A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics

Liberal Catholics, USCCB, want millions to die – UPDATE May 17, 2012

Liberal Catholics, and the USCCB (but I repeat myself), have signed on to a petition to demand further cuts in strategic nuclear forces (forces which have already been cut approximately 90% since 1990).  First, a flavor of the incredibly tired and tiresome 60s retread peacenik rhetoric:

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops joined about four dozen other national organizations in amassing more than 50,000 signatures on a petition asking for a change in the United States’ “outdated” nuclear arms policy.

“You must act now to reduce the nuclear danger and the role of nuclear weapons,” said the petition, addressed to President Barack Obama. [actually, fewer weapons create more instability and dramatically increase the likelihood that nuclear weapons will be used.  Whoever wrote this is an ignorant amateur, with a heavy dose of bias]

The petition urges Obama to “end outdated U.S. nuclear war-fighting strategy, dramatically reduce the number of U.S. nuclear weapons and the number of submarines, missiles and bombers that carry those weapons, and take U.S. nuclear weapons off high alert. Maintaining large numbers of nuclear forces on alert increases the risk of accident or miscalculation.” [By “high alert,” they mean “maintained so that they can be used at relatively short notice.”  Our strategic nuclear forces are not on any kind of the alert status they maintained during the Cold War]

A May 15 announcement from the groups involved said the petition was delivered to the White House May 7. Stephen Colecchi, director of the bishops’ Office of International Justice and Peace, represented the USCCB. [Why must the bishops continue to arrogate to themselves the right to interfere in the laity’s purview?  Such issues of foreign policy and defense are for the laity to decide, not bishops. This is absurd]

The United States, Kimball told Catholic News Service in a May 15 telephone interview, possesses about 1,700 strategically positioned nuclear warheads. Russia has about 1,500. Each has more strategically deployed warheads than the rest of the “nuclear club” — China, France, Great Britain, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea — has warheads of all kinds combined. [Whoever wrote this is, I am sorry to say, woefully ignorant.  Or willfully.  There is no such thing as “strategically positioned nuclear weapons.”  There are strategic nuclear forces assigned to strategic targets.  There are tactical nukes assigned to tactical targets.  Sometimes, the two force types overlap.  BTW, we are terribly ignorant of the state of China’s strategic and tactical nuclear forces.  They are likely far, far  larger than widely recognized, as their defense spending has been increasing at a 10-20% clip a year for two plus decades] 

“Just one U.S. nuclear-armed submarine can destroy several cities,” Kimball said. “We today possess 12 submarines with nuclear weapons.” [Yes, but only 3 or 4 on patrol on one time, and the warheads don’t target cities for the most part, thank God.]

Kimball said, “If our goal is to deter, one of these weapons is far larger than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” [actually, they are smaller but much more powerful] the two Japanese cities targeted by atomic weapons in World War II. He described the stockpile as “massive nuclear overkill that’s … dangerous and costly and unnecessary.” [Oh Lord, the nuclear bogeyman is going to jump out of the closet and get me!  He’s saying one nuclear weapon is enough for deterrence.  What if it doesn’t work?  What if it gets shot down?  There’s another reason why this idea is terrible, dangerous, reckless, see below]

He called for “a sense of proportionality” as Obama is due to receive soon a comprehensive study on the nation’s nuclear forces. “These decisions coming from President Obama very soon are once-in-a-decade decisions. This is President Obama’s best opportunity to change outdated thinking.” [Pray God it is his last.  In fact, Obama’s administration has already commissioned studies to limit the number of strategic nuclear warheads to 500, a dangerously low figure]

The reason for my snark and opposition is two-fold – one, this really is an area reserved to the laity – the bishops can state they feel nuclear weapons are immoral, whatever, but setting policy in matters of defense is up to the laity, not the bishops.  Once again, the bishops undermine their own authority on the matters that are rightly their responsibility by feeling compelled to have a public opinion about everything.

Secondly, this recommendation is actually very dangerous, and will lead to many more millions dying in a nuclear exchange should, God forbid, such ever occur.  At this point, you think I’m insane.  How will cutting nuclear forces lead to more dying?   I’ll try to explain it briefly.

There are two basic types of targeting for strategic nuclear forces – counterforce, and countervalue.  Counterforce has always been the policy of the US, and is a targeting strategy aimed at destroying the opponent nation’s warfighting capabilities.  That is to say, his airfields, missile silos, naval bases, etc.  Many of these targets are out in the middle of nowhere (esp. missile silos), but some aren’t.  A pretty good number are in large population centers.  Thus, many millions will die in an all out exchange.

Countervalue, however, is a terror policy that targets the population centers indiscriminately.  It seeks to kill as many of the opponent’s population as possible.

Even though in an all out counterforce exchange millions would die, it’s many millions less than in a countervalue attack.  Tens of millions fewer for a country like Russia.

Now, counterforce strategy requires a large, diverse force, a force that is both large enough to take out all, or a very large percentage of, targets, and also secure enough to function under an all out attack.   Countervalue forces can actually be smaller.  You don’t need more than a few to several hundred warheads to devastate an opponents 100 largest cities.

No one is going to let the number of warheads drop below about 500.  That was the lowest figure looked at in the RAND study commissioned by Obama last year.  The bishops and their allies can dream THC laden dreams all day about a “nuclear free world,” but it’s never going to happen.  After all, you can hug children with nuclear arms.

The problem with the 500 figure is that it pushes the US, Russia, and anyone else dumb enough to cut their force levels that low into a countervalue strategy.  There won’t be enough warheads or launch vehicles to allow a countervalue targeting strategy to be used.  You’re pretty much forced into countervalue.  An even more concerning problem is that as the number of warheads drops, the more valuable and vulnerable each becomes, and one becomes forced into “use it or lose it” situations that much more easily.  Very small forces are patently insecure, which is why most countries who develop arsenals build up at least several hundred devices, if not alot more.  What all this means is that millions more will die, if the balloon ever goes up and we all have the worst day of our lives.

But, we have a total amateur, an ignoramus, and a far left ideologue in the White House, so I fully expect the number of warheads to be cut to that ridiculous level, even unilaterally.   And the world will be just that  much more dangerous, thanks to the irrational fears of those who never grew out of their childhood terror of these truly awful weapons.

 Reducing forces to the level the USCCB desires (a handful) will actually make nuclear war more likely, as an adversary not quite so endeared of peace and justice just might wager that a US with only 5 nukes of questionable quality and security would knuckle under to the threat of losing, say, New York City.  Or, would do whatever they want after losing NYC. 

In case any USCCB types are reading, don’t watch the videos below, it’s liable to give  you nightmares for weeks.  I think they are great (except for the horrible scores).  In the first video, from about 40 sec – 1 minute is what the end of the world looks like.  If you ever see it, prostrate yourself and confess!

My best friend was a missile launch officer, crew commander, and instructor at Minot AFB. He routinely had 50 megatons of instant sunrise under his command.  He’s also a devout evangelical Christian.  He was prepared to do his duty.

UPDATE: Obviously, the title was a bit tongue in cheek. I should add an important qualifier: I would be fine with the USCCB’s position if they, at the same time, advocated for an extremely thorough strategic missile and air defense system.  Unfortunately, the latter is far more expensive than the cost of maintaining a minimal deterrent of around 1700 warheads.  But if you want to lower your offensive forces, it must correspond with a concommitant increase in strategic defenses.   China has not been party to any of the arms control agreements between the US and Russia.