By Kelly Sloan | Special Contributor
George Will recently wrote a rather chilling column, pointing out something so obvious that it has escaped much attention. That is this: while much of the world is obsessed over climate change, to the point of spending trillions of dollars annually, virtually no attention is being paid to another hypothetical scenario, one that is at least as real in potential (if not more so) as climate change and which bears far more immediate and devastating consequences – that is the threat of nuclear war.
Will refers to a book by reporter and historian Annie Jacobsen titled “Nuclear War: A Scenario” in which the author details how a modern-day nuclear exchange could play out – and how quickly – along with the aftermath. The consequences described are every bit as devastating as previously imagined, including the end of civilisation as we know it.
Those of us of a certain age will remember “The Day After”, or the far more disturbing (and realistic) “Threads” from the early 1980s; tendentious productions teasing the line of leftist propaganda, to be sure, designed more than anything to persuade viewers that Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were cruelly insane warmongers for standing up to the Soviet threat – nevertheless, Threads, especially, did display with rather brutal detail what nuclear conflict could deliver.
Now, Will’s point, unlike the peaceniks of old who trafficked in anti-nuclear hysteria to make a left-wing political point (before discovering that climate hysteria was far more politically profitable,) is not to advocate for unilateral disarmament. Indeed, he writes, “Talk of banning the bomb” is pointless. These weapons are here forever. Or so we must hope: They will exist until they are used.”
Russia, China, and North Korea are not giving up theirs, and Iran is not giving up its quest for one, and therefore we cannot. His point, and the author’s, is that nuclear weapons cannot be un-invented, and, since they are a reality, we would be wise to elect leaders who acknowledge this and are capable of making decisions accordingly. Or as Will put it more succinctly: “Her point is that for a while now, and from now on, humanity’s survival depends on statesmanship and luck — as much the latter as the former. Remember that on Nov. 5.”
I have often argued that one’s foreign policy, more so even than economic policy, is what ought to be the deciding factor in selecting a President – bad tax policy, for instance, can be fixed over time with good tax policy; a poor foreign policy decision can bear consequences not so easily remedied. The world has become more, not less, dangerous, while the United States, concurrently and lamentably, has become less, not more, able to deal with it.
Last March, U.S. Navy Admiral John Aquilino, Commander of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, took advantage of his final appearance before the House Armed Services Committee to highlight the threat posed by a growing Communist Chinese military. “Despite an economy that has taken a 30% hit,” he told the assembled Congressfolk, “they have prioritized the delivery of military capacity.” He then informed the committee that the People’s Republic of China has increased its defense spending by 7.2%. “Oh, by the way,” he added, “that’s what they advertise; their budget process is not very transparent, my assessment is that it’s larger than that.” I for one trust the Admiral’s assessment.
Meanwhile, what have we done? Well, within the Biden administration’s FY2025 budget of $7.3 trillion (you read that right) defense received a paltry 1% increase. With inflation, it amounts to a decrease. Remember that nuclear threat I opened with? Biden’s budget cuts more than $400 million from the U.S. Missile Defense Agency.
Colorado’s Congressman Doug Lamborn, who sits on the Armed Services Committee, sounded the tocsin on this back in April, pointing out that the budget for the agency tasked with shooting down missiles headed to the United States before they trigger an exchange that could incinerate the planet and end civilization far, far more quickly and efficiently than burning fossil fuels ever could, is being funded at nearly $1 billion below what was planned for last year, which was already woefully inadequate – and then being cut by a further $2.5 billion over the next three years. Lamborn notes: “To achieve these cuts, this budget would make several concerning decisions, including terminating the production line for SM3 block IB2 interceptor.”
I recommend reading Will’s column – and the book he references – followed by Rep. Lamborn’s assessment, and that of others, of the current state of our defenses before deciding which octogenarian—one with clearly diminishing mental acuity and a 40-plus year record of bad decisions, the other with a penchant for impetuous recklessness – should be placed in charge of them. But not, however, if you plan to sleep well.
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.