>>Valley Patriot>>

Is it Time to End the Prohibition Against
Preemptive Nuclear Strikes?
Dr. Charles Ormsby
(08/03/07)

Foreign policy, diplomacy and war are not games. However, game theory is often used to analyze alternative strategies. One difference between most games and the conflicts between nations is that if you lose a game you typically shake hands, re-set the score to zero and play again. If you lose a war, you might not get to play again for a very long time. If you want to preserve your freedoms and way of life, losing is not an option.

The U.S. has little to fear from enemies armed with conventional weapons, especially those consisting of traditional, state-sponsored armed forces. None of us worry about an invasion by Iran, North Korea, Syria or Venezuela.

Conventionally-armed terrorists present a somewhat different challenge and a substantially different response is required. Even if terrorist attacks in the U.S. become commonplace, as unpleasant a prospect as that may be, we will find ways to deal with them. Eventually we will get upset enough to retaliate against their “secret” state sponsors (shhh … Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia) and extract a penalty great enough to diminish the threat. The U.S. might even start to take border security seriously.

Compare our current situation in the War On Terror to a game. If the game is restricted to conventional weapons (e.g., bullets, shells, tanks, IEDs, car bombs, chemical explosives), we are currently in a dominant position and early enough in the game to counter any innovative moves by the opposition. If, however, our enemies introduce non-conventional weapons, our margin of safety will be dramatically reduced and, for the first time, losing may become a distinct possibility.

The leading Western powers have not adopted an official policy of “no first use” of nuclear weapons. Historically, this was because the U.S., the U.K., and France were concerned about being overwhelmed by Warsaw Pact conventional forces in Europe. More recently, Israel has shared a similar concern regarding being overrun by a coordinated conventional attack by Arab armies and thus has retained the option of first use. In both cases, the “first use” option was intended to be used in desperation just prior to being engulfed, not used preemptively.

“First use,” as a preemptive strategy, has for all practical purposes been ruled out – if not officially, at least in the minds of the general public and backed by a press establishment ready to lambaste anyone who considers or suggests a preemptive nuclear strike. The presumption that such a strike is unthinkable and immoral runs so deeply that there is no public discussion of whether a blanket prohibition is in our best interest. In fact, a strict prohibition against preemptive use of nuclear weapons may very well be the gateway to victory for our enemies.

When it comes to anything nuclear, the public seems only capable of seeing black or white. Propose building a nuclear power plant – the safest, most efficient and environmentally friendliest energy source ever devised by man – and millions of Chicken Littles flood the streets and media outlets telling us that the sky is falling. Suggest irradiating foods so that normally perishable food will have nearly unlimited shelf life without refrigeration, and scientifically illiterate scaremongers will emerge from the woodwork like termites at a sawmill.

So it is not surprising that when it comes to discussing what might be the most critical issue of our time – nuclear weapons – a rational discussion is much more difficult. But here goes …

First, we should recognize that the de facto prohibition of a nuclear first strike has unintended consequences. Rogue states that are developing nuclear weapons dig very deep and highly re-enforced underground bunkers to house critical development facilities. Thus, their nuclear capabilities are safe even from highly sophisticated earth-penetrating conventional weapons. Not only do multiple layers of re-enforced concrete protect these facilities, our lack of knowledge of their designs makes the likelihood of a successful conventional strike extremely remote.

If we can’t destroy these facilities with a conventional air strike, we are left with only three other non-nuclear options. One option is to impose an effective economic embargo, possibly enforced via a naval blockade. The potential effectiveness and timeliness of this approach is debatable.

With Iran this option might lead to a toppling of the current regime since the general population seems to have some capacity for applying political pressure. Unfortunately, Iran’s nuclear program may already be too far along to be stopped before such a strategy can bear fruit.

In the case of North Korea the population is already so poor and the government so oppressive that it is not clear what difference further economic pressure will make. Its nuclear program is also at or beyond the point of producing nuclear weapons, so the window of opportunity for applying economic pressures may have past.

Another non-nuclear option is a policy of pro-active and rapid regime change. It is too late to develop internal resistance forces through covert aid and it seems highly unlikely that existing resistance groups in either country are sufficiently mature to be effective. Even if they were, would the regimes that emerged complete the on-going nuclear development programs anyway?

Therefore, externally imposed regime change via surgical political strikes, e.g., conventional attacks on their political hierarchies using air strikes and special forces, may be the only possibility for successfully executing this option.

Finally, we could consider a full-scale conventional attack, as was employed in Iraq, to overturn these regimes and avoid them becoming nuclear threats. The financial costs, loss of American lives, and post-war occupation/reconstruction issues resulting from this option would be substantial. Using this option simultaneously for both Iran and North Korea would present monumental costs and may be beyond the capabilities of our current armed forces.

So, what about the nuclear option? The horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki immediately come to mind when considering a nuclear attack. A similar attack on population centers, under current circumstances, would be unnecessary and immoral.

The option that must be considered is the use of nuclear weapons designed specifically to take out Iran’s and North Korea’s underground nuclear facilities. Any nuclear-related industrial complex vulnerable to precision conventional weapons should be attacked conventionally, but facilities specifically designed to be immune to conventional attack should be taken out with earth-penetrating nuclear munitions.

This option is clearly moral because it dramatically reduces the potential loss of innocent lives in future conflicts – not only in these rogue countries, but also in New York, Boston and other American cities. The attack would have little impact on the civilian populations of Iran or North Korea. Only workers in the targeted underground facilities would be killed. If the nuclear warheads and their penetration profiles were properly designed, radiation would be largely contained within underground caverns and would not significantly affect the civilian population.

A side benefit of such an attack, in addition to eliminating the immediate threat, would be that rogue regimes would know that building elaborate underground bunkers would not protect such development efforts in the future. In effect, by using this remedy once, it would not be needed in the future.

Whether one of the conventional strategies enumerated above can be effective requires access to classified intelligence data that is not available to the general public. We all hope that the use of nuclear weapons as described here will be unnecessary. That being said, we should be fearful that our leaders, so intimidated by the forces of political correctness and without the intestinal fortitude of past leaders such as the Roosevelts, Truman, and Reagan, will rule out the only strategy that will protect our freedoms, our lives and our country’s future.

Avoiding “thinking about the unthinkable” may be a fatal error. If we wake up some morning with many of our major cities in ruins, we’ll know we ran out of courage at a particularly inopportune time.  

Dr. Ormsby is a member of the N. Andover School Committee. He’s a graduate of Cornell and has a doctorate from MIT. You can contact Dr. Ormsby via email: ccormsby@comcast.net

 *Send your questions comments to ValleyPatriot@aol.com
The August 2007 Edition of the Valley Patriot
The Valley Patriot is a Monthly Publication.
All Contents (C) 2007, Valley Patriot, Inc.
We publish 15,000 newspapers and distribute in Andover, North Andover,
Methuen, Haverhill, Chelmsford, Georgetown, Groveland, Boxford, Amesbury, Newburyport
Lawrence, Dracut, Tewksbury, Merrimack, Newburyport, Westford, Acton, and Lowell.
Hampton & Salisbury Beach, (summers only)

Valley Patriot Archive

Valley Patriot Story
ARCHIVES

Prior Lead Stories

Prior Valley Patriot Editorials

Prior Columns by ...

Tom Duggan
Dr. Chuck Ormsby
Paula Porten
Ralph Wilbur
Hanna
Ted Tripp

Valley Patriot of the Month

Griselsilva.com

Patrick Blanchette
D.J. Beauregard
Jim Cassidy
D.J. Deeb
Marcos Devers
Bob Desmarais
Regina Faticanti
Jim Fiorentini
Bill Kelly
Wilfredo Laboy
Peter Larocque
Vilma Lora
Ed Maguire
Billy Manzi
Paul Murano
Mark Palermo
Hartley Pleshaw
Debbie Quinn
Raise Em Right
Dr. Peary
Kathleen Corey Rahme
Barney Reilly
Angel Rivera
Jim Rurak
Grisel Silva
Mike Sullivan
Sandra Stotsky
Mike Sweeney
Ken Willette
Scott Wood
Jim Xenakis