Welcome to DouglasDeBono.Com, the Cyberspace Home of author Douglas De Bono. De Bono spins his thrilling tale of intrigue and again out CLANCIES the master spinner of military thrillers, Tom Clancy. It's about time De Bono receives the recognition his brilliant writing deserves. His novels rate a FIVE STAR PLUS. --Bonnie Toews, Author Of Treason An Triumph De Bono is highly recommended, a gripping author that leaves the reader lunging from page to page in a frantic effort to keep up with the action and survive the building tension. --Midwest Book Review

A Really Bad Idea

Recently, the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council voted on an agreement to reduce their nuclear arsenals to zero. This was hailed by Secretary General Kofi Annan as a giant step toward non-proliferation of nuclear weapon and a major move towards peace.

Yeah, right.

The permanent Security Council members consist of China, Russia, England, France and the United States. Since this historic agreement, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have issued a statement to the effect that the United States can not safely reduce her arsenal below the current level of two thousand five hundred weapons in order to not compromise her ability to deliver a second strike.

United States nuclear doctrine is not based on the ability to hit first. Virtually, anybody from Pakistan to Iran to North Korea has the ability to deliver a first strike. Deterrence (the idea that you don’t want someone to drop nukes on you in the first place) is based on the concept that you have the ability to deliver a second strike. It is a policy akin the MAD doctrine of mutually assured destruction, however, with the belief that nuclear war is survivable.

Obviously, to some point nuclear war is survivable when considered in the limited and primitive context of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. When poised against the background of modern weaponry, probably not a pretty picture and not really the focus of my discussion.

Besides the issues of verification and monitoring, the other major problem with the Security Council agreement is who is not included: India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Israel, Taiwan, South Africa and probably a dozen other countries toying with the issue.

Consider India with Pakistan to the Northwest and China to the Northeast. Both are a nuclear powers and a case can be made that China assisted Pakistan in its nuclear program to keep India off balance. To top it off, America has a foreign policy that penalizes both India and Pakistan for their nuclear weapons and rewards China. Looking at the issue from India’s perspective, why would they consider reducing their nuclear stockpile to zero?

The case regarding Israel and her Arab neighbors is well known. Basically, there are millions of people who would like to see Israel disappear into the Mediterranean. Everybody knows Israel has at least fifty nuclear weapons mounted both on Jericho II missiles and F-16 fighter-bombers. It is sophistry to suggest Israel reduce her nuclear stockpile to zero. This is a case of national survival.

The last case to consider is Taiwan. Taiwan is separated from Mainland China by one hundred thirty miles—twenty-two million people facing 1.2 billion people. Red China has deployed nuclear capable DF-15 and DF-21 short-range missiles against Taiwan. Does anyone believe Taiwan does not have nukes? While it has never been officially acknowledged, certainly Beijing’s military planners have to assume the capability exists. While Taiwan probably cannot project force all the way to Beijing, there are enough targets along the mainland coast that Taiwan could inflict serious damage to the communist government. This too is a case of national survival.

I would argue that nuclear weapons have provided stability and peace between the major powers. Not because they are warm cuddly things, but because of their absolute destructive and frightening power. No nation is willing to risk annihilation (whether large or small) by first use, and similarly, no nation is willing to push a smaller state to the absolute edge and incur the destruction even one nuclear weapon could visit on their people.

There are two ways to make nuclear weapons obsolete. Eliminate the delivery mechanism or create a more terrible weapon. A bogus Security Council agreement is a bunch of feel-good words that accomplish nothing.

Douglas De Bono / DouglasDeBono.Com Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota E-Mail readermail@DouglasDeBono.Com