One of the leftist organizations that advocates America’s unilateral disarmament is the Arms Control Association (ACA), founded in 1971. Since its founding, it has constantly called for America’s unilateral nuclear disarmament and stridently opposed the development and deployment of even the most modest missile defense systems.
Last October, ACA released a “report” wherein it repeated its decades-old claim that the US nuclear arseal is “bloated” and “excessive” and called for deep unilateral cuts to it as well as foregoing several key modernization programs.
That screed will be rebutted on the substance in the next several days in a counterreport. Here, we will demonstrate to our Readers how dishonestly ACA conducts its “research” which enables it to arrive at pre-determined conclusions.
How does ACA does so?
Firstly, by completely fabricating claims (e.g. the assertion that unilateral cuts in the U.S. nuclear deterrent have led to corresponding cuts in the Soviet/Russian arsenal).
And secondly, by taking small bits of single sentences of current and retired defense officials out of context while ignoring vast blocks of statements of these same officials that contradict ACA’s claims and agenda.
Two examples will illustrate this fact – and thus reveal ACA’s “research” methodology.
Firstly, to support its call for further cuts in the US nuclear arsenal and its assertion that this arsenal is unaffordable, ACA quotes Admiral Cecil D. Haney, the current commander of the Strategic Command, as saying to the Congress:
“Arms control treaties have and continue to reduce the likelihood of nuclear conflict with Russia…”
While conveniently omitting the rest of the sentence:
“… but the possibility of regional nuclear conflict strains U.S. alliances and global security commitments.”
And here are further, much longer statements made by Adm. Haney at the very same hearing, which completely contradict ACA’s “we don’t need nukes and they are too expensive” claims and their unilateral disarmament agenda:
“As a nation, we must continue our efforts toward deterring both nuclear and non-nuclear strategic threats to global security. Although the likelihood of major conflict with other nuclear powers is remote today, the existential threat posed by a nuclear attack requires the U.S. to maintain a credible and capable deterrent force.”
“America’s nuclear deterrent force provides enduring value to the nation. It has been a constant thread in the geopolitical fabric of an uncertain world, providing a moderating influence on generations of world leaders. Today, our strategic nuclear capabilities—a synthesis of dedicated sensors, assured command and control, the triad of delivery systems, nuclear weapons and their associated infrastructure, and trained ready people—remain foundational to our national security apparatus.”
And as for the affordability of the nuclear deterrent modernization program, Adm. Haney – the man tasked with overseeing it for the duration of his tenure as STRATCOM leader – said this:
“In recent years the percentage of spending on nuclear forces has gradually declined to only 2.5% of total DOD spending in 2013—a figure near historic lows. (…) The nation faces a substantive, multi-decade recapitalization challenge, and we must continue investing resources toward that effort. Our planned investments are significant, but are commensurate with the magnitude of the national resource that is our strategic deterrent. If we do not commit to these investments, we risk degrading the deterrent and stabilizing effect of a strong and capable nuclear force. I fully support planned and future sensor improvements, upgrades for nuclear command, control and communications (NC3) capabilities, strategic delivery system recapitalization efforts, weapon life extension programs, stockpile surveillance activities, and nuclear complex infrastructure modernization. Together these efforts provide the necessary investments to ensure our triad of nuclear forces remains viable and credible.”
Again, this completely contradicts and refutes all of ACA’s claims about the nuclear arsenal being unneeded, or bloated, or unaffordable.
The ACA also took a single bit from a single out-of-context sentence in the National Defense Panel Review commissioned by Congress, saying that the nuclear modernization program is “unaffordable.” Accordingly, ACA has called for cancelling the USAF’s planned stand-off nuclear-capable missile, cutting the ballistic missile submarine fleet from 14 to 8, and delaying the USAF’s new long-range bomber by an entire decade.
This would be unilateral disarmament by neglect, and even the Obama administration has rejected such a course of action. Delaying the USAF’s new long-range bomber would be particularly reckless, because that aircraft is needed for both nuclear and conventional strike missions – current USAF bombers, except a handful of B-2s, cannot penetrate enemy airspace defended even by modest air defense systems, let alone modern ones like the Russian S-300 and S-400.
And what does the National Defense Panel Review say about this bomber program?
” Given expected advances in the quality and proliferation of advanced air defense systems, a critical DOD modernization priority must be developing new, survivable, long-range strike aircraft to maintain the ability to operate from long ranges, carry a broad array of operationally useful payloads, and operate in and around contested airspace. Whether the aircraft is designed to be manned, unmanned, or “optionally manned,” the need to bring such an aircraft into service by the mid-2020s, when modern air defenses will put the B-2 bomber increasingly at risk, is compelling. We are concerned that continued budget cuts and the resulting programmatic instability would jeopardize this critical investment.”
Dear Readers, this is exactly how ACA conducts its pseudo “research”: in lame attempts to justify its agenda, it quotes other people out of context – taking small bits of single sentences stated by these people – while conveniently omitting the entire rest of those people’s statements, because they don’t jibe with ACA’s unilateral disarmament agenda.
The ACA is a treasonous, lying organization whose members should be prosecuted and severely punished for treason. Its credibility is zero.