Open Letter to Rich Lowry of National Review Magazine

   
   
To Rich Lowry, editor in chief, National Review    
   
Please consider publishing articles about the state of defenselessness America is in.
There are 4 main points that capture the essence of the inadequacy of our nuclear Triad.
I mean that our nuclear Deterrent no longer is strong enough to deter Russian Attack.    
 Here's the evidence in 4 points.    
   
First Point, President Clinton changed the policy as to just how quickly we are to respond to Russian attack.
It used to be that we would retaliate immediately.
But after Gorbachev ended the Cold War by making peace
(to get us to disarm over time -- which is what we've been doing),
our experts downplay the likelihood of intentional Russian attack.
These experts now see "accidental nuclear war" as the greater threat, a war where we think Russian attack is occurring when it is not.    
   
So now we are to wait til we know for sure that Russian attack is beginning.
This means we will lose our ICBMs - if Russian attack is for real.
For we only have 6 minutes to get our ICBMs into the air (before missile warheads from Russian submarines reach their silos).
Waiting to confirm that the attack is happening automatically reduces the likelihood that we will be able to retaliate with our ICBMs.    
   
So, right there, we go from a Triad down to a retaliatory arsenal of just a TWO parts: Bombers and submarines. We have written off our ICBMs !!!    
   
Second Point: our experts justify this move on the basis that the missiles on our boomer subs are enough to deter Russian attack.
That was true when there were 39 such subs (in Reagan's time).
But since then we have cut back to just 12 boomer subs, a more than 2/3 reduction !!!
That move invalidates the claim that "we don't need our ICBMs, for our boomer subs are more than enough to deter Russia."
We can't have it both ways.If we write off our ICBMs we NEED to hold onto our subs, instead of reducing them drastically - which we have done.    
   
Third Point: the CIA ignores the thousands - THOUSANDS - of ABMs that Russia has built, in violation of the ABM Treaty. (This was done BEFORE we opted out of that treaty.) Why ignore those ABMs? Because our spy satellites monitored the testing. When a dummy warhead was sent across Russia and an ABM was sent up to intercept it, it failed every time. But expert Angelo Codevilla says, "of course the ABMs failed, for the tests were rigged. By failing to intercept the warheads, Russia benefits by getting us to discount their ABMs as worthless.    
   
Fourth Point: Russia reportedly has enough ABMs to shoot down 1,300 incoming warheads. So we need to have at least more than 1,300 warheads on our 8 subs at sea. But with the "New START Treaty that Obama signed in 2010, (which went into effect in 2011, if I'm not mistaken), we have only 1,120 warheads on our 8 subs at sea. For each sub has only 20 missiles (instead of 24 like before). Each missile carries 7 warheads plus a decoy. So 20 X 7 = 140. That's the warheads per sub. Eight subs X 140 = 1,120 warheads.    
   
In closing, since we have to discount our ICBMs and the missiles on our subs, that leaves only our B2 strategic bombers. Our old B52s and B1s have been taken off "alert" status. But we only have 18 B2 Stealth bombers left. And only 1/3 or 2/3 are on "alert". But 6 or even 12 B2s aren't enough to deter Russian attack.    
   
So we must be willing to view with NEW EYES the recent (October 3-7 2016) Russian Civil Defense evacuation of 40 million people from all of Russia's major cities. We need to see that exercise as a real sign of what Russia is getting ready to do.    
   
The solution? If we were to go on the highest "alert" status like Nixon did in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War, (when Russia threatened to enter that war unless Israel refrained from entering Egypt, (after Egypt invaded Israel)), Russia could never attack our with impunity. For that level of "alert" means our ICBMs would get launched within the 6 minute limit.