Question of the Day: You Want to Put Obama or Hillary in Charge of The Swords? @ AMERICAN DIGEST

April 15, 2008

Question of the Day: You Want to Put Obama or Hillary in Charge of The Swords?

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't seem like a good plan to me.

In fact, upon reflection, it occurs to me that the entire thrust of both these Democrat campaigns is to obscure the fact that the primary and most immediate power of the Presidency is to draw and use the sword. The usual sheaf of tax, health, educational promises and policies depend on congressional review and approval. Those processes take up an inordinate amount of time to unfold, and are usually subject to endless equivocation and compromise. They might make your tomorrows brighter or darker, but they don't really have the power to make or ruin today.

Not so the use of the sword. It can be drawn and deployed within 15 minutes.

Let's review:

The most powerful and rapidly deployable swords the USA has are aboard our ballistic missile submarines.

We currently have 14 nuclear-powered SSBNs, each armed with 24 Trident II SLBMs.
Each Trident II can carry "Up to eight W88 (475 kt) warheads (Mark 5) or eight W76 (100 kt) warheads (Mark 4)."
The Hiroshima nuke delivered between 13 and 16 kilotons. One warhead from one Trident missile can deliver 475 kilotons.
The range of a Trident II missile is thought to be 9,000 miles.
It is also thought that the accuracy of these missiles is such that it can put one of its warheads on the roof of your house.
An American President, as Commander-in-Chief, has about 2,700 of these swords at hand.
And the authority to use them. At any time.

This is merely the most immediate and drastic way in which "U.S. Battle Space" can be deployed by the President of the United States. Other, more prosaic ways, can be glimpsed in the video above.

So, as a Democrat, you're telling me that you want to hand the swords to Barack Obama and/or Hillary Clinton? You need to start a War on Drugs inside your own home.

I understand that the SkyPie promises of these two give you that warm and fuzzy feeling, but perhaps you will excuse me if I'm not feeling all warm and fuzzy when it comes to handling the sword.

Posted by Vanderleun at April 15, 2008 12:28 PM | TrackBack
Save to del.icio.us

Putting aside for a moment the worthiness of Hillary or Obama, given McCain's documented anger issues, is he really qualified to be put in charge of those swords? Is any one human qualified to oversee the delivery of that much potential death? Which of course they aren't, as there are fail-safes in place and there isn't a big red juicy button on the nightstand that can be accidentally hit at 3am. Just to be clear, Hillary/Obama are awful. But I'm not sure I trust anyone who is still in the race.

Posted by: Esher Fern Gamble at April 16, 2008 9:13 AM

That's certainly a point, but I'd say that we do know that Hillary also has "anger issues.'" We, of course, know much less about Obama, but I'd be willing to bet folding money that under that smooth exterior, a lot of anger seethes.

At the same time, the ability to be angry is both an important ability to have and decisions to deploy force are not always made as an angry reaction. Many times they are decisions made from cold calculation.

Posted by: vanderleun at April 16, 2008 9:32 AM

If you compare the destructive power of a 475 kt blast vs a 13 kt blast it is only about 10 times as powerful due to the fact that the blast energy is dissipated by an area/volume and not a point.

Your larger point still holds.

Let me add that I have heard that Obama has played war games with the military as part of his training to become President and his biggest difficulty was making a decision. Perhaps you have the connections/resources to look into this.

Posted by: M. Simon at April 17, 2008 2:46 PM