First written on Instagram: 2022-07-30
First posted: 2022-10-27

This hearing transcription from 1968 talks about the US nuclear arsenal. TLDR and my thoughts:

Interesting to see the fundamental doctrines laid out by the military officers. Vast majority of them prefer the offensive doctrine, which is strong first strike capability, but at the same time claiming that increased expenditures on Anti Ballistic Missile systems are not worth it, since “the missile will always get through”.

Tehcnical developments at that time which were not yet implemented we see today: the MIRV system. Interestingly, senators back then kept asking for a bigger warhead on one rocket, as opposed to what all the military brass said was better; multiple smaller but more accurate warheads on one rocket. I guess uneducated people always prefer the caveman option lol. Another thing was limited discussion of actual fundamental issues concerning nuclear war and development, as opposed to the intense debates concerning such matters in 1946. In fact, not a single civilian scientist was called as witness during these 1968 hearings.

In one interesting talk, the senators asking how the US can maintain nuclear superiority over the enemy. The general on the stand responded profoundly: “we may have superiority over the Soviets, but you can’t really police someone with a nuclear missile”. That is to say, you can only destroy them or let them be, the degree of force necessary to control them is not flexible. Ultimately, the takeaway is that although we think nuclear war is basically MAD, in fact it is not. Technical developments CAN AND WILL change the dyanimic of nuclear war, from submarine earthquake thermonuclear torpedos to potential terrorist suitcase bombs to close range tactical nukes.

The overwhelmingly technical nature of the interviews and questions asked by the senators demonstrates that they understand the importance of the technological shift, even if they still refuse to let go of their old strategic conceptions. At the very least, they recognize that there is change and that it must be met head on. Unfortunatley, despite implementing many of the reccomended changes (most notably MIRV and SSBNs), the United States still has yet to adopt a comprehensive Missile Defense system and public bunker policy.

One might argue that the love for bombers is in fact the Air Force’s way of trying to keep its own branch independence, since the entire concept of the air force as an independent arm was due to its advocacy of strategic bombing as a ‘modern, technical, and ‘clean’’ way to win wars. In reality, missiles are much more effective, and this will be proven to be more and more true as the decades progress.