within the next several decades,” Blechman and Rumbaugh write. “If realized, such threats could jeopardize America’s ability to fulfill its commitments to defend certain allies.”
Explore posts in the same categories: Nukes You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
WarSclerotic 
June 23, 2015 at 5:45 PM
Reblogged this on boudicabpi2015 and commented:
More Bang for the Bucks
June 23, 2015 at 5:50 PM
LS,
Hussein still has almost 19 months left. A lot of damage can be done in the 2.5 month “lame duck” period between early November 2016 and late January 2017.
And if a Republican doesn’t win the next election because we see the same massive vote fraud as in 2012, God help us all.
June 23, 2015 at 6:04 PM
Maybe so Mark and I don’t diminish that point. All I’m saying is Obama is given entirely too much credit for the problems facing the world today. He’s just not that damned smart and effective.
I suspect 19 months AFTER his term is up, we’ll probably be blaming someone else for the world’s mess. I just hope it’s not Hillary. A republican or independent…yes.
As for Obama and his legacy, if he can ignore the law, wouldn’t it be easier for a future president to ignore Obama’s executive orders?
June 23, 2015 at 5:56 PM
I love your surrealistic optimism .
June 23, 2015 at 6:08 PM
A big surrealistic thanks, Joop.
June 23, 2015 at 6:44 PM
i’am not sure if that is possible !
But perhaps the new president has a magic want, and the political system, build up in the last 70 years will be changed overnight.
I’am to cynical to be able too believe that.
You are the optimist , i’am the pessimist .
But who is the realist ?
June 23, 2015 at 6:47 PM
🙂
June 23, 2015 at 8:22 PM
The realist is the one holding the glass.
June 23, 2015 at 11:59 PM
Nope it is the one who is holding the bottle .
The one holding the glass is the optimist !
June 24, 2015 at 3:13 PM
I’ll drink to that.
June 23, 2015 at 6:05 PM
Regarding the article:
“If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn’t plan your mission properly.” – David Hackworth
June 23, 2015 at 10:48 PM
LS – I would love to join your optimism concerning the political future of the USA – you know I see the USA ( as it once was, but isnt anymore ) as the main pillar of western, democratic societies. You know I see the BHO Administration as a lethal threat to the USA ( and therefore to the free world as a whole). The future will show, but today I have the very strong impression that with the BHO administration in the WH, the times of the USA as a superpower, as a free democratic society have come to an end. I hope that the USA will survive as a state, despite all the many enemies around the globe that are working hard to destroy her – I hope so, but there is no guarantee for this. I hope americans wake up in time to get the train back on track, to replace the engineer who derailed the train by someone who seeks to safely drive the train – not to crash it on purpose……
June 23, 2015 at 11:11 PM
Thanks for the good words WG. I share your concerns. My bet is the storm will pass. It’s going to take more than an Obama to bring this country down. There’s a lot of resistance here at home and in the businesses that make up this great economy.
To think this midget of a man could strike a mortal blow to this great country gives him far too much credit. He made his way through his early days smoking dope, snorting coke, and getting an education complements of affirmative action.
Today, he’s nothing more than a product of an alcoholic by the name of Ted Kennedy who pushed him to the top of the democratic party to fulfill some kind of liberal pipe dream while leaving a lasting mark on his legacy apart from the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. Voter ignorance, white guilt and alienation of the conservative base finished the job by allowing this atrocity to assume a position of ‘wonder and novelty’ in the White House.
That is why I say folks need to stop hyperventilating over Obama and take him for what he is…a big fat zero. His magic show will soon be over and this country will return to its former level of greatness and a booming economy. You can bet on it.
June 24, 2015 at 12:18 AM
Sorry folks i,am the party pooper .
U.S. Financial Outlook has “Worsened Dramatically”
http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/economics/item/21078-us-financial-outlook-has-worsened-dramatically
June 24, 2015 at 3:15 PM
So, I guess you won’t be attending my 4th of July pool party and barbeque?
June 24, 2015 at 4:29 PM
I would love it to be there , but thanks , i will be not there .
June 24, 2015 at 3:58 PM
“If you go to a financial adviser and, you know, you’re in trouble … they’ll ask [you]: What do you own and what do you owe? Well, we owe a lot. It’s not just the $18 trillion; it’s the $211 trillion of unfunded mandates as well.”
So true, but that’s only half the picture. Carson says this too. It’s what you OWN and what you owe. He only addressed what ‘we’ (our illustrious federal government) owes. Sure it’s a big number, but like I said, it’s only half the picture.
You see, Joop, as a CPA, I evaluate something called ‘financial position’ as a regular part of my business. What Mr. Carson is alluding to is financial position. Simply put, it’s a basic relationship we see in most balance sheets….assets minus debt equals equity or net worth.
That being said, let’s address the offsetting value of assets in this country. Can you imagine what this number would be? If not, please allow me to help. A good start would be adding all the federally owned real estate, equipment, technology, goodwill, military, natural resources, etc etc etc. Surely such sum of vast wealth would far outweigh the debt.
That being said, the ratio of assets to debt in this country is quite well, thank you.
What must be considered is the ‘cash flow’ demands in servicing this debt. Now it gets a bit sticky. We have a federal government with an excellent financial position who prints the money, sets the interest rates, and replenishes the money supply from a non-existent bank account, at a rate upon which is only limited by the resulting inflation, which by the way, cheapens the dollar somewhat and reduces the economic demands needed to service a declining debt value.
Next up: ‘What’s in your wallet?’.
June 24, 2015 at 4:31 PM
But how do you transform all these assets into money, who would be able to buy it ?
In my wallet is not much, i,am a poor guy .
But trough my old age funds , i own a little peace of the USA.
Be careful with my investment, it is all what i have .
June 24, 2015 at 4:48 PM
LS, logic, a concept that escapes those with axes to grind.
June 24, 2015 at 11:07 PM
Hart break hotel ?