OPINION:
Keith Payne is right to point out the dangers inherent in the emotional policy of nuclear disarmament (“Shooting down minimum nuclear deterrence,” Web, Nov. 4). Mr. Payne makes a clear case why deterrence through conventional forces alone has proved itself inadequate, particularly as the nuclear capabilities of other nations grows.
However, Mr. Payne’s piece omits mention of the importance of using missile defense in conjunction with nuclear deterrence. An effective missile defense provides our commander in chief with essential time to consider reaction to an unprovoked missile attack, rather than the Cold War policy of launching a reprisal on detection of an attack. It also provides us with protection against an irrational enemy that may not be deterred by the certainty of retaliation.
We support the need to maintain an effective nuclear deterrent, but we remain concerned that our nuclear-warhead capabilities and numbers of experienced staff have declined to alarmingly low levels. We also remain concerned that our national missile-defense capabilities remain unproven in terms of sufficient successful tests to provide high confidence in the system’s effectiveness. It is noteworthy that an interception test of the system slated for 2015 has been replaced with a test that lacks a simulated target.
Deterrence remains a vital component of our foreign policy in this highly unpredictable security situation facing America and her allies. Let us hope that the new Congress will work with the president to ensure our nuclear deterrent and our missile-defense capabilities are enhanced to provide full effectiveness.
STANLEY ORMAN
Rockville
MAJ. GEN. EUGENE FOX
U.S. Army (retired)
Plano, Texas
Please read our comment policy before commenting.