Dissolution of the Air Force -- A Nuclear Non-Proliferation Doctrine

In a brief blog at The American Prospect called "Abolish the Air Force," Robert Farley, a 33-year old assistant professor at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce at the University of Kentucky has taken up a cause that has become rather familiar. This was noted with much consternation by Military.Com and elsewhere. In response to invitations to comment, including Dr. Farley’s, I respectfully submit these thoughts.

The fundamental mission of the USAF has always been strategic bombing. That capability was the province of SAC, the once prestigious Strategic Air Command. Other combat commands of the Cold War era, such as TAC and ADC were, more or less, “mission impaired,” having no realistic or urgent imperative.

SAC played a major, perhaps even pivotal, role in bringing the Cold War to an end, as our primary means of implementing a strategy of “Mutually Assured Destruction,” aptly also referred to as "MAD." ICBM’s fitted with nuclear warheads were awesome and intimidating, however up to the end of the Cold War we still relied on SAC’s B-32 bombers. Although not very well known, during those years the United States kept an armada of B-52’s in the air 24-hours a day, each of which carried two nuclear weapons and sealed war orders with Soviet target designations. This presented a sobering reality to anyone watching a radar screen on the other side of the Iron Curtain. A preemptive first strike strategy was clearly out of the question. Happily, a nuclear exchange never happened.

The effectiveness of this program, variously code-named "Steel Trap,” “Chrome Dome,” etc., was demonstrated during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The airborne B-52 armada was much multiplied to back up the newly articulated “Kennedy Doctrine,” which effectively neutered any threat of missiles in Cuba, turning that Soviet initiative into a complete waste of time and money.

The efficacy of MAD was therefore tested and proven during the Cold War. It accomplished what it was supposed to; obviating the use of nuclear weapons.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, the Cold War abruptly ended and SAC’s forty-year mission was accomplished. There was much euphoria and magical thinking about ridding the world of nuclear weapons, and a year later the command was dissolved. Now, sixteen years later, it seems obvious that the world will never beat its nuclear swords into plowshares. Much as we fussed about North Korea, that tinhorn regime still went ahead and evidently now has a nuclear military capability. The target of our tantrums is now Iran. However, it is unlikely that Iran can be deterred or legitimately prevented from joining the nuclear club so long as Israel, Pakistan and other nearby neighbors are permitted to maintain an offensive nuclear capability.

The present realities are these: (1) Iran cannot be prevented from going nuclear, and will probably soon have a nuclear military capability, (2) a terrorist organization with money and connections will eventually get their hands on a nuclear device, with aims of using it for its own radical and misguided purposes, and (3) so long as all we want to do is throw tantrums, there will continue to be a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the new owners of these worrisome devices will be increasingly less principled, trustworthy, and politically sophisticated. In these circumstances, are we so sure it is time to think about permanently relegating the U.S. Air Force and the MAD strategy to history? I suggest just the opposite.

I suggest it is time for the United States of America to enunciate a new doctrine, declaring that a nuclear attack on anyone, anywhere in the world, will most assuredly result, without exception, in the total destruction of the regime in the country from which it was carried out, inevitably accompanied by collateral destruction in their country at least the equal of that resulting from their attack on someone else. This would make the possession of nuclear weapons by legitimate governments irrelevant by reducing their offensive, defensive and political worth to zero.

It would also greatly reduce the threat of such devices coming into the hands of terrorists, since governments surreptitiously or passively hosting or accommodating terrorist movements would become liable for terrorist missions planned, or carried out from, within their borders. Governments otherwise willing to host or accommodate terrorist movements would clearly have to conclude that the risk of terrorists obtaining and using a nuclear device were much too great, and would be moved to prevent that from ever happening. Moreover, the most expedient way to avoid that risk would be to prevent such groups from operating within one’s borders at all.

Some might then ask, “Who designated the United States as the world’s policeman, and the only nation permitted to maintain nuclear weapons.” I believe this role could be justified in two ways.

Just before his death, Dr. Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, was prompted to leave a better legacy by a French newspaper article describing him as “the merchant of death … who became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before.” He quickly revised his will, giving the bulk of his estate to establish the Nobel Prizes – awards given to “those who … shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind.” In a like manner, the United States of America, the inventor of the atomic bomb – the world’s first “weapon of mass destruction” – is behooved and rightly obligated to take upon itself the responsibility of preventing its further use.

Secondly, in spite of our recent departures from these values and virtues, the United States of America is still seen as the closest man has come so far to the establishment of “liberty, and justice for all.” All people, everywhere, have a right to liberty, peace and prosperity, and freedom from the threat of death and destruction of war. It is right for the United States of America to continue championing this truth, that this hope may endure in the hearts of even the most tyrannized and oppressed.

While visiting Offutt Air Force Base several years ago, the former headquarters of the Strategic Air Command, I noticed several people wearing caps and tee shirts bearing the slogan, “SAC Will Be Back.” That was cute and nostalgic, but might also have been prophetic. Whether implemented by manned aircraft, long range missiles or from orbiting satellites, a SAC-like entity would be needed to support the doctrine suggested above. Because of its unique mission and awful responsibility, and the need for world trust, this entity should not be an integral part of our regular combat military – the Army, Navy or Marine Corps – but rather, a separate service with a unique and highly specific mission. This was essentially the description the Air Force’s Strategic Air Command at the end of the Cold War.

The day might come when economic disparities and philosophical differences dissolve, leading the world into an era of cooperation and lasting peace. That situation is nowhere within the future anyone now living can realistically anticipate. I therefore suggest that the legitimate interests of world peace and self-protection will inevitably engender the eventual adoption of a nuclear non-proliferation doctrine such as described above, and when that happens we will already have the means of implementing it, provided that the Air Force is maintained as a separate service.

Talk about its dissolution at this time is therefore premature and ill advised.

-=glw=-

More Idiocracy - Michigan to Ban Pier Jumping?

Michigan has lots of lakes, rivers and streams for people to enjoy on hot summer days. Anyone who was ever a kid understands why kids like to jump off things into the water. Here in Grand Haven, kids have been "cannonballing" into Lake Michigan off the local pier probably ever since the pier was built. But a bill recently passed in Michigan's Senate would make such jumps illegal, at least from public piers and structures along the Great Lakes and connecting waters.

Senate Bill 629, which supposedly arose as a result of meetings among officials in communities along Lake Michigan in the wake of recent drownings, would "prohibit a person from jumping, diving, or swimming from a pier, jetty, breakwater or other similar structure, or a buoy or other navigational device, that was located in the Great Lakes or their connecting waters." The bill passed the Senate on October 17, 2007 by a 35-2 vote, and was then sent to the House. If it becomes law, those jumps and dives will be punished by a fine of as much as $500.

Here is a hot flash for Lansing - Michigan has some big problems, and this is not one of them. Have you checked the unemployment figures lately? Have you driven on our rickety roads and streets lately? How about the drop-out rates from our crummy schools? Have you given any thought to the opportunities available for our maturing children, or how they'll be able to make ends meet when married with children?

I'm tired of our lazy-minded Legislature passing lame, unnecessary laws. How did you find time to debate this issue in the midst of your "budget crisis"? The Senate's vote, 35-2, is a clear indication of how much thought anyone put into this before deciding the issue. Moreover, who is doing the deciding anyway? Does anyone in the Senate have any idea what "pier jumping" really is? Have any of you ever done that, or even been out on a pier to watch what's going on?

I have. I have lived on the lakeshore all my life (67 years). Pier jumping is great fun and a wholesome activity for kids, who usually appear to be in the twelve to sixteen year age range. I suppose it happens, but I have never heard on anyone being injured or drowning while doing that. On the other hand, people do drown off the pier, but they're usually older, and either fall off or are washed over the edge in bad weather.

As for kids drowning, we loose an average of one kid a month during the summer season, usually a ten to fourteen-year-old boy from the interior or from out of state, at our bathing beaches. I don't suppose Grand Haven is unique in that respect, so given all the beaches around the state, that's a lot of dead boys and sad families. I would guess that is a much more significant problem. So why not pass a law forbidding swimming and bathing off publicly owned beaches?

Better yet, how about just passing a law against drowning. That would cover the whole gamut. It would also be typical of the depth of thinking that we have come to expect out of Lansing.

Lansing needs to understand that government does not need to address every piddling little problem found in society. You are there to work on the big problems. I suspect that the delving into these piddling little issues is really just a form of escapism practiced by a legislature that is not capable of addressing big problems effectively.

Thoughts on “Foreign Aid” and “Mission”

(Note: this was written in response to a note from a pen pal in India.)


Your interest in promoting assistance for your compatriots from foreign sources brought a couple of issued to mind.

When I was a young schoolboy, we used to receive a little publication called the Weekly Reader It was designed to promote an interest in reading, and to help develop reading skills. Among other features, it included articles about current events, and one title that has always stuck in my mind was Trade – Not Aid. This was in the early 1950’s, and the point being made in the article was that people in countries who were receiving “foreign aid,” which was a political issue here at the time, did not want handouts. They wanted assistance in rebuilding their infrastructures and economies so that they would be able to support themselves and determine their own destinies.

Today, the U.S. Government spends a lot of money on various aid programs, although much less than the post WW-II/Cold War era, and what is distributed amounts to just a miniscule fraction of our government’s annual budget. Unfortunately, the largest portion of that aid involves military assistance and the fostering of political self-interest – money spent to buy and retain friends, in other words. The largest benefactor is always Israel (currently excepting Iraq). India is no longer on the list of leading aid recipients.

Mainline Christian denominations are big on “mission,” which is their euphemism for charity. A lot of money is collected and distributed to causes at home, and around the world. Perhaps nobody knows exactly how much. I was unable to find a figure, but I estimate it is somewhere in the area of $800-million (estimated by multiplying total Presbyterian spending by the ratio of PCUSA membership to total mainline church membership). This amounts to only about $6.75 per member. Unfortunately, much of that is wasted on projects that are ineffective, inefficient, or inappropriate. In the case of the Presbyterian church, upwards of 75% of the money is spent on personnel, support and administrative costs – almost exactly the opposite of what is ordinarily considered to be an acceptable program spending ratio by most charitable organizations.

I was brought up in a protestant Christian tradition, in the Presbyterian Church. Like any other religion, Christianity has its moderates and its zealots. Presbyterians have traditionally been on the moderate end of the spectrum, emphasizing mission (good works and charity) and education as an appropriate way of carrying on the work begun by Jesus Christ. Christ’s agenda was to bring hope for a better life, now and in the hereafter, to common people, and He worked to that end in his time by teaching and healing. Hence, Presbyterians have gone out into the world to build schools and hospitals, rather than to preach and proselytize.

Mission is legitimate and effective when it helps people become capable of helping themselves. Otherwise it is often just an easy give-away which permits the more fortunate to justify their affluence without getting their hands dirty, while the rest of the world continues to suffer. Mission done right is not simple or easy. Ineffective and inappropriate projects therefore often result, with the well-intentioned, but misguided rushing in with temporary assistance of some kind, which does nothing to solve systemic problems. Eventually the recipients are left in the same poor condition, while the givers walk away feeling good about themselves.

Several years ago the World Council of Churches got into trouble for providing aid (money, food, and medical supplies) to people in Africa who turned out to be murderous rebels. That is an (admittedly extreme) example of "feel good" mission that has no good result.

A more typical example of wasting mission resources is the annual trip to Mexico that involves teenagers from our local church. Traveling across the country to a small village in Mexico, they reopen and repair a small derelict church building while befriending the local Mexican youth. For the Mexican kids, this has evidently turned into a festival of sorts; a time when they expect the gringos and gringas from America to show up to host parties, play games and pass out gifts. The price they pay is having to listen to American kids witness and preach. The reality is that Mexico is predominately catholic with a much stronger family oriented culture than ours, so Mexican youth could probably better be teaching the American kids about things that matter. After the American’s leave, the Mexican’s close up the building, permitting it to fall into a state of neglect again in preparation for next year’s event, and life in their little village returns to normal. Our kids come back home clucking to the congregation about all the wonderful things that happened in Mexico, while the congregation pats itself on the back for yet another contribution to mission. As a cultural exchange or encounter, this activity probably has merit, and it should probably be billed as such, rather than thought of as a mission project.

On the other hand, our local church helps support a man who felt he was called to go to Haiti to help the poor. His first project was to teach rural peasants how to build simple concrete water filters. That cost very little, and had a big impact upon disease. More recently he came up with a program where a $40 donation enables a peasant boy to establish his own small plantation, which will provide enough income over the years to pay for twelve years of schooling. This may not be a big deal in a global sense, but it is a big deal to the people of this small mountain region in Haiti. This man paid a significant personal price for the privilege of helping others. He devoted his own money and material to what began as his personal project. He gave up all the opportunities he would have had in his own country. He gave up the safety and security of his American home to take up his work in a risky, politically unsettled and relatively lawless place. He contracted a chronic form malaria, which evidently never really goes away. On the plus side, he also eventually met, fell in love with and married a fine Haitian woman.

Our church is small; only about 1200 members, all of whom are fortunate enough to have $40 to contribute to mission. If each small affluent group were to support a similarly small but effective mission, the world would soon become a better place for many.

***

As a footnote, I hasten to add this:

I am not trying to promote Christianity or the Presbyterian Church. I am not a student of religion, but am intelligent enough to understand that all religions have good and bad aspects, and that we are what we are mainly by virtue of the culture we are born into. My ancestors came to America as immigrants from Norway and Germany, and were therefore of the Christian tradition. Not surprisingly, our family was originally part of the German Evangelical Lutheran persuasion. My father was in the U.S. Coast Guard, a military service. After World War II, he was reassigned to a life saving station in Grand Haven, a small town on Lake Michigan that was originally founded by a Presbyterian missionary. As has been the Presbyterian tradition, the missionary quickly built a one-room schoolhouse, recruiting his sister-in-law as the volunteer teacher. In this town therefore, the Presbyterian Church was understandably prominent, and that is how we happened to become involved with that particular church.

We remain Presbyterians mainly because:

The denomination is liberal enough to recognize the equal legitimacy of other denominations and other faiths. That is unusual, most other traditions think that they must believe in the exclusive validity of whatever it is that they believe, and must therefore believe that everyone else is wrong. Today we are rediscovering scientifically and philosophically what wise people of old easily knew as a matter of common sense - that human minds are imperfect and our thinking on any subject is therefore fallible. Zealotry in any matter is therefore the mark of an ignorant person. Presbyterian doctrine is the only one I know of among the god-fearing faiths that acknowledges this fact of life. The alternative, which is to claim infallibility and insist that everyone else accept whatever such zealots claim to be "the truth" has a long history of destructiveness.

The other reason we are Presbyterian is that the denomination is governed democratically, rather than by a hierarchy of ordained clergy. Governing bodies include both lay members and ministers. A Book of Order, which is essentially a constitution, guarantees the rights of individuals, thereby limiting the power of any other individuals or factions, and assuring everyone of fair treatment, and a voice in the affairs of the church.

-=glw=-

"ADS" - The Obscure Cost of Urban Decay

I was in Warrensburg, Missouri a couple of weeks ago. Warrensburg is a small town of about 16,000. The town never had much of a history. It grew up on the frontier around Martin Warren's blacksmith shop, and eventually became the county seat.

Warrensburg was put on the map, as it were, during the latter part of the 19th century, when the newly formed Pacific Railroad replaced steamboats on the Missouri River as the carrier of choice for passengers and freight between St Louis and Kansas City. The rails through Warrensburg are still heavily trafficked, with several Amtrak and Union Pacific trains passing through town daily. A county normal teacher's training school evolved into today's Central Missouri State University (Dale Carnegie's alma mater). During World War II, Sedalia Army Airfield was established south of nearby Knob Noster ("Our Hills") and that became today's Whiteman Air Force Base, the home of a B-2 bomb wing, and one of the Air Force's larger installations.

Warrensburg is typical of many other small towns. It has some nice neighborhoods, and too many used-to-be-nice neighborhoods. The latter are a little more plentiful and unkempt than usual. I suspect that is because Warrensburg, the temporary home of lots of college students and Air Force personnel, has more than the usual numbers of residents who consider themselves non-residents. Like too many other small towns, Warrensburg also has lots of downtown storefronts and other commercial property that has obviously outlived its usefulness. Also present is the usual unsightly and slapdash distribution of bank branches, fast food joints and strip malls along all the main thoroughfares.

Hastings is a popular local seller of books, videos, music and games in Warrensburg. Their clientele is therefore youthful; teens to twenty-somethings. While sitting outside the store and people-watching as my wife and youngest daughter shopped inside, my observation was that the people coming and going matched the qualities of the town in general appearance. Except for two or three individuals in Air Force uniforms, I cannot remember seeing anyone who could be described as attractive and well dressed. On the whole, people seemed apt to be overweight, poorly groomed, and/or tastelessly dressed. Many were equally tasteless in behavior. I have gotten used to tattoos and piercing, although I still find those styles tacky, and the mark of the neurotic. However, I doubt I will ever see public nose picking, spitting, and "package adjustment" as kewl. I'm certainly no prude, but I am old enough (or should I say, mature enough) to find it objectionable when men utter the F-word ("fug-itit") in conversations loud enough to be overheard in a public setting, or when women utter even less vulgar expletives, such as the S-word (i.e., "she-it".)

In fairness, I must hasten to say this is not an indictment of Warrensburg, Missouri. I could have been people watching at a similar venue in my own hometown, or almost any other town. The only exceptions seem to be downtown office districts in larger cities. In those zones, the people on the street are apt to be professionals, or para-professional workers, who are obligated to pay attention to their personal appearance and demeanor. Being well groomed and dressing in the attire of a business executive seems to upgrade behavior in a way that is probably both unconscious and unintentional.

With that in mind, here's why I'm writing about this - I'm wondering about the relationship between our physical surroundings and our self-esteem. How much does living amongst crummy surroundings influence our personal perceptions about ourselves? Which comes first, the urban decay, or the crappy attitudes?

America is suffering from epidemic neuroticism. That manifests itself in lots of different ways, all anti-social and self-defeating; personality problems, divorce, delinquency, drug and alcohol abuse, crime, terrorism, war, and more. These things are much studied, written about and discussed. All sorts of solutions and fixes are proposed, but they all ultimately fail, because they attempt to eliminate the superficial symptoms, rather than the cure underlying disease.

Neuroticism results from low self-esteem. Therefore, by common sense we can easily and safely postulate that the most common and costly disease in America today is low self-esteem. That probably sounds too simplistic for most people to embrace. People seem to prefer being diagnosed with something that sounds more mysterious or sinister, and do not like to be referred to as neurotic ("nut cases"), I am going to coin a new name for this condition. I will refer to it as ADS, meaning, "Acquired Disesteem Syndrome."

Ohmigod! Millions of our fellow Americans are afflicted with ADS! Whatever can we do to stop this terrible scourge?

When it comes to urban decay, the "one bad apple" adage often applies. However, the reverse also works. When just one neighbor cleans up and fixes up, it makes everyone feel just a little bit better about where they live, and that good feeling is very often what instigates a contagion. Without any government or community action, master plan, or any other sort of "big deal," things slowly but surely get better.

ADS is certainly a more malignant and insidious threat to our nation than drugs or terrorism. We Americans apparently love wars. Whenever there is a problem, we like to declare war on it. Let us start one we can win for a change - a "War On ADS."

We can start this new war without firing a shot or spending a penny. Clean up your room. Mow the grass. Pick up the junk. You'll feel better about yourself. Spend a little money an move on to fix up and paint projects. The neighbors will soon get on board, then the whole town. Everyone will begin feeling better as they drive around town and see things looking up. With a little money and volunteer help, you can do bigger things corporately - perhaps launching a "Habitat for Humanity In Reverse" program, removing junk and derelict structures from property that can be cleared and perhaps someday repurposed, but which in the meanwhile can abide as clean, open space. Pride might happen!

Look around the place you live. Will you say, "Oh, what's the use; this neighborhood (or town) is the pits! My neighbors are all pigs. To hell with it. I'll soon be moving on to greener pastures; then they can have this dump."

Maybe you will be moving on someday; and maybe you won't. One way to help ensure that your future will be brighter in any case is to do something to improve your self-esteem right now.

You got it. Get your rear end off that couch and get out there.

-=glw=-