Yesterday, you'll recall, I blogged about what I suspect may be one of the implications or "blowbacks" of the recent federal election, and the January 6th "epiphany" of Biden as President-elect by Congress. But there is another story that readers of this site sent me, and in numbers too significant to ignore, and I can see why. It's an important, huge story, even though it's not getting much attention. Here's one version of the story, shared by M.D.:
Here's the important parts:
A former US defense secretary has called on President-elect Joe Biden to reform the system that gives sole control of the nation's nuclear arsenal to the president, calling it "outdated, unnecessary and extremely dangerous."
The call from William Perry came the same day US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke with the nation's top military leader about ensuring that an "unhinged" President Donald Trump not be able to launch a nuclear attack in his final days in office.
"Once in office, Biden should announce he would share authority to use nuclear weapons with a select group in Congress," said Perry, who served under President Bill Clinton.
Perry and Collina warn that presidents possess the "absolute authority to start a nuclear war.
"Within minutes, Trump can unleash hundreds of atomic bombs, or just one. He does not need a second opinion. The Defense secretary has no say. Congress has no role."
They then ask: "Why are we taking this risk?"
One may advance the argument that perhaps this change in policy is being advocated because of Biden's apparent mental decline. It would stand to reason, since there has been speculation both on the right and the left that Biden was chosen precisely because of that decline, and that he will either resign - or be forced to resign - from office for health reasons. He seems to be under that impression himself, having recently referred to his running mate as "president." Regardless of how one parses the comment, it is in my opinion a legitimate concern.
But I suspect that lying behind the comments and the rush to make the nuclear football part of a "committee" of some sort, lies a profoundly geopolitical reason. Yesterday, you'll recall, I blogged about the potential geopolitical fallout from the election, particularly as the members of "the Quad" nations - India, Japan, Australia, and Russia - are concerned. I argued that, regardless of how one views Biden or where one stands with respect to his incoming administration, his relationship with China and The Ukraine via his son is bound to be a large component of geopolitical calculation on the part of those countries. So while the talk of the article focuses on Mr. Trump, I believe the real concern lurking behind the public explanations is not Trump, but Biden, and the need to reassure those countries. I suspect, also, that this move is also because the deep state might also be concerned about Biden's relationships with China and possibly The Ukraine as well.
There's a further possible geopolitical calculation going on here, and that is that taking the nuclear arsenal out of the sole control of the presidency, and that is that such dispersal might not only be designed to weaken the presidency, but also to confuse potential enemies, particularly if whatever arrangement is designed includes moving the responsibility for the football from person to person, secretly. The expansion of the power of the deep state would be enormous and it would render "decapitation" strikes from potential enemies much more difficult.
In short, what we're watching with articles such as this, is the deeper agenda being laid out.
See you on the flip side...