Ronald Reagan: Peace Through Strength

Negotiations without the force to insure the terms, are worthless. History has shown this multiple times.

Peace Through Strength

Motto of the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76)

A few weeks back a got a link in my news feed to an article in Vanity Fair. A bit of a long read, but well worth the time. It gives a good look at the daily routine of a boomer submarine, the ships that carry sub-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) as part of the nuclear triad. A few paragraphs of the writing:

Exclusive: Life Aboard a Nuclear Submarine as the US Responds to Threats Around the Globe

By Adam Ciralsky Photography by Philip Montgomery February 15, 2024

How the Navy prowls today’s uncertain seas—and prepares for possible superpower conflict tomorrow…

…Photographer Philip Montgomery and I had been granted permission to chronicle life aboard a boomer—at a perilous time. Our embed was unique: The arms and technology on board, along with the ship’s routines and missions, are among the government’s most closely guarded secrets…

…Last summer, when I’d placed a request for the voyage, America was confronting two superpower threats: Beijing’s increasingly bold advances in the South China Sea and Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Then, in October, the Israel-Hamas war added new urgency. US warships were drawn to the region, projecting force in case the conflict escalated. In short order, American vessels began intercepting long-range missiles that Iranian-supplied Yemeni rebels fired on Israel and on the ships themselves. When other Tehran-backed militias attacked US outposts in Iraq, Syria, and then Jordan, killing three service members in late January, it was apparent the reprisals from American fighter jets had not been a sufficient deterrent…

…To prepare, I had interviewed more than two dozen current officials responsible for US nuclear doctrine and warfare. And as I looked at the hulking slash on the horizon, the words of one naval captain resonated with me: “When a single boomer goes out to sea, it does so (armed with up to 160 warheads) as the sixth-largest nuclear nation on earth.”

…the missile deck of the USS Wyoming. A multibillion-dollar behemoth that is slightly longer than the Washington Monument is tall, the ship can carry up to 160 thermonuclear warheads, roughly the same firepower as India, a country that has been stockpiling nuclear arms for half a century.

As wars—hot and cold, visible and invisible—were being waged on land and at sea, it felt like an opportune time to meet the men, the women, and the weapons system that, in Pentagon terms, “provide 24/7 deterrence to prevent catastrophic actions from our adversaries.” The military’s rationale for offering us access seemed clear. The brass, apparently, wanted to help get Americans accustomed to the increasingly real prospect of conflict with a genuinely powerful opponent. They wanted to humanize the otherwise inhuman—some would say inhumane—reality of nuclear deterrence. And, finally, they wanted to convey a message to China and Russia about US forces and their strategic capabilities, resolve, and, for the moment at least, superiority.

Sub Lord

As the ominous backstop to America’s national security, the Department of Defense relies on a triad: intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), long-range bombers, and submarines. The latter are considered the triad’s least vulnerable leg and carry 70 percent of all deployed nuclear warheads in the inventory. Boomers are officially known as Ohio-class SSBNs—Navy-speak for “submersible ship, ballistic, nuclear”—and were built, as even the junior most sailor will tell you (without a hint of irony), to “preserve the peace” and, in the event of strategic attack, to inflict unimaginable destruction. “We are prepared to unleash hell,” Admiral William Houston told me, adding that, of course, “We never want to do it. Those sailors know if their weapon system is ever used, they are probably not coming home to their families. And so they take their business very, very seriously. It’s what we refer to as a no-fail mission. You are working directly for the president when you’re out there…”

Again, it’s a long story but worth the time to take it in. But I was curious about that line, “will tell you (without a hint of irony), to “preserve the peace” and, in the event of strategic attack, to inflict unimaginable destruction.” Where is the irony, i.e.,“: the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning.”

The concept of Mutual Assured Destruction, or MAD, came along in the early 1950s, as the US and Soviets developed hydrogen bombs and the means to rapidly deploy them (e.g., bombers, artillery, ballistic missiles). As the years passed, the two major powers (the US and Soviet Union) fought indirectly, though “brushfire wars” and other low intensity conflict. However, the concept of a major World War III conflict was unimaginable to both sides. The guarantee of certain destruction of the major population centers on both sides insured there was no road to victory. Without any victory, one side would not engage directly against the other.

When Ronald Reagan first coined the phrase Peace Through Strength, the usual liberal suspects called his thinking childlike and Neanderthal. But it’s far from that. It’s simple, but not simplistic. In a world covered with nations that want to take you down, you must be strong. A few examples.

In the 1952 presidential campaign, then candidate Dwight Eisenhower said he would “Go to Korea” and assess the situation. In November 1952, weeks after his election, he did. Coming home he let the Chinese and North Koreans know he would end that war using whatever means were necessary. The implied threat was he would use nuclear weapons. Did that work?

Seeing negotiations were hampered during the previous two years over critical issues like the size and shape of the table, what could we expect? Well, Ike took office on January 20, 1953. The cease fire that holds till this day was signed on July 27, 1953. I don’t call that ironic or a coincidence.

More examples? Was it the good will of the mullahs in Tehran that ended the Iran Hostage Crisis on January 20, 1981 minutes after 1200 noon Eastern Time (someone, please remind me, why does that date ring a bell). I don’t think so. Reagan implied he would be much more forceful with the Iranians, and they took him at this word.

Another issue that shows how strength will help. In the summer of 1981, Reagan had to deal with 11, 000 air traffic controllers conducting an illegal strike. His response? He warned them they had 48 hours to return to work. After two days he fired them and banned them from rehire. This action would impress many a world leader that Reagan was true to his word.

Another example of the difference between Reagan and the current occupant of the Oval Office. When challenged by Iran, Reagan approved Operation Praying Mantis. In the largest one-day sea battle since World War II, the US Navy sunk two Iranian ships and destroyed two surveillance platforms and damaged another ship. The result? Iran did not challenge us again for years.

I wonder if the liberal professors in academe were worried by the reckless actions by another president in the past, John Kennedy? Informed the Soviets had placed ballistic missiles 90 miles from Florida, how did this president react? He quarantined the island and warned the Soviet premier the US would not tolerate offensive weapons in Cuba. After several tense days of negotiations, the Soviets agreed to remove the missiles.

The lesson? Weakness invites aggression. Recent examples? The Russian invasions of the Ukraine, both 2014 (Obama) and 2022 (O’Biden). The mounting threats of China again the south-west Pacific islands in general and Taiwan in particular. The aggression of Iran against our ships and other assets in the Middle East, as well as their operations against Israel and Iraq. Until we have another strong leader in the Oval Office, we will invite more aggression against us and our interests.

The intellectuals who preach negotiations will provide us safety in an unsafe world should remember the wisdom of an unknown author, “Negotiations without the threat of force is like trying to play pool with a rope.” By surrendering you can get a treaty signed (see Germany in 1918), but without force, it’s not worth the paper it’s written on (see France in 1940). Libtards should remember the words of their Uncle Joe, i.e. Joseph Stalin, “Treaties are like pie crust. Made to be broken.”

Michael A. Thiac is a retired Army intelligence officer, with over 23 years experience, including serving in the Republic of Korea, Japan, and the Middle East. He is also a retired police patrol sergeant, with over 22 years’ service, and over ten year’s experience in field training of newly assigned officers. He has been published at The American Thinker, PoliceOne.com, and on his personal blog, A Cop’s Watch.

Opinions expressed are his alone and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of current or former employers.

If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.

Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA