Nuclear Strategy: The War on Expertise

by Peter Vincent Pry
June 13, 2022 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18611/nuclear-strategy-expertise

Prager and Kaptanoglu apparently think the "U.S. defense establishment" is less qualified than "Those who promote arms control and disarmament," like themselves.
So the philosophy of "a little child shall lead them" is prescribed for the field of nuclear strategy, just as the views of Greta Thunberg are supposed to silence the many scientists who doubt that "climate change" is an existential threat. We live in a time when the "Wokists" are at war with any expertise that contradicts their agenda, a time of unthinking egalitarianism when all opinions are supposed to matter equally (providing they are "Woke") — and the West may die from it.
College physicists, political scientists, physicians, pediatricians, and their impassioned students who comprise much of the anti-nuclear movement typically have little or no expertise in nuclear weapons and strategy. Yet Prager and Kaptanoglu would substitute their uninformed opinions for those of national security experts who have spent professional lifetimes studying nuclear weapons, theories of nuclear conflict, nuclear exchange modeling analysis, and other disciplines related to nuclear war.
Academics and anti-nuclear activists have only themselves to blame if they are largely ignored by the national security community, because they so often falsely accuse the national security community of bad faith, conspiracies, corruption, and irrationality for disagreeing with them.
Anti-nuclear activists, if they want to be taken seriously, have an obligation to educate themselves on the facts, and to stop exaggerating and stop lying. Examples of five whoppers, and not necessarily the worst ones, that often appear in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists...
The greatest existential threat is nuclear war. An example of one way to reduce the threat of nuclear war: The US should stop Iran from achieving nuclear breakout before it is too late. The US has the capability; the administration might ask the Pentagon to draw up a plan. President Joe Biden's poll numbers would turn around overnight. The world does not need Iran, the country that Secretary of State Antony Blinken referred to as the "largest state sponsor of state terrorism," possessing nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, thanks to Biden, anti-nuclear activists already have an outsized and unwarranted influence on national security policy that threatens to undermine the credibility of U.S. nuclear deterrence, and ironically make nuclear war even more likely.

Anti-nuclear activists, if they want to be taken seriously, have an obligation to educate themselves on the facts, and to stop exaggerating and stop lying. Activists with degrees in physics, political science or pediatrics -- often misrepresented by the press and by themselves as genuine experts on nuclear weapons and warfare -- get far more ink than real experts, and have entire journals, like the misnamed "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" (most contributors are not "atomic scientists") dedicated to their anti-nuclear views. (Photo by Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)

The book Guide To Nuclear Deterrence in the Age of Great Power Competition, edited by Adam Lowther, belongs on the shelves of every policymaker and citizen who wants to be well informed about U.S. nuclear strategy and deterrence; rising nuclear threats from Russia and China; and what the U.S. must do to survive. The book includes chapters from 22 national security experts, many of whom served in senior Defense Department positions, and made significant contributions to deterring a nuclear World War III and ultimate victory in the Cold War.

Lowther himself serves in the Army Management Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, which teaches military officers how to think strategically.

But perhaps what most highly commends Lowther's book is the angst and hysterical criticisms it has elicited from anti-nuclear activists. A recent "great debate" over the book captures in microcosm profound differences between real experts on nuclear weapons, strategy, and national security policy versus anti-nuclear activists who have no expertise — but are an important part of the Democrat political base, and highly influential in the Biden Administration.

Critics Stewart Prager, who teaches astrophysical sciences at Princeton University, and Alan Kaptanoglu, a physicist at the University of Washington, denounced Lowther's book in an article titled "Rebuttal: Current nuclear weapons policy not safe or sane," published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Prager and Kaptanoglu ask: "Who is qualified to participate in the debate over U.S. nuclear weapons policy?" As evidenced in the dismissive title of their article, Prager and Kaptanoglu apparently think the "U.S. defense establishment" is less qualified than "Those who promote arms control and disarmament," like themselves.

So the philosophy of "a little child shall lead them" is prescribed for the field of nuclear strategy, just as the views of Greta Thunberg are supposed to silence the many scientists who doubt that "climate change" is an existential threat. We live in a time when the "Wokists" are at war with any expertise that contradicts their agenda, a time of unthinking egalitarianism when all opinions are supposed to matter equally (providing they are "Woke") — and the West may die from it.

College physicists, political scientists, physicians, pediatricians, and their impassioned students who comprise much of the anti-nuclear movement typically have little or no expertise in nuclear weapons and strategy. Yet Prager and Kaptanoglu would substitute their uninformed opinions for those of national security experts who have spent professional lifetimes studying nuclear weapons, theories of nuclear conflict, nuclear exchange modeling analysis, and other disciplines related to nuclear war.

They accuse Lowther of wanting to establish a "priesthood" of nuclear specialists that excludes the opinions of anti-nuclear activists — when it is anti-nuclear activism that is a fanatical quasi-religious movement that dismisses 75 years of the Defense Department's successful nuclear deterrence policy as: "not safe or sane."

Anti-nuclear activists are entitled to their opinions, enjoy free speech under the First Amendment, and their views are, if anything, over-represented relative to the opinions of the general population in newspapers, journals, and books. Anti-nuclear lobbies — including Ploughshares, Union of Concerned Scientists, Federation of American Scientists, Global Zero, Carnegie Foundation, Nuclear Threat Initiative and many others — significantly outnumber organizations such as the Heritage Foundation or the Center for Security Policy, who support nuclear "peace through strength." Activists with degrees in physics, political science or pediatrics -- often misrepresented by the press and by themselves as genuine experts on nuclear weapons and warfare -- get far more ink than real experts, and have entire journals, like the misnamed "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" (most contributors are not "atomic scientists") dedicated to their anti-nuclear views.

Expertise in nuclear weapons and strategy really does matter, however, just as much or even more than expertise in brain surgery matters, and real experts are under no obligation to listen to the erroneous opinions of non-experts, any more than a brain surgeon is obligated to heed technical advice on brain surgery from his mailman.

Academics and anti-nuclear activists have only themselves to blame if they are largely ignored by the national security community, because they so often falsely accuse the national security community of bad faith, conspiracies, corruption, and irrationality for disagreeing with them.

Anti-nuclear activists, if they want to be taken seriously, have an obligation to educate themselves on the facts, and to stop exaggerating and stop lying. Examples of five whoppers, and not necessarily the worst ones, that often appear in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:

Allegedly, U.S. arms racing is making Russia and China build-up their nuclear arsenals. In fact, U.S. arms control initiatives have reduced the number of U.S. nuclear weapons by 90%, leaving the U.S. with nuclear weapons and delivery systems over 30 years old, while Russia, China, and North Korea are building mostly modern nuclear weapons and delivery systems—often in violation of arms control treaties.
Allegedly, the U.S. has 6,000 nuclear weapons ready for war. This misrepresents the total U.S. nuclear stockpile as the number of weapons that would be employed in a nuclear war. In fact, most of these are in storage, mostly cannibalized for spare parts, and would take months to mobilize, if they could be used at all. Under New START the U.S. is allowed only 1,550 operational strategic nuclear weapons (counting rules allow more than one weapon on strategic bombers, so the actual number of U.S. operational strategic nuclear weapons is about 2,000). Of these, because mobilization of bombers takes three days and SSBNs on patrol would probably require hours to respond, only U.S. ICBMs with their 400 warheads are constantly ready, 24/7, for a nuclear exchange, not 6,000 warheads.
Allegedly, radioactive fallout from a nuclear war would be a death sentence for the whole world. In fact, as long as the warhead is fused to burst at altitude, so the fireball does not touch the ground, which is likely for optimum burst height, there would be little or no nuclear fallout.
Allegedly, thermal effects and fires from a nuclear war would cause a "nuclear winter" dooming the whole world. The "nuclear winter" myth is based on erroneous computer models rigged to produce a "nuclear winter" outcome, that goes away by tweaking a few variables, and is contradicted by hundreds of atmospheric nuclear tests and historical (and recent) volcanic eruptions that have never produced a "nuclear winter."
Allegedly, nuclear war is unrecoverable. Nagasaki and Hiroshima are larger and more populous today than they were before the atomic bombings of 1945.

Anti-nuclear activists will not stop exaggerating and lying because they are not open to facts and reason, are like a religious cult willing to say anything to advance their ideological agenda, like the "priesthood" that declares "climate change" is the greatest existential threat.

The greatest existential threat is nuclear war. An example of one way to reduce the threat of nuclear war: The US should stop Iran from achieving nuclear breakout before it is too late. The US has the capability; the administration might ask the Pentagon to draw up a plan. President Joe Biden's poll numbers would turn around overnight. The world does not need Iran, the country that Secretary of State Antony Blinken referred to as the "largest state sponsor of state terrorism," possessing nuclear weapons. [See author's report: "Iran: EMP Threat"] Unfortunately, thanks to Biden, anti-nuclear activists already have an outsized and unwarranted influence on national security policy that threatens to undermine the credibility of U.S. nuclear deterrence, and ironically make nuclear war even more likely.

Dr. Peter Vincent Pry is Executive Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, served as Director of the U.S. Nuclear Strategy Forum, Chief of Staff of the Congressional EMP Commission, and on the staffs of the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, House Armed Services Committee, and the CIA. He is author of the books Will America Be Protected?, Blackout Warfare, and The Power And The Light.

© 2024 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Related Topics: National Defense

Recent Articles by Peter Vincent Pry

Nuclear Sea-Launched Cruise Missile: Badly Needed for Deterrence, 2022-06-22
Nuclear Iran NOT an "Acceptable Risk", 2022-05-31
Iran's Other Threat to Civilization, 2020-10-01
North Korea's Nuclear Missile Threat: Very Bad News, 2016-02-29

receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free gatestone institute mailing list.

Comment on this item

18 Reader Comments

Steven • Sep 5, 2022 at 13:46

The nuclear disarmament doctrine is a winning domestic political strategy, regardless of international repercussions.
We can expect it to be enacted as part of "The Green New Deal".
The "Green New Deal" is being paid for with various government programs such as the recent trillion dollar bill to fight inflation.
Expect the nuclear deterrent to rust away without even appropriated money to pay for basic maintenance.

Reply->

judith grayson • Jun 13, 2022 at 18:00

The zeitgeist is a hatred of merit. A rage at intelligence and the ability to comprehend complexities. Problem-solving no longer exists. Just blabbery and blubbering. screaming and screeching. Like a pre-literate savage tribe that moves on impulse and either cannot or does not choose to utilize a thinking process. Ignorance is equitable. Perhaps height will be next. It's painful to live in a dying society one feels the pull toward the grave every day of what was once the most energetic productive and aspirational society on earth. Vanished into the cornfield.

Reply->

Peter Cunningham

judith grayson • Jun 16, 2022 at 16:26

Judith Grayson: WELL SAID!
This all explained in the introduction to a garbage movie called "IDIOCRACY", ie: why idiots dominate.
Reward for mediocrity and uncontrolled breeding are of course are not isolated in the bigger pictures.

Reply->

Morris Givner • Jun 13, 2022 at 16:55

Unfortunately, the learned Dr. Fry misses the main points about the nuclear warfare debate:
- Most wars are caused by human stupidity
- The U.S.has been at war over 90 per cent of the time since the Nation was founded in 1776.
- The U.S. nuclear bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima and caused the deaths of over 250,000 people mostly civilians
- The world was spared a nuclear exchange between the U.S. and Russia in the Cuban crisis because one side was willing to compromise
- There has been near nuclear exchanges and in one case in 1970s, a Soviet technician disobeyed an order to activate his superiors when he doubted what he saw on the screen was a nuclear attack from the U.S. on the U.S.S.R.
- Human error created the Chernobyl nuclear accident and a combination of human error and an earthquake created the ongoing Fukushima nuclear environmental disaster with Japan currently dumping vast quantities of nuclear wastes into the waters around Japan
- Nuclear explosions can create vast quantities of deadly radioactive isotopes which remain in the environment sometimes for hundreds and thousands of years. Some of these isotopes can kill all living systems.
- Technical expertise cannot address the ongoing problems of error-prone and intelligent deficient humans making decisions which can end life on Earth.

Reply->

Daniel Myers

Morris Givner • Jun 15, 2022 at 00:35

Some years ago I did a couple news thread postings on tactical nuclear weapon use, which were quickly removed. I presume comments are watched by the military so not to give an adversary any ideas. In today's zeitgeist, if and when the first few bombs are detonated, everyone will believe it will be only a few and the effects minimal. Wrong. When and if the news comes in, they will be horrified at the early consequences.

According to Prof. Albert Wohlstetter, the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intentionally targeted with the atomic bomb.

Daniel Myers
Sunnyvale, California

Reply->

Peter Cunningham

Morris Givner • Jun 16, 2022 at 16:40

Morris: Absolutely true, and to reinforce your comment, look for a speech given by one of if not the most highly decorated USA General - Mjr General Smedley Butler in 1933 from memory "war is a racket". Small paperback books can be bought, but PDF is also available for free if you search - well worth the effort.
Since then NOTHING has changed.
Warfare is like Religion - BIG BUSINESS.
Economies need warfare and will always need a conflict somewhere to test out their new 'toys'. No matter the official (hypocritical) rhetoric, armed conflicts are a reality.

Reply->

Fergus Boon • Jun 13, 2022 at 15:49

Yes our nation security experts have such a brilliant record, just behind our national intelligence experts, who rank somewhere below Biden's economic experts.

Please try convincing that the opinions of such experts are worth more than time share salesmen hawking time share condos in Malabo.

Reply->

David Wenbert • Jun 13, 2022 at 13:59

The problem is bigger than you make it out to be, because even our genuine "experts", on the inside of the nuclear security issue, have been too "woke", even before that term was coined. Our arsenal should never have been allowed to deteriorate to these low numbers, lack of readiness, and limited capability that we have today. But your 'professional experts' inside the system let even the Presidents Bush get away with neutralizing our strategic potency. We should have had Hypersonic delivery systems 30 years ago, and our ABM defenses should have been made impenetrable, including a Space-based DEW layer, and massively deployed terminal defenses. When the strategic policy establishment bought into the propaganda that SDI was "a pipe dream", they condemned us to the current situation, and its inevitable outcome, which is ultimately, 'capitulation'. I expect we will see the first exhibition of that - over surrendering Taiwan - before this Administration leaves office. Yes, the Disarmament Lobby are selling us out, but those "professionals" you're defending have done just as much over the years to cripple our deterrence and defenses.

Reply->

Joseph C • Jun 13, 2022 at 11:08

China, Russia, Iran and North Korea don't respect any international agreement they sign (sometimes they don't even sign).
China for sure and perhaps Russia continue to build and update their nuclear arsenal despite the fact that there is a non-proliferation agreement and we see their threats around the world.
We need two to tango.
The anti-nuclear militancy put all the pressure on the West (Europe and America) and the those states laugh and advance their nuclear capabilities. Until the West will have no deterrence. I would like very much that nuclear weapons had never been invented but we can't afford being naive as we look to the world as it is.

Reply->

Jeff Goldwater • Jun 13, 2022 at 08:58

My old university politics professor used to say, "War is the end of politics". Well, of course it's not, it's a tool of politics. And, a rather unfortunate one for those people whose lives are affected by the mayhem and fall out resulting. The perception of 'fireballs bursting' as 'one of those things' that don't harm 'that much' is frightening. There is logic though in the presentation that prevention is better than cure. We require the capacity to threaten against foes who threaten us in turn. Hopefully no one then blinks. But, alarmingly I am hearing more and more nuclear bomb 'experts' declare "Lies, lies, nuclear war is essentially survivable ", going so far as to say calm!y "Within a radius of so and so x harm is done, devastating there, marginal there" and so forth. You may be the proud experts on making war, on sizing up, but in the potential of result it's going to be guess work, as no full international nuclear war has ever taken place. I get the uncomfortable feeling though that the 'casualties to be' are classified as mere "What ever" . Which brings us to the political issue of 'what is the purpose of the state ?' Does the individual just serve it, or is the state formed to serve and protect the individual ? the conundrum of the collective individual. We presume the state has noble duty towards our collective because we are of liberal democratic persuasion, and hesitate or fear to answer. The nuclear lobby do answer. it is suggested that we demit getting drawn in to the 'discussion about which we have insufficient knowledge' and rely instead on the 'hope' that the nuclear guys are getting it right. So far so good ! But even an idiot can see that nuclear weaponry profusion and distribution is building up. Things were ok when balance of power relied on simple sizing between two or three blocs, but it's all getting multi complicated now. it's the future that greatly concerns me, namely the mind set ! Potentially we have Iran building a bomb, and the question follows as to where they'd most likely use it. If it's Israel, well for certain a whole lot of Palestinians will die along side Israelis, and the more we express (experts assess) that "Only for xxx miles will the effect be felt" the more we desensitize about consequences. As a citizen of the world, never mind emotions surrounding Thunberg for the moment and that lobby, I find the nuclear defence mind set disturbing. But so too is the 'Conventional war appreciation' lobby. I ask you all, 'What will you do if a nuclear bomb is heading for you ?' Past your possibly bravado response, in reality I think you would most likely not have a clue. It's 'Take your chances' at best. And that's not good enough to my way of thinking. Nuclear ability alone is insufficient and fails in the primary objective of the state, to protect its population. Bombs without policy and action in creating adequate facility to survive war is outrageous denial of the right of the individual. 400 bombs, 4000 bombs, ok you've quite a few to cause lots of havoc, and the other side too. What a party we can have !! Defence requires serious policy and clear helpful knowledge for all citizens to survive and be well in the situation of war. Knowing such facility properly exists would be a major influencing factor for a potential protagonist to withhold ever unleashing hellfire. The purpose of war is to kill and maim your opponent. If you can't achieve that, you can't win.

Reply->

Geoffrey Rogg

Jeff Goldwater • Jun 13, 2022 at 09:40

A most extensive panorama of attitudes, beliefs and misbeliefs concerning the nuclear option. However, no matter how objective our education and upbringing there's no getting away from the ever present tribal instinct indelibly inscribed in our DNA. Whether consciously or unconsciously we are driven to compete with and vanquish all who would challenge our "team". Globalism is nothing more nor less than a vain attempt to suppress the driving force in our DNA. The basic dynamics of tribalism are that of an eternal struggle for control of destiny. Like in physics, every action has its reaction and one false move can bring down the curtain.

Reply->

Geoffrey Rogg • Jun 13, 2022 at 07:51

Biden fully understands the nuclear threat posed from Iran, he just doesn't care what the consequences will be by giving Iran a free hand to continue their malign goals as long as he is countering President Trump's policies which seems to be his mantra. He's not senile, just plain pathetic and always has been.

Reply->

Steven

Geoffrey Rogg • Jun 13, 2022 at 10:02

You're more right than wrong. Reversing Trump's policies is electoral politics, that the media is 99.999% supportive of.
Anti-nuclear activists have been largely successful in eliminating the US nuclear deterrent.
I expect them to succeed completely in the near future when Iran obtains nuclear weapons capability, which is according to news accounts, only weeks away.
Expect the Biden administration to end US nuclear deterrence with the success of the Iran "nuclear deal".
The Democratic Party's, and the Biden Administration's basic premise is that the US is the one at fault for international conflict, poverty and climate change, so eliminating nuclear weapons, fossil fuels and nuclear power will be the desirable outcome, and public support for such policies is so widespread it will result in the Democratic Party achieving political dominance in the US and even the eventual elimination of the Republican Party.

Reply->

Geoffrey Rogg

Steven • Jun 13, 2022 at 15:08

Public support? Those who would support the policies in question are themselves anti American and true Americans would make short shrift of their presence in our midst.

Reply->

Harvey L

Steven • Jun 13, 2022 at 17:32

By reversing Trump policies, the green light is being given to the bad actors Iran, Russia, China, Turkey to proceed with no consequences. The US is now looked upon as a paper tiger after the cowardly withdrawal from Afghanistan with no thought for the civilians left behind. Negotiations if you can call them that with the Iranian thugs are done through the Russians and the whole exercise is pointless. The Iranian people have been suffering since the mad evil mullahs have been ruling since 1979 and nothing will ever change if more cash is given to them. The cowardly lunatics called politicians will realise too late when another 9/11 takes place.

Reply->

Homero

Harvey L • Jun 13, 2022 at 22:34

I strongly agree with all you say here. Except for the last short sentence. Like you, I see that there are the "cowardly lunatics called politicians." Also that another 9/11 will come, but much WORSE than the original one. But I fear that they will NOT "realise too late." They will find excuses for sure. "Let us BLAME others" will be their idea.

Reply->

Steven

Steven • Sep 5, 2022 at 13:38

No question we will wake up the morning after the election, and this will all have come to pass.
We have passed "go".
The media moguls will have made billions of dollars, all student loans will have been forgiven, the local police will have been defunded, all law enforcement, including red light cameras, will be through the FBI.
The Republican Party will have been decertified and Republicans will be in re-education camps.
Washington on the Potomac will have all the nuclear weapons and F15's, as has been pointed out repeatedly by our President, Joe Biden.

Reply->

VictorMc • Jun 13, 2022 at 07:06

I have read today in a very respected column that the US and rest of the civilised west "is beyond bankrupt." The future is dystopian. I tend to believe that.

Reply->