Warren Mishap No Bar To START

Warren Mishap No Bar To START

“My sense is that the START Treaty ought to be ratified and ought to be ratified as soon as possible.” Those are the words of one of America’s most experienced and respected nuclear arms experts, Air Force Lt. Gen. Frank G. Klotz, who also happens to be the man in charge of protecting, arming and delivering the Air Force’s share of nuclear weapons.

Klotz, commander of Air Force Global Strike Command and who was director for nuclear policy and arms control for two years at the National Security Council, put his considerable reputation on the line as he addressed calls by conservatives to kill the treaty. Some of them argue that the Warren Air Force base mishap, which left crews unaware of the status of 50 missiles for 46 minutes and triggered the deployment of nuclear missile security forces, marks “one of the most serious and sizable ruptures in nuclear command and control in history.”

Those words appear in a Heritage Foundation email sent out today. Here is how Heritage described the incident: “On October 24, 2010, at the Warren Air Force base in Wyoming, the United States Air Force lost communication with a sizeable portion of America’s nuclear deterrent: a squadron of nuclear-armed 50 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).”

Here is how Klotz described it. He said the missile crews “…temporarily lost the ability to monitor the status of 50 missiles…” The problem was caused by an “equipment malfunction in one of the silos.” Once the crews had gone through their checklist and isolated the problem they were able to fix it. Klotz told reporters at a Defense Writers Group breakfast today that this is not the first time such incidents had occurred. “I think it has absolutely no link at all to the START Treaty,” he said. Two “similar events” took place in 1998, he added. Senior Air Force leaders have been at pains to make clear that the US retained the ability to launch the missiles and never lost command and control between the silos and the national command authority.

GOP Sens. Jon Kyl and John Barrosso have argued the nuclear enterprise is underfunded and believe the new START Treaty could worsen the situation. “The recent failure reinforces the need for the United States to maintain 450 ICBMs to ensure a strong nuclear defense,” Barrasso has said. “Before ratifying this treaty, the Senate must ensure we modernize our own nuclear weapons and strengthen our national security.”

A congressional aide who follows nuclear issues closely said this after seeing Klotz’ comments: “The significance of the FE Warren event is that the reliability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent needs to be taken into account when determining how many nuclear delivery systems are necessary to carry out U.S. deterrence requirements. At lower numbers of operationally deployed nuclear weapons, the implications of what happened at FE Warren become more important to consider. I’m not suggesting that our deterrent capability was weakened by what occurred, just that it should give one pause when considering lower force levels –- particularly after New START, which we know is the intention of this administration.”

Kyl has never wavered in his opposition to the new START Treaty. Klotz’s views, no matter how authoritative, are likely to be dismissed since the administration supports the new treaty and Klotz is a serving officer who is expected to support the administration’s position, Kyl and his are likely to argue. But Klotz stepped out this morning, putting his personal experience and judgment on the line and he deserves to be taken seriously.

Join the Conversation

Bold move by the General and it is reassuring to see someone of such standing, so experienced in the field of the issue at hand, being so decisive with their view. Its rather silly then when you have politicians and unnamed congressional aides offering conflicting advice of such an experienced officer.

The comment by the congressional aide “I’m not suggesting that our deterrent capability was weakened by what occurred” flies in the face of reality. It was weakened and that should be corrected as a priority. The fact that its happened before albeit more than 10 years ago is concerning. It would be interesting to know where these outages occurred.

Civilians have run things so far and you see where that is getting us.

It is not “bold” for a General to openly support the President. It’s called following orders.

START should be ratified. Our nuclear deterrence would be sufficient if we had half or even a quarter of the nuclear weapons we currently have. It is long since time we step back from the brink and cooperate with Russia to control nuclear proliferation. Grandstanding and ensuring we have enough nukes to destroy half the planet paradoxically will not ensure global security. Preventing countries like Pakistan, India, Iran, and North Korea from detonating a nuclear bomb will.

Such urgency to get this thing passed during the lame duck session…we all know why.

A further point is that the US and Russia have MASSIVELY disarmed at the same time these other countries have been developing their nukes. It has not stopped them but a cut from 2200 warheads to 1550 will suddenly stop them?

How many times in history have we proven that weakening yourself is not an effective deterrent? The liberal/progressive/socialists who have infected our government have been steadily weakening us morally, militarily, and economically for decades now. When you’re dealing with savages, bullies, and evil people, if you drop your guard and stick out your chin, you’re going to get a broken jaw. Every time in history that we have shown weakness, we have been attacked. This idea that if we throw away our nuclear arms, the rest of the world will like us and do the same is ridiculous.

I am worried the General’s comments understate what actually happened. Shouldn’t he be fighting for a greater share of the pie for Nuclear Weapons? It is tough to argue against modernization when most of the proposed changes are for increasing safety and reliability. The General should take a larger role on the national stage for getting more money.

Of course the General’s comments should be given the weight they deserve coming from someone of such experience. But at the end of the day the Constitution grants civilians control over the military so like it or not politicians have a say.

It seems both sides of the political aisle point to the “authority of the Generals” when those generals happen to agree with them. Remember it was Clemenceau who said “war is too important to be left to the Generals.”

So how do you get the cooperation of India, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea? Iran and North Korea say they wants nukes to overcome the US’s conventional superiority. Should we totally disarm and then politely ask them not to build nukes?


NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.