Nuclear Posture Review Report - Post #2

As I mentioned a week or so ago, I reviewed the NPR report issued by the Obama administration. You can download the report here.  I finally finished the entire 72-page document.  This post will deal with the second half of the executive summary. Again, before I continue commenting on the NPR, I need to add a disclaimer.  I am employed by Sandia National Laboratories. The views written here are not the official position of SNL and should not be viewed that way. They are my views as a private citizen.

I stopped the previous post at the section entitled "Strengthening Regional Deterrence and Reassuring U.S. Allies and Partners" in the Executive Summary.  Believe it or not, I went almost a page and a half before finding a major issue that I don't really agree with or understand.  On page xiii, we have this item in the list of things that are concluded that the U.S. will do:

• "Retire the nuclear-equipped sea-launched cruise missile (TLAM-N)."

Although the air-launch cruise missile is not removed from the current stockpile by the NPR, this particular item causes me some heartburn.  It removes an element of our capability to project force.  Here is what I mean.  Imagine that Iran knows that we are no longer be able to station nuclear equipped surface ships or submarines just off their coast or in the Strait of Hormuz. This means our stealthy attack submarines or very visible surface ships do not present as big a deterrent to their nuclear (or other) ambitions. To attack them tactically (I don't think strategic systems make sense in this discussion), we would be forced to fly bombers halfway across the world (risking the crew and aircraft) rather than having the force ready and able on their doorstep.

Now, it could very well be that I don't understand the complete context in which this decision is being made.  However, I don't see how this particular decision does what the title of the section implies. It does not strengthen regional deterrence and it doesn't reassure our allies and partners.  In my view, it weakens both of these things. The very next bullet in the section declares that "no changes ... will be made without close consultations with our allies and partners."  I am not sure that our allies and partners will believe that based on the decision in the previous bullet.  I know that I wouldn't.

As I continued on to the "Sustaining a Safe, Secure, and Effective Nuclear Arsenal" section, I question the decision not to develop new designs (page xiv, bullet 2). I will address this in a future post. To be completely fair, the final two bullets on page xiv seem reasonable.  These items do move the ball forward in assuring that we have a safe and reliable stockpile.  On a personal note, those items provide some job security for me.

The first full sentence of page xv restates something that my colleagues and I have said many times:

• "As the United States reduces the numbers of nuclear weapons, the reliability of the remaining weapons in the stockpile -- and the quality of the facilities needed to sustain it -- become more important." 

Basically, each one becomes more valuable and it is more important that we and our adversaries know that they will function if that nightmare need arises. This section of the Executive Summary seems to be more in line with the traditional outlook for our stockpile stewardship program. I found little to quibble with in the section overall excepting (of course) the no new design policy.

My only note on the concluding section of the Executive Summary ("Looking Ahead:  Toward a World Without Nuclear Weapons") is that the outlook presented is incredibly naive.  I will spend some time defining my view of this in the post relating to that chapter of the NPR. The second half of the Executive Summary did not reek havoc with my emotional state (and blood pressure) like the first half did.  However, I still believe that the worldview that produced the document leads to dangerous unintended consequences.

"Dune Messiah" Review

• Title:  "Dune Messiah"
• Author:  Frank Herbert
  
• Finished:  January 31, 2009 
• Synopsis:  This book is the 2nd book in the original "Dune Chronicles" by Frank Herbert.  A pretty good synopsis is found here.
• Impression of the book: Of the six Dune books written by Frank Herbert, this one is the shortest and maybe the most disturbing.  It deals with the elevation of a ruler to Messiah or god-like status.  Paul struggles with what his followers (both political and religious) are doing in his name and his inability to stop them even with his tremendous powers.  The book deals with the dangers of religion and politics riding in the same boat.  It also demonstrates that sometimes these political-religious movements depend more on a figurehead than a true leader.
• Read Again Scale:  10
• Like "Dune" this book is also on my five year re-read list.
• Read Another Book by the Same Author:  10
• Frank Herbert is one of greats of science fiction.  Eventually, I plan to read every novel that he wrote.

Even though this is the second novel in the series, it is the last book that I read.  That is a long story.  This is an excellent bridge between Dune and Children of Dune, but does not stand out as a singular encapsulated story. It does however introduce new concepts such as the pitfalls of absolute prediction (perfect prescience) and the intrigue that surrounds an emperor with no heir. If you are a science fiction fan (or thinking of giving the genre a try), the Dune universe created by Frank Herbert is a good place to dive into.  If you enjoy the world that he creates, you might try the other books written by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson.  Again, I will warn you that if you don't enjoy sci-fi, take a pass on this book and series.

Nuclear Posture Review Report - Post #1

A couple of days ago the Obama administration released the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) Report.  In the past (the last two were 1994 and 2001), this sort of report had an unclassified portion released to the public with a classified appendix for those who had a need to know.  All indications with this NPR point to the fact that the entire NPR is likely contained in this unclassified 72-page document that you can download here.  At this time, I have read through the Table of Contents and the first 11 pages of the "Executive Summary."

Before I start commenting on what I believe is thoroughly misguided and naive NPR, I need to add a disclaimer.  I am employed by Sandia National Laboratories. The views written here are not the official position of SNL and should not be viewed that way. They are my views as a private citizen. Now, on with the show...

It is not often that I get choked up while reading the Table of Contents, but this NPR is a real page-turner.  The last chapter of the report is entitled, "Looking Ahead:  Toward a World Without Nuclear Weapons." This stopped me for a bit because, while this is a noble goal, it is an incredibly naive.  It is also dangerous to think the that the United States will be able to bring this about through the nuclear posture that is outlined and detailed later in the document. By the way, I was fine with the rest of the Table of Contents, so you can't say that I disagree with Obama on EVERYTHING in this document.

I don't start having real problems with the document until page viii (page 14 in the pdf).  Here are some excerpts that I would like to discuss further:

• "... the role of U.S.nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks – conventional, biological, or chemical – has declined significantly. The United States will continue to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks."
• "To that end, the United States is now prepared to strengthen its long-standing “negative security assurance” by declaring that the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations."
• "This revised assurance is intended to underscore the security benefits of adhering to and fully complying with the NPT and persuade non-nuclear weapon states party to the Treaty to work with the United States and other interested parties to adopt effective measures to strengthen the non-proliferation regime."

In case you don't understand the context, the U.S. gave up its chemical and biological weapons by treaty a long time ago, so we can't retaliate "tit for tat" with this type of weapon. The research that we do in this area is limited to the development of protective suits for our soldiers and the development of agents to deactivate or decontaminate the chem-bio agents.  In the past, we have used the unknown and ambiguous nature of our response to these types of attacks against us as a deterrent. We are now proclaiming that, as long as you are in compliance with the non-proliferation treaty, we will not retaliate with nuclear weapons even if you choose to attack us with biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction. I can't believe that I am the only one that thinks this is completely asinine and stupid.

Our soldiers went into Kuwait to expel Iraqi forces during the Gulf War wearing chem-bio protection because every one in the world KNEW that Saddam Hussein had those weapons.  Was he hesitant to use them because he was a great humanitarian?  We know that the answer to that is "NO!" because he attacked the Kurds in northern Iraq (his own people) with them in 1988. I think that he did not want his Presidential palace illuminated with a W80 warhead mounted on the front end of a Tomahawk cruise missile.  If had chosen to use these WMDs, he knew that was one of our possible responses. With this new NPR, he would not have had those fears.

My next piece of heartburn with the NPR shows up on page ix (page 15 of the pdf).  If you search for the second bullet on the page, we will find:

• "The United States would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners." (emphasis added)

I know there are those of you who wonder why I would have trouble with this statement. Well, it is not the statement. It is that I simply don't trust that Obama and his administration have the same vital interests as the rest of the American people (e.g., the Health Care legislation) or our allies (e.g., snubs of the Brits and the Israelis over the last 15 months).

Now, my final bone of contention in the first 11 pages of the Executive Summary is found on page xi (page 17 in pdf):

• "First, any future nuclear reductions must continue to strengthen deterrence of potential regional adversaries, strategic stability vis-à-vis Russia and China, and assurance of our allies and partners. This will require an updated assessment of deterrence requirements; further improvements in U.S., allied, and partner non-nuclear capabilities; focused reductions in strategic and nonstrategic weapons; and close consultations with allies and partners."

This is the classic mathematical mistake of addition by subtraction.  While it is quite clear that less regulation (subtraction in the number of rules and laws) can add to the quality of life of citizens, I don't think the principal of disarmament (subtraction in war fighting capability) in the face of growing and unknown threats in any way adds to the security of this country. I am willing to listen to counter-arguments, but it is going to be had to convince me that carrying a big stick wasn't the most important part of Teddy Roosevelt's philosophy. Instead, we are going to shout loudly that we want to be nice, and we will show you this by laying down our stick. I wonder how often that works in someplace other than La La Land.

At this point during my reading, I had reached a section heading and my blood pressure was spiking.  So, I put down the document and tried to relax a bit.  As I slog my way through this document, I think that I will post opinions on a chapter by chapter basis.  The next post will handle the rest of the Executive Summary. I have hopes that the document is better than the summary, but that is probably just more of that same "Hope and Change" that really isn't working all that well right now.

"Tales from the Dad Side" Review

• Title:  "Tales from the Dad Side"
• Author:  Steve Doocy
• Finished:  January 28, 2009
• Synopsis:  Steve Doocy tells his view of fatherhood from both his childhood and adult perspective (with a very quirky sense of humor).  Here is the description of the book from Doocy's website.
• Impression of the book:  I found the book to be mildly amusing, but not nearly as funny as others who have read it.  As Kristy will tell you, most people don't "get" my sense of humor or my jokes.  I am ok with that, and it tells me that this book is probably much better than I would give it credit for being.
• Read Again Scale:  1
• One time through this book was enough for me.  I will likely pass it along to one of my siblings to get their thoughts on it.
• Read Another Book by the Same Author: 2
• Doocy is not really my style of writer or humorist.

This book was a Christmas gift.  I must admit that I would not have picked this one up at the bookstore.  I don't feel like I wasted the time spent reading the stories that Doocy included.  In fact, I appreciate the effort that he put into trying to pass along gems that might help other dads.  As I said earlier, other people have liked this book much more than I did.  If you like Doocy on Fox & Friends, you will probably like this book.  It is also a real quick read, so even if you don't end up liking the book, you will be done with it in a couple of days.

So, Preventive Medicine Saves Money?

I have been carrying an article with me around the country over the last year or so.  It was written in February 2008 in the New England Journal of Medicine. The "Perspective" asks the question, "Does preventative care save money?"  The writers conclude that most of the political rhetoric about the possible dollars that could be saved by prevention is "overreaching."

The authors make it clear that vaccinations, smoking cessation, low cost screening for a disease (when a cost effective treatment for the disease exists), and avoiding misuse of alcohol DO save money. However, they also point out that expensive high-tech treatments for some diseases might be a more cost effective use of medical care.  I think that the most interesting statement in the article is the following:

• "Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not. Careful analysis of the costs and benefits of specific interventions, rather than broad generalizations, is critical."  (emphasis added)

I am pretty sure that this finding is counter-intuitive to most of our feelings on the subject.  Somehow, we believe that knowing we have a disease before the effects start to mess with our systems is better for us in the long run (both in terms of health and economics) while the medical research demonstrates that this is not true.  In any case, I thought I would toss this question out for discussion:

• "Is an ounce of prevention REALLY worth a pound of cure?"

Let me know your opinion.

Whether we like it or not, our future medical care providers (whether private doctors, HMOs, or the federal government) will be looking at some of the issues raised in this short article.  In fact, the "quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)" discussed in the article are essentially the means by which all socialized medical systems ration care.  I really don't like to think that my health care decisions will be made by someone looking up the QALYs of a particular treatment before deciding to allocate the funds for it.  I like the ability to make that decision myself.  In any case, how much freedom do you think we will have when our heart, lungs, knees, and backs become line items in the federal budget?

Quite frankly, I think a lot of sickness could be prevented if we just stopped talking about a takeover of our health care system by the government.  I know that my blood pressure would be lower if we did.

"The Hurry-Up, No-Huddle: An Offensive Philosophy" Review

• Title:  "The Hurry-Up, No-Huddle: An Offensive Philosophy"
• Author:  Gus Malzahn
• Finished:  January 5, 2009
• Synopsis:  This short book is written for coaches interested in implementing the Hurry-Up, No-Huddle offense (HUNH).  Malzahn discuss both his reasons for jumping feet first into this offense and his implementation of the system at Shiloh Christian School in Springdale, Arkansas.   
• Impression of the book:  As the brother of a football coach, I wanted to understand some of the pros and cons of implementing this type of offense.  If you are going to read a book about fast-paced high school football, this is the one to tackle (pun intended, Josh).
• Read Again Scale:  10
• I try to read this book about once a year before the 7-on-7 football season begins in Arkansas.
• Read Another Book by the Same Author: 5
• If Malzahn ever decides to tell the story of his time at Arkansas, then I would read it.  Otherwise, I probably wouldn't read another book by him.

This is the first (and only) football coaching book that I have ever read.  Malzahn is clearly writing for coaches, but the material is accessible to someone who watches a lot of football.  Malzahn is definitely a gifted offensive coach, and his coaching decisions (discussed in the book) demonstrate that he is willing to go against conventional wisdom.  I think he also demonstrates that conservative football strategy based on defense and ball control thinking will have to be "re-thunk" in the next few years.

"Every Dead Thing" Review

• Title:  "Every Dead Thing"
• Author:  John Connolly
• Finished:  March 6, 2010 
• Synopsis:  The John Connolly website has an excellent synopsis of the book. 
• Impression of the book:  This book fills in the back story that I missed when I read "Dark Hollow."  The story is gripping as murders and dead bodies seem to surround Charlie "Bird" Parker wherever he goes. His attempts to get away from the hunt for the "Traveling Man" (who killed his wife and daughter) lead him to solve the mystery of another 30 year old series of murders.  Bird is never far from the Traveling Man who seems to know everything he does (and more). "Every Dead Thing" contains elements of the mystical (New Orleans style "voodoo") while mixing in regular, old fashioned detective thriller fundamentals.  I really enjoyed this book.
• Read Again Scale:  8
• If I stumble across this one at the library again, I will definitely consider bringing it home.
• Read Another Book by the Same Author:  10
• After reading a second book by Connolly, I will definitely look for others.

This is a fascinating story of a detective who has his wife and daughter murdered.  The very thought of a police officer's family being dragged into this kind of story makes Bird's actions totally understandable. He lives the worst nightmare of a cop, but he isn't dreaming. It is a story of Bird dealing with grief and guilt over his family's death while hunting, and being hunted by, serial killers.  I would recommend this book for those that like a good murder mystery/detective story.  Again, the warning about trouble sleeping after reading this novel goes along with Connolly's work.

"The Sinner" Review

• Title:  "The Sinner"
• Author:  Tess Gerritsen
• Finished:  April 5, 2009
• Synopsis:  As with the previous reviews of Gerritsen books, the synopsis is probably best handled by linking to Gerritsen's webpage or the Amazon page for the book.
• Impression of the book:  This Rizzoli and Isles story is the most recent book by Gerritsen that I have read.  Unfortunately, it is also the least memorable of the ones I have read.  Dr. Isles is dealing with an ex-husband and both Rizzoli and Isles face a lot of non-practicing Catholic guilt.  These aspects of the novel never really drew me into the story. Without these sidelines, the medical mystery would have been very entertaining.  As it is, this was my least favorite of the 4 Rizzoli/Isles books that I have read thus far.
• Read Again Scale:  5
• Like the previous three Gerritsen novels, a definite maybe on the re-read scale.  It depends on what else is going on in the house.
• Read Another Book by the Same Author:  10
• Since I am reviewing a 4th book by this author, you have a pretty good idea that I will read her work again.

The distractions from the main storyline do add depth to Gerritsen's characters as they develop through the series.  However, I would have preferred that she stick with story at hand.  It was an entertaining book, but I believe that the attempts at defining Isles and Rizzoli more thoroughly cooled me on reading any more book in the series over the last 11 months.  Eventually, I will get back to Gerritsen's medical mysteries because she really does tell great stories. Once again, I need to caution that the subject matter of Gerritsen's books can cause some to lose sleep. 

"The Ambler Warning" Review

• Title:  "The Ambler Warning"
• Author: Robert Ludlum
• Finished:  February 25, 2010
• Synopsis:  Harrison (Hal) Ambler, a State Department Consular Operations agent, finds himself in a high security psychiatric facility. While in ConOps, Ambler was an extremely valuable member of the "Political Stabilization Unit" because he is basically a human lie detector. Ambler has been so drugged/confused by the staff that he doesn't even know who he is anymore. With the help of a nurse, Ambler escapes the facility and begins trying to put together the pieces of his life that led to his incarceration. Now that he has escaped, Ambler has to avoid both recapture by those who put him in the facility and death by the security forces that he has tangled with over the years.  He is also struggling to prevent an assassination that may start another World War.
• Impression of the book:  This novel was a classic Ludlum story - a covert agent of the U.S. government on the run and surrounded by enemies he can't know.  The agent can't trust his "friends" or his enemies.  I think that Ludlum (or his ghostwriter to finish this one) is the best at weaving the complicated storyline that makes a great spy thriller.  Of the 26 novels that Ludlum wrote/outlined/story-boarded, I would put this one in the top 10.
• Read Again Scale:  7
• I occasionally find myself to the Ludlum section of the library, and when I am there, I often pick up a new novel plus one that I have read before.
• Read Another Book by the Same Author:  10
• I think this is actually the last novel to be legitimately attributed to Ludlum.  His name has basically became a trademark or brand after his death.

While reading a Ludlum novel, you always feel like you have read this story before. I think the familiarity with the "shadow elements" in all his works is what produces that deja vu. Clearly, I have been hooked on the overly complicated conspiracies that Ludlum cranked out before his death for a long time (since about 6th grade). I have read most of his novels and probably have about half of them in hardback.  If you like spy thrillers, this one is a good read. It is also a pretty good one to introduce someone new to the genre to the twists and turns of a good spy novel.

"Dune" by Frank Herbert

• Title:  "Dune"
• Author:  Frank Herbert
• Finished:  January 25, 2009
• Synopsis:  There is a lot of stuff in this science fiction classic.  The Wikipedia entry that discusses "Dune" does a pretty good job on the synopsis.
• Impression of the book:  In about 1984, Mom bought me a torn-up paperback at a yard sale (I was 11).  When I say torn-up, I am mean the cover was ripped off and the 1st page or 2 had sections missing.  That book turned out to be one of my all-time favorite novels: "Dune".  Dune is widely recognized as classic science fiction along with books like "Brave New World," "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea," "Frankenstein," and "The Martian Chronicles." I was able to immerse myself into a human (mostly) universe many thousands of years into the future spread across many galaxies. That escape was exactly what I needed at that time and is probably why I return to it every so often. The story had aspects that I didn't understand when I first read it (e.g., addiction, political intrigue and corruption, and religious fanaticism), but the story was compelling enough for my limited experience to grasp and enjoy.  Each time I return to this novel, I find something new. 
• Read Again Scale:  10
• I have re-read this book about every 5 years since the age of 11.
• Read Another Book by the Same Author:  10
• Frank Herbert is probably my favorite sci-fi author.

The original "Dune" chronicles stand out as the one science fiction series that always holds my attention.  There is a lot depth in this book that doesn't become clear until you have read some of the later additions to the series. The movies and mini-series made from this book and series have never really been able to bring the scope of the ideas in the book to the screen. If you like science fiction and haven't read this book, you are missing some of the best writing (and story) in the genre. However, if you don't enjoy sci-fi, take a pass on this book and series.