To nuke or not to nuke...

A continuing "peace protest" in Kitsap County, Washington, offers a fascinating contrast between those who protest for peace, and those whose work actually ensures there will be peace. The story, in the Seattle P-I, documents, in a microcosm, some of the largest issues facing the United States today in its projection of force. The knaves, fools, and the easily led protesting with signs such as shown in the photo ("I oppose invading Iraq war hurts kids") have to be given credit for bravery; they are going wildly against the grain in this area, which is home to Bangor Naval Submarine Base.

But, being passionate and brave about something that is wrong does not make these people praiseworthy. The protesters' causes appear to be that the United States should a) not hurt kids, b) not have nuclear weapons, c) not have submarines, d) not use force, ever. Oh, and there is that ever-lovin' moral equivalence garbage. In this case, one of the protesters, Brian Watson, is quoted as making this charming analogy:

The nuclear weapons aboard the boomer are "Nazi gas chambers without walls", and "In World War II, they brought people to the ovens; the Trident allows ovens to be brought to the people."

The article goes on to a more rational interview with RADM Bruce Englehardt (bio and picture), who is a Trident submarine group commander. The issue that is touched upon is the actual utility of strategic nuclear assets borne by our Trident missile submarines.

RADM Englehardt correctly deflects the question by simply noting that "[T]his ship can send a missile 4,000 miles and hit something the size of a baseball field. The war on terrorism could change the nature of the targets we have." The the Admiral also correctly noted that using the Trident as a tactical nuclear platform would require a national policy debate.

The problem, of course, is that these weapons, as now configured, are far too powerful to deal with threats such as Saddam. More accurately, they would bring unneeded death and destruction on the Iraqi people. Although, if we don't deal with Saddam, sooner or later, it may come to that. Regardless, it would be useful to again be able to project less-than-citywhacking destruction, as we used to be able to do with tactical nukes carried by fighter-bombers that can be based on land or at sea. It is certainly possible to replace the warheads now on the Trident missiles with much lower yield weapons, and perhaps this is where the debate should begin. The artificial distinction between "strategic" and "tactical" nukes, in todaty's post-bipolar world, seems important only to those who dot "i"s and cross "t"s on useless treaties in the arms control biz.

Of course, keeping those 475kt yield bad boys on station, where any location on the earth may be put at risk, will likely keep the threat to our shores down to a bare minimum...