Download PDF of this full issue: v12n1.pdf (8.4 MB)

Nuclear War: Brought by the Man from "Death Valley Days"

By Barry Romo

Admiral Rickover left the Navy with a parting barage, barely picking up the press. But the "Father of the Nuclear Navy" said he hoped the two superpowers wouldn't blow up the world, but that they probably would.

In fact the question of nuclear war is more real today than at any time in the past. The main reason is the shift in strategic concepts around fighting a nuclear war. In the past the U.S. based its strategy on "MAD"—mutual assured destruction (their words, not mine); recently it has moved to limited nuclear warfare. As bad as it was in the past, MAD meant one did not use nuclear weapons and that firing one meant firing all of them. But Reagan, Haig, Bush, etc believe we can win a nuclear war and that there has been too much fear in the past. There is, however, the problem that Breshnyev still thinks that firing one means going all out.

This needs to be combined with the present moves by Reagan and Co to achieve a first-strike capability. There's been an increase in land-based missiles; these are more offensive than defensive since they possess the capability of pinpoint accuracy which is needed to destroy the enemy on the ground. Subs are more a defensive weapon since they can hide and though they are not as accurate as bombers or land-based missiles; they do present a deterrent. At the moment the U.S. has enough subs to destroy the world; again, according to Admiral Rickover, "When you have a hundred that can destroy everything, why do you need 200?"

And then there's the neutron bomb. This menace has been touted as a defensive weapon to be used only against invading tanks. But what if, instead of pure defense, a country wanted to invade? The neutron bomb could destroy enemy units without destroying bridges or roads that are needed to advance—in fact in the past defense has meant destroying such things to prevent an enemy advance. Now we can leave them intact. And there are oil fields: the good old neutron bomb could be used to get rid of the bad guys and save the refinery.

According to Reagan and Co things like the Neutron bomb and Pershing missiles are meant to keep the potential nuclear war "limited." And that's why Europe is in such a turmoil; they are afraid Reagan is willing to fight the Russians to the last drop of German or French or Dutch blood. The problem is how "limited" will such a war remain should one side begin to lose. And the Reagan Administration is the one which believes we can survive a general nuclear war.

What we're left with is the faith that our leaders won't use the bomb. But remember that only one country has ever used nuclear weapons. And one more interesting point of history, recently revealed: when Dien Bien Phu was about to fall in 1954, it was the U.S. Secretary of State Dulles who volunteered to "lend one or two bombs" to the French in order to save them.

Barry Romo
VVAW National Office