Time For Another Nuclear Neophyte President?

Franklin D. Roosevelt died of a stroke on April 12, 1945, just a month before the end of World War II in Europe. At that time, the Pacific war was still being hard fought, and the Manhattan project was thought to provide the solution to victory in Japan in the form of an atomic bomb. Secrecy was so tight that Vice President Harry Truman knew nothing about the atomic bomb until he was sworn in as president. He did well, despite his deficiency in knowledge, didn't he?

It's of historical significance because the current front runner for President, Donald Trump, has a striking deficiency of knowledge surrounding nuclear weapons. Today (December 22, 2015) Trump is polling from 28% to 33% to 39% (Real Clear Politics; USA Today; http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/latest-polls-set-stage-unprecedented-circumstances). His next closest competitor, Ted Cruz, comes in at 18% to 24%.

So, who says Mr. Trump is not so up on SLBMs, ACMs, MIRVs, and other such goodies? Well, he did.

Last Tuesday night, during the last Republican debate of 2015, Hugh Hewitt asked Mr. Trump to indicate which leg of the nuclear triad he (Mr. Trump) would prioritize. Here is the question Mr. Hewitt asked:

"Mr. Trump, Dr. Carson just referenced the single most important job of the president, the command, the control and the care of our nuclear forces. And he mentioned the triad. The B-52s are older than I am. The missiles are old. The submarines are aging out. It's an executive order. It's a commander-in-chief decision.

"What's your priority among our nuclear triad?"

I am just going to point out that Hewitt gave Mr. Trump a summary of the triad (hint: three!) when he listed the three legs of the triad: B-52 (bombers), missles, and submarines. And also obvious was Hewitt's emphasis on the age of the components of the nuclear triad. So Mr. Trump's response?

"Well, first of all, I think we need somebody absolutely that we can trust, who is totally responsible, who really knows what he or she is doing. That is so powerful and so important."

"And one of the things that I'm frankly most proud of is that in 2003, 2004, I was totally against going into Iraq because you're going to destabilize the Middle East. I called it. I called it very strongly. And it was very important."

"But we have to be extremely vigilant and extremely careful when it comes to nuclear. Nuclear changes the whole ballgame. Frankly, I would have said get out of Syria; get out – if we didn't have the power of weaponry today. The power is so massive that we can't just leave areas that 50 years ago or 75 years ago we wouldn't care. It was hand-to-hand combat."

"The biggest problem this world has today is not President Obama with global warming, which is inconceivable, this is what he's saying. The biggest problem we have is nuclear – nuclear proliferation and having some maniac, having some madman go out and get a nuclear weapon. That's in my opinion, that is the single biggest problem that our country faces right now."

Hewitt wasn't satisfied with Mr. Trump's non-answer, so he sought clarification:

"Of the three legs of the triad, though, do you have a priority? I want to go to Sen. Rubio after that and ask him."

And here is Mr. Trump's key point:

"I think – I think, for me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation is very important to me."

O.K. Mr. Trump is convinced that the most important component of the nuclear triad is the devastation.

I must say that I do agree with some of what Mr. Trump said. Specifically:

...I think we need somebody absolutely that we can trust, who is totally responsible, who really knows what he or she is doing. That is so powerful and so important."

The biggest problem we have is nuclear – nuclear proliferation and having some maniac, having some madman go out and get a nuclear weapon. That's in my opinion, that is the single biggest problem that our country faces right now."

Amen, brother Trump! The single biggest problem we face is some maniac getting his hands on a nuclear weapon, or the codes for those weapons. Or some maniac that knows nothing about nuclear weapons.

Perhaps, during the 1940's, things were stable enough and the number of atomic weapons so small (three!) that we could afford to have our President learn about atomic weapons on the job. After all, pretty much everyone else was also learning about them. But now, I think, things have changed a bit. The potential for damage is a bit larger. I think that now we need a president that already knows about nuclear weapons, has already thought about foreign policy, and has been involved with protecting our country. There are very few requirements that the Federal Government must perform; protecting the people is one of them, and learning on the job is something best avoided now. It's no longer a century ago.