DECAPITATION:SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT POST-COLD WAR ENEMIES TRYING TO ‘TAKE OUT’ THE U.S. GOVERNMENT?
(Washington, D.C.): The New York
Times‘ front page yesterday
gleefully reported that the Clinton
Administration has decided to dismantle
what it calls “the Doomsday
Project,” effective 1 October 1994.
According to the Times, this
project was designed to “keep the
[U.S.] Government running after a
sustained nuclear attack on
Washington.” Clinton officials who
leaked the decision to the paper
reportedly characterized this initiative
as an “antique of the Cold
War.”
The Times article, written by
Tim Weiner — a journalist whose
obsessive preoccupation with secrecy and
perceived conspiracies in the American
government have demonstrably skewed his
past reporting(1)
— is harshly critical of this effort to
sustain continuity of government (COG) in
the face of nuclear catastrophe. It
deprecates the substantial investment
made toward this end (reportedly $8
billion over 11 years). It criticizes the
secrecy that is absolutely necessary if
the capabilities so acquired are not to
be fatally compromised. It implies that,
in light of the difficulties inherent in
such an undertaking, the effort is not
worth making. And it asserts repeatedly
that the need for a comprehensive COG
program has disappeared along with the
Cold War.
It Ain’t Necessarily So
In fact, maintaining the
rudiments of functioning constitutional,
democratic government — in the event a
concerted effort to
“decapitate” the United States’
leadership and destroy its institutions
occurs — remains a preeminent
responsibility for American
policy-makers. So long as the
capability to inflict nuclear holocaust
on this country continues to rest in the
hands of potential adversaries — as is
the case with the former Soviet Union
today — it is irresponsible to eliminate
the best capability available to provide
for continuity of government and the
services it renders.
Regrettably, the post-Cold War world
is one in which the capacity for
decapitating attacks against the United
States government is, if anything,
proliferating. Consider the following:
- Even if one discounts the
prospects of an intentional
attack involving the residual
nuclear forces of the former
Soviet Union, the danger of an
accidental or inadvertent use of
such forces is widely understood
to have increased as a result of
the turmoil that has ensued in
the wake of the USSR’s collapse. - New nations are acquiring the
capacity to destroy Washington
and other key population centers
with ballistic or cruise
missile-delivered chemical and
biological weapons or even
nuclear devices. - Terrorists equipped with weaponry
of mass destruction — to be
delivered by hand if not by more
advanced means — are a growing
menace as well to the United
States and its people.
It would be the height of folly to
ignore these dangers — and to render our
government any more exposed to them than
is absolutely unavoidable. By struggling
with the daunting challenge posed by the most
stressing scenario, moreover, the
nation would be far better prepared to
deal with lesser, but still horrific
“decapitation” contingencies.
What’s Going On Here?
The Center for Security Policy,
therefore, finds gravely troubling the New
York Times‘ report that “while
some ‘continuity of government’ programs
continue under the aegis of Pentagon
planners, they are pale versions of
the vision laid out by President Reagan
in 1983” (emphasis added). In
fact, it is far from clear that the
Clinton team assigns sufficient priority
to preparedness in this area to ensure
that any effective COG
capability is retained.
To the contrary, the Clinton
Administration’s unquestioning embrace of
the truly antiquated theory of
“mutual assured destruction”
suggests that it believes the world will
be safer if the U.S. government is
vulnerable to preemptive destruction.
This absurd philosophy is evidenced, for
example, by: the Administration’s
determination to preclude this country
from obtaining effective strategic
defenses against missile attack; its
conviction that a manifestly inadequate
and unverifiable Chemical Weapons
Convention will protect the U.S. and its
people from chemical warfare; and its
similarly irresponsible conviction that
arms control will circumscribe the
dangers posed by the accelerating
proliferation of biological and nuclear
weapons.
The Clinton Administration’s
scorched-earth approach to other
institutions, policies and security
arrangements it views as “antiques
of the Cold War” further erodes
confidence that it will provide
adequately for continuity of government.
Consider, for instance, its steps to
dismantle, undermine or otherwise degrade
such vital national security assets as:
the Department of Energy’s nuclear
weapons development and production
complex; the readiness, modernity and
power projection capabilities of the U.S.
armed forces; the NATO alliance command
and force structure; the Coordinating
Committee for Multilateral Export
Controls (COCOM); and Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty.
It is perhaps ironic — but certainly
no accident — that many of these
decisions to undo the institutions that
proved so valuable in waging the Cold War
are being taken by Clinton officials who
vigorously opposed U.S. policy during
that “twilight struggle.” In
fact, had their previous recommendations
concerning relations with the Soviet
Union, reducing American forces in
Europe, canceling military modernization
programs, arms control, etc. been
adopted, the United States might well
have lost the Cold War. It
is certainly true though that their
present policies are squandering the
fruits of that victory. Worse
yet, those policies will leave the United
States very ill-prepared to contend in
the future with the portentous
developments taking shape at present in
Moscow and elsewhere.(2)
The Bottom Line
The difficulties encountered by past
U.S. continuity-of-government planning
and programs is no reason for abandoning
the task. Rather, it serves to
underscore the real vulnerability
of the American system of government to a
“decapitating” attack.
Because there is ample, and probably
growing, reason to believe that America’s
enemies may be inclined to exploit this
vulnerability — and certainly will be
capable of doing so — continuity of
government programs must continue to
enjoy high priority.
The Center for Security Policy
believes that the merits of Clinton
policy in this and the aforementioned,
related areas should be debated publicly
prior to their further implementation. At
a minimum, they should be carefully
considered by the Congress before
irreversible damage is done. After all,
the legislative branch should have at
least as much interest in the survival of
democratic, constitutional government as
its co-equal partners in the executive.
– 30 –
1. See, for
example, the Center for Security Policy’s
Decision Briefs entitled, All
the ‘News’ That Fits the Times’ Political
Agenda: Latest Assault on SDI Unfounded,
Indefensible, (
18 August 1993); ‘Paper
Trail’ Confirms New York Times’ Agenda,
Sloppy Reporting on Recent SDI
‘Conspiracy’ Allegations, (
26 August 1993); Center to
New York Times: How About an Apology Now
That the Pentagon Has Debunked False
Claims About SDI Tests? (
9 September 1993); and There
Tim Weiner Goes Again: More New York
Times’ Partisan Advocacy Masquerading as
‘News,’ (
9 November 1993).
2. Concerning
developments of concern in Moscow, see
the Center’s recent Decision Brief
entitled Restoration Watch
#1: The Kremlin Reverts to Form,
(No. 94-D 35,
15 April 1994).
- Frank Gaffney departs CSP after 36 years - September 27, 2024
- LIVE NOW – Weaponization of US Government Symposium - April 9, 2024
- CSP author of “Big Intel” is American Thought Leaders guest on Epoch TV - February 23, 2024