Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a defense strategy that suggests that two rational nations, each of which possess the nuclear capability to totally destroy the other, would not start a nuclear war because each is certain it would end with the total destruction of both (and the rest of the world). MAD may have been well named, the United States and the Soviet Union never did engage in a nuclear war.

In the 21st century nuclear weapons age, two of the underlying assumptions of MAD are clearly called into question.

First, are those who possess nuclear weapons rational? Is North Korea’s Kim Jong Il rational? Is Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rational? If Pakistan should fall to the Taliban, will Pakistan’s Taliban leader be rational?

Second, if North Korea, Iran, or some other country sells or gives a nuclear bomb to a terrorist group and that group uses it to attack the United States (or Great Britain, or Israel, etc.) what targets are destroyed in the mutual retaliation? We may suspect North Korea or Iran as providing the bomb, but they would claim innocence and the world would condemn the United States if it launched a nuclear attack on either country without overwhelming public proof. Unlike the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, terrorists do not live in nice near targets (cities).

To paraphrase Klaatu:

GM and Chrysler are getting a $13.4 billion loan to keep going; AIG $150 billion; then there is Fannie and Freddie; the financial industry gets a $700 billion bailout; and the Democrats may be talking about as much as a $1 trillion economic stimulus package over the next two years.

But wait, The Liberal New York Times in an editorial on December 21, 2008 called for:

• “End production of the Air Force’s F-22…The net annual savings: about $3 billion.”
• “Cancel the DDG-1000 Zumwalt class destroyer…Cutting the last two could save more than $3 billion a year.”
• “Halt production of the Virginia class sub…Net savings: $2.5 billion.”
• “Pull the plug on the Marine Corps’s V-22 Osprey…Net savings: $2 billion to 2.5 billion.”
• “Halt premature deployment of missile defense…for a net savings of nearly $5 billion.”
• “Trim the active-duty Navy and Air Force…Reducing the Navy by one carrier group and the Air Force by two air wings would save about $5 billion a year.”

According to The Times:

“The cuts above could save $20 billion to $25 billion a year, which could be better used as follows:

o       Increase the size of the ground force.

o       Pay for the Navy’s needed littoral combat ships.

o       Resupply the National Guard and the Reserves.”

Now just based on the editorial, some of the suggestions would seem to make sense, except that accepting The Liberal New York Times as a reliable source on military needs and spending is like thinking Saddam Hussein never used WMDs.

Gee, I wonder what is really more important to the future of the country: AIG or national security?

Without debating the merits of the specific suggestions, the most telling comment in the editorial was:

“Halt production of the Virginia class sub…The program is little more than a public works project to keep the Newport News, Va., and Groton, Conn., naval shipyards in business.”

Almost as an aside, one could discuss what the future might hold if we did not have these shipyards to build naval vessels?

What does The Liberal New York Times think is the point of the $1 trillion economic stimulus package? Certainly not public works projects!

I guess the liberal view of the stimulus is that it is to get Americans back to work and improve the Nation’s infrastructure everywhere except in the defense industry.