Spiking the Ball

The recent demise of Osama Bin Laden set off an eruption of ball spiking, fist bumping and back slapping across the U.S. Loud cries of "we got him" permeated the 24 hour media cycle as the President took credit for the operation that killed him, the Republicans took credit for the interrogations that led to the intelligence that killed him, liberals suddenly became pro-military and conservatives whined that pictures of the body were not released. In my hometown, Pittsburgh Steelers running back Rashard Mendenhall tweeted his views on the subject and was subsequently shredded across the Internet as a no-nothing athlete that would be better off just keeping his mouth shut.

A couple of observations. I believe that this sense that "we" got Bin Laden has been fostered by a long war which has impacted very few Americans. Despite this lack of direct experience, the majority of the citizens of this country seem to feel they have some personal stake in the war. This is a view not far from the American sports fan who proclaims "we" won the Stanley Cup, the World Series or the Super Bowl when their favorite team wins a championship. In this case they apply this logic to SEAL Team 6, the new American fan favorite. In a land of commercialization and virtual experience, one can even bop on down to the local Game Stop to pick up a copy of "SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALS" for Playstation 3 and shoot virtual terrorists all afternoon long. I wonder when the Pakistan expansion pack is coming out ?

It is easy to be pro-war when that war is being fought by volunteers and the mainland is not being subject (with the exception of 9/11) to the horrors of war. The families of those doing the fighting are obviously affected, as are those that lost family members in the 9/11 attacks, but what about the average American ? Sure, they profess their pro-military position with bumper stickers and public pronouncements that they support our troops, they thank veterans for their service but when it comes to the actual heavy lifting they are noticeably absent. On one of our local radio stations, the morning conservative hosts crow about shooting Bin Laden and meting out justice as if they had fast roped into the compound in Pakistan during a station break- for all of their bravado, could they shoot somebody in the face ? One wonders.

As for Rashard Mendehnall, the kid was eviscerated by the same social media that spread his thoughts. Do I agree with him about his 9/11 conspiracy theories ? Nope. Does he have the right to say them ? Absolutely. Should he give up his career of carrying the rock for the Steelers and start a new one as a journalist ? Probably not. That being said, he seems like a spiritual young man that is asking some tough questions about death and killing that the average person doesn't want to look at. No matter, when he scores his first touchdown next season he will be forgiven by the masses- at least in this part of the country.

The Raid

The nighttime raid carried out by the U.S. Navy's SEAL Team 6 in Abbottabad, Pakistan will be studied for generations as one of the greatest special operations missions in history. By leveraging the massive U.S. intelligence system, mission planners were able to locate the safe house which was being utilized by Bin Laden deep inside Pakistan. Instead of obliterating the target with drones or cruise missiles, the SEAL Team was inserted by helicopter in a direct action operation to either kill or capture the U.S. Public Enemy No. 1.

In a mere 40 minutes, the inserted team was able to complete its mission and egress from the target area despite a mechanical problem with one of their helicopters. That helicopter was reportedly destroyed to deny any technical treasures on board to the Pakistanis who might have been tempted to sell them to their friends in China. As audacious as the raid itself, the act of flying the teams into and out of the target area, apparently undetected and unmolested by Pakistani air defense assets also points to the capability of the pilots and crew that ferried them in and out. Given that President Obama is making an appearance at Fort Campbell, Kentucky to meet and thank the members of SEAL Team 6, one has to wonder if the helicopter unit involved was the U.S. Army's elite 160th SOAR which is based there.

From what can be gleaned from the media reports, this was apparently a relatively small mission with very little room for error. The SEAL Team was brought to the target area in only a few helicopters and possibly without a larger security force on the ground to block any reaction from the local Pakistani garrison. While air assets were probably on call to assist if necessary, the team instead had to rely on completing the mission quickly and exfiltrating with speed before the locals were stirred up enough to try to interfere with the attack. Due to the lead up in intelligence work, the team benefited from the time necessary to study and train within a mock-up of the target house which enabled them to move quickly and decisively towards completion of their mission.

The media story regarding the death of Bin Laden seems to change on a daily basis. He was killed with a weapon, reaching for a weapon or after he surrendered depending upon which story you want to believe. A commentator on Fox News this morning went into a long harangue about why Bin Laden should have been taken alive - all convenient Thursday morning quarterbacking from the comfort of a nice television studio.

Could Bin Laden have surrendered and been executed ? I suppose it's possible. The SEAL team commander may have made the decision based on the fact that he already had one helicopter in trouble and the possibility that they would have to fight their way out through a force of Pakistani military units and unhappy civilians. Why take the risk when you can effectively accomplish the mission at that moment ? It's equally possible that Bin Laden tried to grab a weapon since capture for him would be as unappealing as it would have been for Hitler back in 1945.

The fact that the U.S. violated the airspace of a sovereign nation without (wisely) tipping off the Pakistanis to the plan, points to the amount of resolve necessary to execute the mission, diplomatic consequences be damned. The margin of error was tremendously small- what would have happened if the Pakistanis had reacted faster on the ground ? What if the Pakistani Air Force, which apparently scrambled fighters after the raiders departed, had shot down one of the helicopters ? What if it the entire mission was a dry hole and Bin Laden was not in the house ? What if Bin Laden had been tipped off and prepared an ambush for the U.S. forces ?

I have to give credit to President Obama for giving the go-ahead on a mission that had so many potential ways to go wrong quickly. I would surmise, however, that nearly 10 years of constant war has sharpened the capabilities of the SEAL Team, the various intelligence agencies that were involved, and the helicopter unit that ferried them to such a fine point that the mission was less risky than it would have been before the war.

Did "We" Really Get Bin Laden ?

I spent a couple of days thinking about the recent raid on Osama Bin Laden's hideout in Pakistan. Unlike the paid professional media which needs to spout instantaneous comments on everything which happens in the past 10 minutes, I have the amateur's advantage of actually thinking before I speak or write. I'm going to post a couple of my opinions on the recent events in Pakistan since I have quite a few things to say from different angles.

The raid itself will go down in military annals as one of the most audacious and well-executed operations in history. The reaction of the American public to the death of Bin Laden has been interesting to see- chest thumping jingoism and showings of unity (the "we" in "we got him") which I think are the result of the U.S. fighting a war which really doesn't involve 95 % of the general population.

The reaction of the left and right wings of American politics were as disappointing as they were predictable as each side tried to take credit and out do each other in the political theater. Add to all of this the odd kabuki theater of Bin Laden's funeral at sea, Native Americans being upset over the code name used for him and the questions regarding the pictures of his body, and we have a potent mix of news to comment on.

When Kukris and Hand Bags Meet

A couple of weeks ago I was up late battling a cold and watching television. As so often happens in the land of 300 channels there was absolutely nothing on worth watching. I was mindlessly switching programs when one of the home shopping networks caught my eye. The two young women acting as spokesmen were proclaiming the virtues of Ghurka fine leather goods- handbags, wallets etc. My ears pricked up at the name and also at the company logo which looked suspiciously like a pair of crossed kukris- the famed fighting knife of the Gurkha Regiments.

Being a former soldier myself, I have always been impressed with the history and reputation of some of the best soldiers on the planet- incredibly tough, loyal and brave men that have served in the Indian and British armies for generations. A recent news story (scroll down on page that is linked) about a retired Gurkha fighting off a mob trying to attack a girl in India only confirmed my admiration for these people. For the Gurkha communities in Nepal, the Army has remained the occupation of choice and young soldiers have been the prime export of these tough hill people. Why on earth, I wondered, was a company making hand bags capitalizing on their name ? More importantly, were they paying anything for the right, or at the very least supporting the charities that assist Gurkha veterans ?

I'm going to do a bit of digging to see if I can find anything out.

The Curious Case of Captain Honors

The recent revelations that Captain Owen Honors, Captain of the USS Enterprise, produced and starred in a series broadcast to the ship's crew has provoked a firestorm of press coverage. The vignettes which were shown while Captain Honors was Executive Officer of the ship, included female sailors showering together, foul language (gasp), masturbation and a great deal of homoeroticism- I will exercise great restraint from creating all of the easy Navy jokes that can be made from this episode, and will instead concentrate on the media coverage that it has produced.

Within days of the story breaking on the 24 hour news cycle, over 3,000 articles were written about Captain Honors and his escapades. How a Naval Academy graduate, trained fighter pilot and combat veteran would be stupid enough to think that he wouldn't be hoisted from the nearest yardarm in this age of political correctness is beyond me. I don't know if he should have lost his command for all of the reasons given by the Navy- conduct not conducive with command, etc. but I think he was definitely guilty of being a dumbass. The predictable press coverage included articles supporting his loss of command, while others included input from former Enterprise sailors supporting him (including one gay one.) In an odd twist to the story, actress Glenn Close piled on because some footage was used in one of the videos which she provided. (Note to Captain Honors- if you see any rabbits boiling on your stove, it might be best to un-ass the A.O.)

I think many military veterans such as myself would look at this story with a sense of bemusement. Sure, Captain Honors exhibited bad judgment in producing this sketches but I think that anyone who has served in the military can also see an officer trying to provide some entertainment to his crew- a crew comprised mainly of 18 and 19 year kids, far from home and alternately living in an existence of extreme boredom and absolute terror. It seems odd that the very people that want a military to protect them with acts of extreme violence would then seem confused that the people they employ to carry these acts out on their behalf do not conform to their own happy, quiet world back here in the states. At a time when the nation is at war, many seem to want their warriors to conform to the soccer mom ideal.

(Okay, I have to admit the urge to let go with a Navy joke. Anyways, on with the story.)

It also seems odd to me that this episode has produced so much press coverage and ignited a public debate which falls along predictable political lines- the right wing supports the Captain and wants him reinstated, the left wing says he needs to go and points to this an example of why gays should be allowed to serve in the military. As usual, I have a different view. Why isn't the debate about why we are spending $ 500,000 per year per Soldier, Sailor, Airman (excuse me, Airperson) and Marine deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq ? (figures from The Economist.) Why aren't the hard questions being asked- why, for instance, are the Pakistanis not being held accountable for their collusion and assistance (through their support of the Taliban) in the deaths of American servicemen ? Why is the U.S. supporting a corrupt regime in Kabul with little hope of ever governing the country ?

Why ? Because these are hard questions. For the life of me I can't see how Captain Honors' raunchy videos endangered American lives- unlike the actions of those elected to put them in harms way.

Old Airplanes Never Die

I took this picture over the weekend at the Pittsburgh Air Show. This is a C-47 transport, the second oldest of its type that is still flying. What makes this aircraft so special in historical terms is that it actually dropped elements of the 82nd Airborne on St. Mere Eglise, France in the early morning hours of June 6th, 1944. D-Day.

I stood by the aircraft while my wife and kids were inside a KC-135 tanker that was on display so I had a few moments to reflect on the reaction of the crowds as they walked by. More than a few kids tugged on their mom and dad's sleeves as they spotted the cooler, more modern F-16's, F-18's and a myriad of other sleek jets that stood by. Some asked their parents what the plane was, but they were at a loss for words- some old thing they muttered as they walked past. What a shame. As far as examples of living history go, nothing among the 50 or so aircraft parked on the ramp even came close.

After their tanker tour, I grabbed the boys and walked them to the C-47. "THIS" I said jabbing my finger in its direction "is the most important airplane on this entire airfield." We were able to go inside the aircraft, through the jump door on the left, and I explained how 55 odd years ago, a group of very brave men strapped parachutes, equipment, weapons and a myriad of other gear to themselves, flew across the English Channel and parachuted into the darkness of the early morning of June 6th, 1944. Standing in the back of the plane, so small and cramped compared to the relative luxury of the C-130's and C-141's that I parachuted out of, I was nearly overcome with emotion. Small groups of young men, who had barely begun to live, volunteered to hurl themselves out of aircraft over enemy occupied ground to defeat Fascism and destroy the worst evil that the world has ever know. Knowing the fate of many of the young paratroopers who jumped over St. Mere Eglise only made it more emotional- some were hung up on electrical and telegraph poles only to be shot by the Germans, one famously on town's church steeple who watched the battle unfold beneath his feet.

I daydreamed for a moment, and imagined the night before after the first day of the air show. I thought of all of the other aircraft, circled around the C-47 as it creaked and turned, sat on its tail and said to a bunch of wide eyed, youthful jets- "You know the difference between a fairy tale and a war story ? The fairy tale starts off with 'Once Upon a Time.' A war story starts with 'This is No Shit."

Iran & Musings on Insanity

I like to listen to Podcasts during work and have recently been enjoying Dan Carlin's "Hardcore History" and "Common Sense" programs. Both shows benefit from Carlin's rapid and sharp delivery and I especially enjoy how he pillories politicians from both parties equally. On a recent show he made an observation that nicely fit some of my own thinking lately, namely that if the U.S. attacks Iran we will have a final, and very clear, indication that the leadership of this country is insane.

Turn on Sean Hannity on any given night and I can almost guarantee that a reference to stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions will come up. It isn't only the right wing that is beating the war drums- our dear leader, President Obama, has also (sort of) reversed his earlier statements on a nuclear armed Iran in 2009 (he hinted that it might be acceptable) to those he made in 2010 (he hinted that it might not be acceptable.) With a full on drubbing of the Democratic party on tap for the fall midterm elections, the possibility grows that the President just might move forward militarily to shore up his own dismal approval ratings.

War with Iran would be an entirely different animal than war in Iraq and Afghanistan. First of all, Iran is a large country- at nearly 640,000 square miles in area it is larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. In fact, if you combined those two countries you could also add in France (actually, not a bad idea when you think about it) and Iran would still be larger. It is one of the 20 largest countries in the world and with 68,000,000 people is also one of the 20 most populous. The scale of the country makes it far more difficult in terms of targeting, and hitting, what is probably a very long list of military, communications and other infrastructure targets. It also makes it easier for the potential target of all of these massive air strikes, the Iranian military and government, to find places to hide and ride out the attacks.

Let's back up a second. Why exactly would we attack Iran in the first place ? Supposedly, the threat of a nuclear armed Iran is so frightening to Washington that it would justify a very nasty war that would produce far more casualties than anything we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. I can somewhat see the Israelis point of view- as a much smaller nation, diametrically opposed to the Iranian regime, a group of nuclear armed mullahs in the neighborhood is probably somewhat unsettling. But what strategic threat would a nuclear armed Iran pose to the U.S. ? If we are so worried about unstable regimes having nuclear weapons when are we going to bomb Pakistan ? How about next week ? Pakistan has the weapons in their bunkers, a massive humanitarian crisis from recent flooding and an intelligence agency that has actively worked against our efforts in Afghanistan. Throw in a big dash of unemployed young men living in poverty, whipped into a frenzy by religious zealotry, and you may start wondering why they don't start reworking the targeting maps.

As I have argued in previous posts, I say the best thing to do to the Iranians is let them have the bomb. Let them realize how utterly useless it is to throw billions of dollars down the drain to develop and deploy one of these expensive paperweights. The Iranians will quickly learn that MAD isn't just a magazine and that any use of nuclear weapons would result in their country being blasted back into the stone age. I don't agree, either, that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be in some great rush to use the bomb once he got it in his hands. Like all despots I would imagine that he knows its better to be a living despot than a dead one.

A war in Iran would quickly escalate into something far beyond what we have experienced in Iraq and Afghanistan. Any strike on Iran would result in their Hezbollah proxies attacking Israel from Lebanon- which would result in Israel invading Lebanon while fighting the Iranians, which could draw in the Syrians, which could draw in the Russians, which could...well, you get the picture. The U.S. military has been stretched by fighting two wars and the prospect of the even crazier North Koreans threatening to start something with their neighbors to the south. You want a nightmare scenario ? Imagine the U.S. fighting the Iranians, cleaning up in Iraq, fighting in Afghanistan and the North Koreans suddenly deciding that it would be a great time to take advantage of the situation.

The U.S. is in the midst of one of the worst recessions in its history, the Federal debt has ballooned to unimaginable levels and I believe that the real unemployment rate lies a few dozen or so points north of what the government claims. Fighting an unecessary war, killing more of our best and brightist and inflicting violence against a population that is young and actually quite pro-American is insane. Better to let history run its course and hope that another series of uprisings similar (and larger) to those in 2009 topple and consign Ahmadinejad and his fellow religious nutcases to the ash heap of history where they belong.

A Grim Milestone in Afghanistan

The New York Times reports that 1,000 American soldiers have now been killed in Afghanistan.

"On Tuesday, the toll of American dead in Afghanistan passed 1,000, after a suicide bomb in Kabul killed at least five United States service members. Having taken nearly seven years to reach the first 500 dead, the war killed the second 500 in fewer than two. A resurgent Taliban active in almost every province, a weak central government incapable of protecting its people and a larger number of American troops in harms way all contributed to the accelerating pace of death. "

Once again, I ask for what.

Funeral for a Soldier

Last week, a soldier killed in Afghanistan was laid to rest in a small town near where I live. By coincidence, my son goes to elementary school in the same town and met the soldier a few years ago when he stopped by to visit the children. By all accounts the soldier was an all American type of kid- well liked by his neighbors, a good athlete and respected throughout the community. I picked up my son at school the day his body was brought back to town and the children had lined the streets waving small American flags as the hearse passed by. The light poles were adorned with yellow ribbons and the town had turned out in a show of unified sympathy you only see in small town America.

For a 10 year old, my son asks some pretty tough questions. "Why did he die ?" he asked, followed by "Are we winning the war ?" The local news had covered the story in print and on television and it led the six o'clock news for a couple of nights so it became a running discussion between the two of us. I struggled to explain the war in Afghanistan to my son, the nuances of counter insurgency, the difficulty in defeating a group of guerrillas vs. a standing army. During my time in the Army I had been an intelligence analyst while serving in the Ranger Regiment. My job was reading intelligence reports regarding the Soviets and their invasion of Afghanistan- how they operated, their tactics and techniques and then condensing them for dissemination to the three Ranger battalions for what we thought was an inevitable hot war in Europe. Back then I gained a grudging respect for the Mujahedin and their ability to bloody the Russian bear. Little did I know that the seeds that would eventually lead to Al Qaeda, Bin Laden and 9/11 had been planted.

So why did he die ? The interviews with local citizens on television mostly addressed that question with the answer that he died "defending our freedoms" and "protecting us." I'm not so sure about that. I'm pretty sure that he died first and foremost, as soldiers have for generations, for his comrades and his unit. Grand geopolitical strategy was probably not going through his head in his final battle- he was probably looking out for his buddies and doing the best he could to stay alive. Although I tried to make the case in my head that he died protecting us here in America, I just couldn't make the mental jump that would connect the Taliban and scattered Al Qaeda forces to a direct threat against me and my family. Thinking that through made me feel horrible- he didn't need to die for me and my family, we would have gladly taken the remote chance of a Taliban-Al Qaeda attack on Pittsburgh if it mean't he was safe and sound.

Did he, and over 1,700 other coalition soldiers, die to bring freedom to Afghanistan ? I'm not too convinced on that score either. This wasn't like U.S. troops rolling into Paris or Holland during World War 2. Afghanistan was never really a country in the traditional sense, even during the best of times. Tribalism, war lords financing private armies through the drug trade and various religious factions just don't fit the profile of a country begging for liberation. The U.S. and its allies have suppressed the Taliban to a large extent in many areas of the country but its likely that once the U.S. pulls out the result will be an immediate slide back into its quasi feudalistic former self. (Side note- for a little more on the barbaric nature of this country read this article from Canada's Ottawa Citizen about how Canadian forces witnessed the systematic rape of young boys by the Afghan police and were powerless to stop it.)

I'm still struggling with the answer. The U.S. invasion after 9/11 made sense- root out and destroy Al Qaeda and those responsible for harboring them. On that count, it is widely agreed that the operation was a success. Al Qaeda, which some reports show as having no more than a couple of hundred members in the country, has been dispersed and generally hunted down. I highly doubt that they have constructed some super secret underground facility in the mountains and are working on a nuclear bomb that will soon go off in the U.S. It is more likely that they are living like moles, reluctant to venture outside and risk being vaporized by a drone attack. If they no longer pose a direct strategic threat to the U.S., why is the Department of Defense adding thousands of new troops into the mix and billions more in funding ? Forget the money for a minute- most importantly, why is our most priceless asset (our troops lives) being spent on this hell hole ?

My guess is that it comes down to money. Billions of dollars for procurement of new weapons, logistical support contracts, beans, bullets and everything else that a modern army consumes. Congressional districts that rely on defense plant spending, corrupt leaders more worried about their own political skins versus those of the troops in the field. Al Qaeda and the Taliban, no larger than a German infantry division in World War 2 (at best) are on the receiving end of the full economic and military might of the U.S. I'm sure that some accounting geek at the Pentagon has examined the grim calculus of death and figured out that every dead Taliban was killed at the cost of about $ 1.5 million to the U.S. taxpayer. An elephant stepping on a gnat isn't even an appropriate analogy to the imbalance between the amount of military and economic horsepower being thrown at the situation.

So, why did he die ? I still don't know, maybe somebody out there can help me figure it out.

Japanese Buddhist based party wants to drop pacifism from constitution

Kyoko Okawa, leader of the Buddhism based Happiness Realization Party in Japan, has called for Article 9 (outlining Japan's pacifist based defense stance) to be dropped from the Japanese constitution in a recent interview. Her husband Ryuho Okawa founded the party (and the religious sect it is based upon) and believes he is the reincarnation of the Buddha. While Mr. Okawa's statements seem to discount his reincarnation story, he says Japan needs to take a more militaristic stance in its region-

• "If you take the 'thou shalt not kill' precept too far, you cannot protect your country. Historical fact shows that weakness in Buddhism," Kyoko said. "That's why we wanted to develop Buddhist teaching."

The Okawa's also believe that external threats from Korea and China justify a more proactive stance in the defense of Japan. Far from a fringe group, the Party claims 10,000,000 members and could have some impact on elections in October.

Buddhists in Japan calling for militarization is not as crazy as it sounds. All of the Zen Buddhist sects in Japan supported the Emperor and the militaristic Japanese government in World War 2 which inflicted horrifying atrocities upon the people of China, Korea and many other countries that were the targets of their imperialistic ambitions. While many Buddhists like to describe their beliefs as being based upon peace and love, and abhorring killing in any form, they have yet to come to grips with the actions of Zen Buddhists in World War 2.

I don't believe that Mr. Okawa's statements in any way tarnish or devalue the message of peace spread by the Buddha. As with many other philosophies and religions, the message can become perverted over time as individuals attempt to spin the teachings for their own gain. I hope that Mr. Okawa finds his way back to the proper path soon.

Russia willing to abandon nuclear weapons.

Wow. As if you needed any further proof of the global influence of "Confessions of a Buddhist Anarchist," Vladimir Putin signaled that Russia is willing to abandon nuclear weapons if other countries are willing to do the same. Story Here. Vladimir has been trying to add me as a friend on Facebook for months and I guess I better finally give in.

Russia is simply running into the same economic constraints that all nations owning nuclear weapons must face. These weapons are horrendously expensive to design, build and maintain. You don't simply drop a missile in a silo and forget about it. They need constant maintenance and testing, not to mention security. Given Russia's dependence upon oil prices, which have only recently started to move higher, it is no wonder that Putin wants to get rid of some of these useless Cold War toys.

Let them eat Plutonium

U.S. strategic and diplomatic efforts, along with those of the United Nations, have been geared towards the prevention of the development and proliferation of nuclear weapons by certain nations. Although the nuclear genie is apparently out of the bottle in North Korea, the U.S. government is hopeful that a mix of diplomatic, trade and military efforts will be enough to convince the Iranians to shelve their nuclear ambitions. Although it would be heresy to state it in Washington D.C., countries such as Iran should be free to develop any nuclear weapons that they want. Why ? Because they too will learn what a tremendous waste of money and national resources these weapons are.

It is estimated that by the year 1998, the United States had spent $ 5,800,000,000,000 ($ 5.8 Trillion- no, that is not a misprint) on developing and deploying nuclear weapons (and the delivery systems for them.) This figure is from a 1998 Brookings Report which estimated that annual maintenance was at least another $ 35 billion per year (so add another $ 350 billion or so to come up with the total price tag to date.) These numbers are staggering to say the least and do not include the amounts spent by the former Soviet Union, China, India, Pakistan, France and United Kingdom on their arsenals (not to mention Israel and possibly South Africa.) Taken in total, these numbers could easily double the amount spent by the United States.

Critics will argue that it was the very existence of these weapons that prohibited the Cold War from becoming a shooting war. They say the very deterrence based upon the threat of global annihilation was instrumental in creating one of the longest periods of peace in recent history. While global conflict may have been avoided, a new type of war by proxy was favored to keep the superpowers from conflicting head to head- as evidenced by Korea, Vietnam, the Arab-Israeli wars, Indo-Pakistani conflicts, Nicaragua and Afghanistan. Although the United States and Soviet Union faced no destruction on their own turf, many other nations were mercilessly destroyed in the game of global domination.

As nations like Iran and North Korea will learn, the deployment of nuclear weapons is easily countered by more nuclear weapons being deployed by your adversaries and so on, and so on. The rapid escalation in the sizes of the U.S. and Soviet arsenals matched this spiral as new generations of weapons were deployed leading to new weapons to counter them and so on. Eventually, the arsenal sizes far exceeded any possible strategic use and became the tremendous drain on national expenditures that they are. Moreover, they are tactically useless to these countries. They are vulnerable to adversaries first strike capabilities and guarantee virtual annihilation if unleashed.

Nuclear weapons represent the pinnacle in man's never ending quest to develop better ways to kill other men. Antiseptic terms like CEP, throw-weights, first strike and others totally ignore the horrific capabilities of these weapons which make them so appealing to the madmen who covet them. One document I read as a young intelligence analyst still sticks in my head twenty odd years later. It stated how the Soviets second strike on U.S. cities would utilize biological weapons, smallpox in particular, deployed by ICBM to kill off any survivors crawling around in the rubble. This wasn't fantasy concocted by anti-nuclear proponents, it was hard intelligence. The complete lack of humanity necessary to concoct such a plan (and probably the U.S. counter plan) is beyond frightening.

I would use a completely different diplomatic approach in dealing with these nations. First off, cut the U.S. nuclear arsenal by 90 % and encourage all other nuclear powers to do the same. Use the fuel for the peaceful generation of power and then negotiate to eliminate another 9%. Demonstrate to the wannabe nuclear powers how useless $ 5.8 Trillion worth of paperweights really are. Fears of proliferation can be countered by methods to track the origins of the materials used to make weapons. Every potential nuclear weapon has a return address. Make it clear that any use of such weapons by terrorists puts their host nation on the hook for retaliation. Keep 1% of today's weapons around as a safeguard. That is still adequate to annihilate anyone foolish enough to use them.

The enormity of the cost of nuclear weapons is not the only staggering part. The other is the way in which the U.S. government spent money with little or no oversight from the American people. We were sold a bill of goods by our elected officials based upon fear and propaganda in the same way the the citizens of the Soviet Union were. The entire sorry affair is yet another example of the innate corruption of governments and the economic rape of their citizenry which they indulge in. Imagine the good that these trillions of dollars could have done. The United States could stand, right now, completely debt free and funding the development of medicine, hospitals and transportation throughout the world. Instead, it was squandered in the name of the balance of power. What a different world it could have been.