Building up our nuclear arsenal
I feel it is important to write something about the Trump administration’s plan, “… to develop new nuclear firepower that it says will make it easier to deter threats to European allies.” According to Robert Burns of the Associated Press, “that puts the U.S. in a more aggressive nuclear stance.”
Several outside events and House and Senate hearings will take place this week on the $700 billion defense policy bill. I always think about the vast amounts of money that used for military resources or space exploration that could be shifted to many other worthwhile causes that challenge us here and now– poverty in the United States, causes and treatment of major diseases, environmental protection, etc. Let me also mention the enormous national debt. I would question the buildup of the nuclear arsenal at this time.
I contacted a few people for their input. Most of them have some military background.
• H. W. Everett, a new acquaintance and former Army sergeant: “New technology for the military is a good idea. The greatest offensive power is the truest defensive deterrent. Because President Trump hired General Mattis to be our Secretary of Defense my confidence is high. The thought that our enemies are going to be civil or disarm is childish. Having the strongest military force is what keeps us safe.”
• William Vassil, a former high school classmate and real estate investor living in Denver, Colorado: “The Trump administration is proposing a plan/ program that call for ‘ the flexible use of nuclear weapons.’ Anytime you take something which has been considered as unthinkable for over 70 years; the use of nuclear weapons to wage war, and make it thinkable that they can be used, it is nothing short of terrifying. It is not the change in the nuclear weapons themselves but the policy that goes with this new class of high tech nuclear weapons that we must fear.”
• Kate Dahlstedt, founder and director, Soldier’s Heart: “‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ The president’s plan is no different than a school playground maneuver. It is never better or safer to be the biggest bully on the.block. Someone will alwaysD want to bring you down, and eventually will. Having the ‘biggest and most powerful’ only makes us the most violent, most evil. We would be more successful at ‘winning hearts and minds’ through education and social programs.”
• Kurt Engler, U.S. Army veteran born in Germany: “I’m against enlarging the nuclear arsenals. The whole world would ultimately suffer of the consequences that could result. The president needs to govern, not agitate. No war weapons ever brought ‘peace on Earth.’”
• Chris Gibson, former Army colonel and congressman: He mentioned a comprehensive peace plan in the chapter titled “Practice Peace Through Strength” in his book, “Rally Point.” He states that, “Strengthening our military must be the top priority of the Trump administration.” He adds that, “The deterrence of mutual assured destruction (MAD) only works if we have a viable nuclear arsenal.”
• Dr. Edward Tick, internationally renowned trauma expert: “Since ancient times, powerful empires have produced advanced weaponry using the latest technologies -- from stone to bronze to gunpowder to nuclear weapons and drones. Each power believed their weapons would make them invincible and lead to peace through their domination. But each advance led to the development of more advanced weaponry on the other side, leading to more war, violence, destruction and death. Pres. Trump’s nuclear strategy is only an extension of this ancient violent historical cycle in which we appear trapped, but now with weapons of mass destruction. His strategy ramps up international tensions, encourages foes to produce more nuclear weapons, makes the world less safe, and demonstrates to the world that our country is an aggressor nation.”
This is clearly a provocative issue in our world.