Obsidian Wings

The Argument for Manned Nuclear Bombers

by Robert Mackey

When I was a kid, I remember watching Dr. Strangelove for the first time.  Being a male and having grown up in a household filled with World War I, World War II, Korea and (later) Vietnam veterans, I thought the coolest thing in the world were the scenes showing a thundering B-52 flying over the USSR and "Johnny Comes Marching Home" playing in the background [and for those of you who see this as some militaristic weirdness, rest assured, I was about 7...and I think nearly all seven year old boys think large objects that blow stuff up are pretty cool...].

When I read John Berry's Newsweek article "Bye-Bye Bomber", I was fairly shocked to see that members of the Air Force lobbying group (the Air Force Association) and Secretary of Defense Gates were both in favor of eliminating the nuclear role currently held by manned B-52 and B-2 bombers.  Why? Well, in two words:  Expense and "love of the Drone."

Bombers are expensive. The $2 billion or so spent on each B-2 is a LOT of money.  However, given that parts of the airplane are built in just about every congressional district, it isn't exactly like we are spending that same amount on cars built in Germany or Saudi oil.  No, the money goes to defense contractors, who in turn hire people to rivet the wings or whatever, who in turn buy tacos at the local taco stand, and so on.  But I digress.  I get the "bombers are expensive" argument--you have to build, maintain and buy the aircraft; you have to train, pay, care for, and ultimately retire the crews.  A lot of sunk in costs there, not to mention the costs associated with things like Air Force bases (which again are dearly beloved by the local congressmen, just ask Ike Skelton of Missouri). 

What is "the Love of the Drone."  Sounds somewhat like a bee porno movie.  No, this is what I call the love affair that the US is starting to have with unmanned drones.  They can kill terrorists! They will transform the battlefield! They can julienne fries from potatoes! They can teach your children Mozart! What can they not do?!!

Actually, there is a lot that drones cannot do. They cannot fly uninhibited into hostile territory like a manned bomber. Simply put, the nature of modern air warfare (jamming, counter jamming and so on) requires airframes that can carry a substantial load of electronic equipment.  Drones, as currently built, just aren't big enough.  Most are not even protected from small arms fire, from jamming, or from interference from their live-video feeds.  They may be cheap, but so are smoothbore cannon. I don't see anyone saying we should replace modern field artillery with a 12 pound Napoleon from the Civil War--cheap doesn't matter when the system simply cannot get the job done. Just remember what Momma taught you..."You can get cheap or you can get good."

My biggest argument for manned nuclear bombers isn't even their multi-role capability (e.g., they can drop conventional bombs, use cruise missiles, or even drop leaflets).  No, it is political.

Military planners often forget that nuclear weapons are not really "weapons" in the conventional sense. They are political tools, created and employed for political means. They are Clausewitz in concentrated form.  Consequently, you have to examine the political uses of nuclear weapons before any other consideration, to include cost and ease of employment.

A manned bomber can be prepped, armed, manned and sent off an airbase in a matter of hours.  In those hours, diplomats can let a potential adversary know that the US is serious, can attempt to find a solution and can do what they are meant to do.  An ICBM in a silo in the Midwest can be launched in minutes.  It can strike its target in less than 30 minutes.  A submarine-based missile can be sent on its merry way in an even shorter time, and strike targets in half the time of a land-based ICBM.

And neither land-based nor sea-based missiles can be recalled. Once launched, they are gone.  The nature of submarine warfare and the security of missile sites in the US mean that there will be no "warning" of attack to an adversary to make them negotiate.  No, the first time they know the US is serious is when a mushroom cloud appears. 

In short, it is the ICBM that is obsolete--it is a relic of the Cold War and Mutually Assured Destruction.  I'm all for a handful of failsafe missiles on Trident submarines; they would serve as a final deterrent. But put men and women in the airplanes, capable of making decisions, listening to orders, and able to be recalled to base when an unexpected peace breaks out.

Either that or just get rid of them all.  Short of full nuclear disarmament, however, I'd prefer Slim Pickens flying in a recallable bomber than two guys in a silo in Nebraska with funny keys around their necks.

Secrets, Iran and a Healthy Skepticism

by Robert Mackey

First, a quick introduction and greeting. My name is Robert R. Mackey (not to be confused with the Lede author) and I'm an historian and retired US Army officer.  My specialty, oddly enough, is a strange mix of American Civil War history, history of intelligence, and counter-terrorism.  In the past, I've worked at the National Counterterrorism Center as a strategist, blogged for Huffington Post, and was one of the war planners for the opening phases of Iraqi Freedom in 2002-2003.  I'm currently an independent historian and archivist working in Washington, DC.

Thanks to Eric Martin for the opportunity to join OW as a contributor, and for guilting me into writing for him. It was either that or back down into the galley with the rest of the slaves.

-----

Today, The Times (UK) posted a story about a "Secret Document [that] Exposes Iran's Nuclear Trigger" that detailed what is supposedly "a final key component" of a nuclear weapon. The article is located at "Secret Document Exposes Iran's Nuclear Trigger."

Ok, I'm not a nuclear physicist.  I've never taken a class in physics.  I'm not a Farsi linguist or have lived in Tehran for 30 years.  What I do know is how the global intelligence community works, at least from an insiders view.  It basically has one rule.

Secrets Stay Secret IF YOU WANT THEM TO.

In 1916-1917, Britain was on the verge of losing the Great War.  The French were rocked by mutinies, the bloodbath of the Somme and Ypres had drained Great Britain of men, materials and morale.  Literally the only real hope the Allies had was American entry into the war.  Yet even the sinking of the SS Lusitania in 1915 and the deaths of American citizens, along with the glowing propaganda of American volunteers with the Allies, did little to move the American people toward war.  No, that came when the British released a decoded intercept between the German Ambassador to Mexico and his government outlining a proposed Mexican-German alliance if the US joined the war.  However, the telegram was not released to the American government--it was released to the American press on March 1, 1917.  On April 6, Congress voted for war.

The British had a secret. And they released it to cause the most impact on their main target--the American people.

I am not saying that the same situation exists with this release of information.  In fact, the Iranians may be happily building nuclear weapons as I type, in order to wipe out "Zionism" and bring on the 12th Imam.  I don't know.  But what I do know is that a secret was released, and released at a time when negotiations are being conducted to find a peaceful solution.

Who would release such a secret, which could only be gathered from an agent in Iran? Why risk the life of the agent? Why?

Nations have agreements, as do their intelligence agencies.  The US shares information with the UK, the UK with France, France with Italy and so on.  And many of these countries share information with Israel, Turkey and other nations in the region.

Was this a Mossad plant? Perhaps. Perhaps it was a plant by Syria or Turkey or Egypt, for their own purposes. Or perhaps it was released disinformation by the Iranians to deter an attack on themselves (shades of Saddam's failed miscalculation in telling the world he had CBNR weapons...). No one knows. In the dark world of intelligence, information is a commodity, to be bought, sold and traded.

A healthy skepticism is what is needed.  Raw intelligence is rarely 100% accurate, and when a nation has a lot to gain by leaking secrets, even more care should be taken. 

The Zimmerman Telegram was a piece of factual information. Just because something is factual does not mean that it is the whole story, or that the truth, like lies, can be used to shape opinions and lead nations to war.

Copenhagen: A Death Panel for Countries like Tuvalu

by Lindsay Beyerstein

 The tiny nation of Tuvalu has taken center stage in Copenhagen. 

"I woke up this morning crying, and that's not easy for a grown man to admit," Tuvalu's chief climate negotiator, Ian Fry, told hundreds of delegates in the Bella Center in Copenhagen on Saturday. "The fate of my country rests in your hands," he said, his voice breaking. Global warming is an existential issue for Tuvalu and other small island nations. If global warming goes unchecked, these countries will literally be wiped off the map. For countries like Tuvalu, COP15 is effectively referendum on their continued existence. Will the rest of the world step up, or will it write them off?

Tuvalu and its supporters want a treaty to protect island states. They also seek legally binding emissions targets for all countries geared to stop global warming at 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures. Last week, Tuvalu managed to get the negotiations suspended while delegates informally considered its proposal.

Obviously, it's not just in Tuvalu's interest to get serious about climate change. According to a report released last week, even if we check warming at 2 degrees, the rise could still acidify the oceans enough off most cold water coral, the bedrock food chains that help feed millions. The prospect of entire countries and low-lying regions being inundated raises the specter of mass migrations.

During the aftermath of the Iranian election, supporters sported green twitter icons to show their support for the protesters. In that spirit, I decided to change my twitter icon to an "I heart Tuvalu" button. The picture is from Tuvalu's official Cafe Press store. Join me!

OSHA: Nevada is a Good Place to be a Bad Boss

By Lindsay Beyerstein

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) last week issued a scathing indictment of Nevada's OSHA program. Nevada has a well-deserved reputation for being a dangerous place to work. Last year, a spate of construction deaths on the Las Vegas Strip prompted a congressional hearing. The Las Vegas Sun won this year's public service Pulitzer for exposing the carnage. Nevada inspectors told federal investigators that their superiors pressured them not to write up employers for willful violations of safety laws. Willful violations are the most serious category of infraction. Federal investigators found that NOSHA only issued one willful violation in the course of 23 fatality probes--even though at least one of the employers (Boyd Gaming Corp.) had previously been cited for the same hazards on other sites in the state, which legally should have made Boyd a willful violator by definition.

The House Education Labor and Pensions Committee is holding a hearing on the report on Thursday. I hope the committee asks some tough questions about why these problems exist. The failures are so grave and systematic that I have to wonder whether corruption is afoot. Many of the worst offenders are powerful casino interests, a contingency known to donate lavishly to both Democrats and Republicans.

Dancing In The Dark

Guest post by Gary Farber.  Gary's home blog is Amygdala, and he invites you to read him there.

[Eric Martin: My friend Gary is going to be pitching in for a couple of days as I adjust to the enhanced parenting techniques that my son is submitting me too.  And yes, sleep deprivation is torture.]

On December 31, 2009, three provisions of "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001," aka the "PATRIOT Act,"  sunset and expire.

Bills to reauthorize or amend these three provisions have been moving through the Congressional Judiciary Committees in the past two months.

The three sections are:  

SEC. 206. ROVING SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978. Section 105(c)(2)(B) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805(c)(2)(B)) is amended by inserting 'or in circumstances where the Court finds that the actions of the target of the application may have the effect of thwarting the identification of a specified person, such other persons,' after 'specified person'.

This is also known as "the John Doe" provision.

SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT.

Also known as the section dealing with "national security letters," by which:

The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities [....]

The third is:

SEC. 805. MATERIAL SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM.

What are these about, and why should we care?, you ask. As the ACLU explains:

Pelosi Goes "All In" On Public Option

By Lindsay Beyerstein

Nancy Pelosi is going all in to support a public option that would hold down costs by setting reimbursement rates at Medicare plus 5%. The CBO's latest cost estimates for various House health care reform options have galvanized Pelosi in favor of a Med+5 public option, Brian Beutler reports. 

Pelosi has always favored some kind of public competition for private health insurers, but she has previously been non-committal about how hard a line a public plan could take to hold down costs.

The House Democrats are in negotiations to combine the various bills that passed their respective committees this summer. Chris Bowers has a good discussion of how Pelosi is using the CBO numbers and the Med+5 proposal to outmaneuver Blue Dog Democrats in the House and Senate. Basically, the stronger the public option the House bill proposes, the bigger the cost savings it will project. Fiscal conservatives will be hard-pressed to vote against a public option that's projected to cost less than the alternatives.

Rep. Raul Grijalva, the co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus, told Bloomberg that the caucus is gravitating towards the Med+5 plan, as opposed to a weaker proposal that would have the government negotiate rates with providers.

It's cheaper for the public to negotiate reimbursement rates for the entire plan because the massive bargaining power of the federal government drives down prices. Whereas, the public invariably gets a worse deal when rates are negotiated piecemeal. There's really no reason not to negotiate in one fell swoop, except as a gimme to vested interests.

Naturally, drug companies and health care providers want piecemeal negotiations. However, Obama has said he won't sign a bill that adds to the deficit and the House is looking for ways to save money. Letting the government drive a hard bargain is an attractive way to cut the costs of health care reform. Piecemeal negotiations would hobble one of the most powerful cost-control features of a public plan.

Hey, Joe, Where You Going With That Gun In Your Hand? Pt. II

Guest post by Gary Farber.  Gary's home blog is Amygdala, and he invites you to read him there.

[Eric Martin: My friend Gary is going to be pitching in for a couple of days as I adjust to the enhanced parenting techniques that my son is submitting me too.  And yes, sleep deprivation is torture.]

Part I of this two-part post is here.

Pt. II:

First we have to distinguish between the Taliban and al Qaeda. Then we have to analyze what threat either actually presents. And then we have to do a cost-benefit analysis of what's the best course of action. The essential war with al Qaeda, both insofar as al Qaeda remains any kind of organization, and, more importantly, insofar as it remains an inspiration to jihadists, is an ideological war, not a military war. The Taliban now have tried a YouTube channel for propaganda. The best way to fight al Qaeda is to fight their ideology, and we're doing okay at that. From 2008:

[...] These new critics, in concert with mainstream Muslim leaders, have created a powerful coalition countering Al Qaeda's ideology. According to Pew polls, support for Al Qaeda has been dropping around the Muslim world in recent years. The numbers supporting suicide bombings in Indonesia, Lebanon, and Bangladesh, for instance, have dropped by half or more in the last five years. In Saudi Arabia, only 10 percent now have a favorable view of Al Qaeda, according to a December poll by Terror Free Tomorrow, a Washington-based think tank. Following a wave of suicide attacks in Pakistan in the past year, support for suicide operations amongst Pakistanis has dropped to 9 percent (it was 33 percent five years ago), while favorable views of bin Laden in the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan, around where he is believed to be hiding, have plummeted to 4 percent from 70 percent since August 2007.

We can continue presenting an alternative. Many play up contemporary al Qaeda-Taliban ties, but that's highly questionable, as Gareth Porter writes:

Hey, Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand? Pt. I.

Guest post by Gary Farber (thanks to Eric Martin, who understandably is busy!  And double congrats to Eric for all that family-makin' stuff he's been doin'!)

Gary's home blog is Amygdala, and he invites you to read him there.

[Eric Martin: My friend Gary is going to be pitching in for a couple of days as I adjust to the enhanced parenting techniques that my son is submitting me too.  And yes, sleep deprivation is torture.]

A post in two parts.  Part I:

On Friday night's PBS Newshour, Tom Bearden gave the following report from Fort Carson: 

 (Audio-only, if you have bandwidth issues.  Click the above link for a transcript.)

I was struck cold.

I've been to that chapel.

I've seen the upended rifle with the soldier's own helmet atop it, and boots beside it.

I've been there for the chilling sound and sight of the honor guards' rifle-shot salute.

I've listened to the bagpipes, and seen the faces of the family and friends, just as we see and hear in this video.

Then it was one soldier's boots and rifle. 

On Friday, it was six at once.

This is the cost of our Long War in Afghanistan.

This is the price our families, and sons and daughters, and parents, are paying.

It's been eight years and a week since American forces began combat in Afghanistan.

Live from the UN Summit on Climate Change

By Lindsay Beyerstein

I'm posting from the UN Summit on Climate Change at UN HQ in New York. I'm wearing one of those special plastic translation earpieces.

World leaders are here to talk face-to-face before the big climate negotiations to be held in Copenhagen in December. President Obama is scheduled to address this morning's opening session.

The meeting is supposed to be an opportunity for all nations, from the richest emitters to the most vulnerable developing nations, to meet on neutral turf to discuss solutions to the climate crisis.

The one-day summit consists of public opening and closing sessions, separated by closed roundtable discussions among nearly 100 heads of state in attendance.

I'll be tweeting the proceedings. Follow me @beyerstein.

The Demonstrably Racist Rush Limbaugh

by publius

Let me echo Andrew Sullivan and Rod Dreher and Conor Friedersdorf in condemning the utterly shameful and race-baiting exploitation of yesterday's school bus incident.  I'm not big on writing posts that start "Rush Limbaugh did outrageous thing X today...", but this is an exception.

And it's not just Limbaugh.  It's also Malkin, and Gateway Pundit, and Drudge, and Tom Maguire.  Though Limbaugh takes the cake:

It’s Obama’s America, is it not? Obama’s America, white kids getting beat up on school buses now. You put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety but in Obama’s America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering[.]

So here's the basic dilemma.  On the one hand, there's nothing ambiguous about this.  It's straight-up George Wallace-style race-baiting.  It's an intentional attempt to stir racial prejudices.

Limbaugh & Friends took a random fight and immediately tried to pin it on Obama (some less directly than others).  And after the police quickly backed off claims that it was racially motivated, the corrections either didn't come or were merely one-liner updates inappropriate to the gravity of the previous charges.

But even if it was racially motivated, what on earth does Obama have to do with it?  The answer is nothing other race.  The only goal here was to stir up racial resentment and then pin it on Obama.  I'm sorry, but this is infuriating.  We shouldn't be putting up with this in 2009.

But here's the thing -- there's no way to win.  If you ignore it, they get to race-bait.  If you cause a big stink about it, it will have the effect of putting racial tensions in the news.  And that's exactly what they want, because it hurts Obama. 

Obama's numbers, recall, went down with white voters after the Gates incident.  The reason, I think, is simply that racial animosities remain very much with us, despite our enormous progress.  One reason Obama won was that he managed to persuade certain types of voters to ignore race.  That's why Jeremiah Wright was so potentially threatening -- it put race front and center, which is precisely the opposite of where the Obama campaign put it.  These resentments emerged again in the aftermath of Gates.

So that's the dilemma -- Limbaugh wins if you say nothing, and Limbaugh wins if you criticize.  It's maddening. 

But I don't care -- I'm still going to criticize.  This incident is not a run-of-the-mill "Limbaugh said something ridiculous today" story.  This is a big deal.  Limbaugh was unambiguously racist, and he had an awfully big chorus in the Malkin-o'-sphere today.  

But don't take my word for it, here's Dreher:

But good grief, Limbaugh is up to something wicked. He's plainly trying to rally white conservatives into thinking that now that we have a black president, blacks are rising up to attack white kids! . . .

[I]f the Limbaughs of the world are going to . . . blame, with no logical grounds whatsoever, a black president for black-on-white violence, and if they're going to do this in an increasingly hysterical atmosphere of protest against that black president, I don't want to talk about these things at all. Now is not the time. With this kind of inflammatory rhetoric, they are quite simply tearing the country apart.

And Conor:

This isn’t merely a lie — it is a lie that, if credulously received by its audience, is going to heighten racial tensions and mistrust in the United States.  . . .  Mr. Limbaugh accuses others of exacerbating racial tensions and obsessing about race. Sometimes he is right to do so. Yet here he is obsessing about race and ratcheting up racial tensions. It is difficult to think of hypocrisy more abhorrent.