On Nov. 14, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee met to discuss the president’s power to order a nuclear first strike. The three witnesses who testified before the committee were Gen. Robert Kehler, former head of the U.S. Strategic Command; Peter Feaver, a political scientist from Duke University; and Brian McKeon, former acting undersecretary for policy in the Defense Department.
As the hearing progressed, its three main objectives became clear: to restrain an impulsive president who has authority over nuclear armament; to defeat the Lieu-Markey bill, which requires congressional approval as a precondition for a nuclear first strike; and to permanently institutionalize nuclear deterrence based on a realistic threat to use nuclear weapons.
Over and over again, all three witnesses declared that there is no legislative solution to the problem of restraining the president, despite the U.S. Constitution’s provisions. Over and over again, the witnesses suggested that the main objective of national defense is to preserve our ability to unleash nuclear strikes. Of all those in the room, only Sen. Jeanne Shaheen mentioned the potential harm to actual human beings, and her comments were brief.
As its contradictions became obvious, only Sens. Jeff Merkeley of Oregon and Ed Markey of Massachusetts objected to the overall argument.
This is extremely dangerous. It raises the odds that sooner or later, nuclear weapons will be used again. There have been too many close calls already.
JOHN RABY
New London