http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-enduring-requirements-of-deterrence-principals-to-keeping-the-peace?f=puball
On November 8, 2013, Franklin Miller, Principal in the Scowcroft Group, underscored in his remarks, at the Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Georgia, entitled “Sustaining the Triad: The Enduring Requirements of Deterrence in the 21st Century,” that the current radical campaign of Global Zero to undo the deterrent principals of the past three-quarters century was largely based on faulty assumptions and dangerous recommendations. Miller noted that the deterrent equation of the 21st century may indeed have to resemble that of the 20th century, not because anyone wants to return to the “Cold War”, but because those deterrent qualities worked and preserved the peace between the nuclear armed powers of the globe. Global war which had engulfed humankind twice in the first half of the 20th century was avoided. Remarkably as well, the average number of deaths from warfare dropped significantly from 2% of the world’s population per year to less than .2%, a drop of 90%, a not inconsequential achievement, a point made by the former Commander of the US Strategic Command, Admiral Ed Mies. Here are Franklin Miller’s remarks.
MR. FRANKLIN MILLER: I want to thank the Camden Partnership, the Camden Kings Bay Council of the Navy League and the Camden Country Chamber of Commerce, and Peter Huessy, for inviting me to appear at this breakfast. And my goal this morning is to start your day off right. Peter Huessy is surely an unsung hero in our campaign to keep our nuclear deterrent. In the current public debate in Washington on our nuclear deterrent is completely unbalanced and intellectually empty.
Last year’s report by the Global Zero organization was built on faulty assumptions, questionable if not downright incorrect assertions, and dangerous recommendations. But you can’t find a mainstream publication which ever seriously analyzed it. We are routinely subjected to stories sneeringly referring to our existing deterrent posture as Cold War-like. But no one steps forward to explain why, just maybe why, the nuclear deterrence equation in the 21st century may have to resemble that of the 20th century. But Peter, by keeping his speaker’s series going, provides a forum where some small degree of balance can be introduced into the debate. So thank you for that, Peter.