Vladimir Putin’s government continues to show signs that it would not hesitate to launch a nuclear war, two top analysts of Russian strategic thinking said at a recent Mitchell Institute Forum on Capitol Hill which I had the privilege to host.
Peter Huessy | All Articles
- Subscribe to RSS
Mr. Peter Huessy is President of his own defense consulting firm, GeoStrategic Analysis, founded in 1981, and was the senior defense consultant at the National Defense University Foundation for 22 years. He was the National Security Fellow at the AFPC and is currently Senior Defense Consultant at the Mitchell Institute of the Air Force Association and Fellow, the Institute for Corean-American Studies.
Mr. Huessy has served as an expert defense and national security analyst for over 36 years, helping his clients cover congressional activities, while monitoring budget and policy developments on terrorism, counter-terrorism, immigration, state-sponsored terrorism, missile defense, especially US-Israeli joint defense efforts, nuclear deterrence, arms control, proliferation, as well as tactical and strategic air, airlift, space and nuclear matters and such state and non-state actors as North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela and Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Qaeda.
This also includes monitoring activities of think tanks, non-governmental organizations, and other US government departments, as well as projecting future actions of Congress in this area. His specialty is developing and implementing public policy campaigns to secure support for important national security objectives.
Since 1983, Mr. Huessy has hosted 1250 Congressional breakfast, lunch and dinner seminars on Capitol Hill dealing with missile defense, strategic nuclear modernization, strategic airlift, strategic bombers, space, proliferation, arms control, homeland, port and maritime security and defense policy as well as the security of Israel, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and other US allies. Prominent speakers featured each year include Uzi Rubin, formerly of the Israeli Defense Ministry, as well as top officials in the USAF, Navy, and Department of Defense, members of the Senate and House, as well as top national security professionals who specialize in these areas .
Mr. Huessy has lectured at various professional schools and institutions in the DC area including Johns Hopkins SAIS, the Naval Academy, the US War College, the Joint Military Intelligence College, the Institute of World Politics and Georgetown University.
For many years he wrote op-eds for the Washington Times under the direction of Tony Blankley.
He now writes also for a number of additional publications including the Gatestone Institute, Big Peace, Family Security Matters, Human Events, National Review, Fox News and Frontiers of Freedom. He has written extensively on the subject of Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism and the threats to Israel and the United States. He has written for the JINSA Journal of International Security Affairs as well as InFocus and the ROA Monthly magazine.
He has testified before Congressional Committees and has extensive knowledge of Congress and the Executive Branch of the US Government.
Mr. Huessy graduated in 1975 from the Columbia University School of International Affairs and studied at the School of Law, 1973-75. He graduated with degrees in anthropology, international relations and national security policy from Beloit College in 1972, while also having studied from 1969-70 at Yonsei University in Seoul, Korea as part of Beloit’s study abroad program. He served as a legislative research assistant/intern to Senators Proxmire (1970) and Nelson (1971), legislative assistant to Senator Gravel (1975-6), Chief Governmental Affairs Officer of the Environmental Fund (1976-79), and Director of Legislative Affairs at the Office of Surface Mining and subsequently special assistant for state relations and international energy affairs to the Secretary of the Interior (1979-81).
He has also served since 1981 as chief consultant to a group of associated contractors in the nuclear deterrence business, has visited dozens of US military bases to consult and lecture on strategic issues, and has been the chief consultant to the Missile Defense Information Group which he established in 1992, a group of industry leaders involved in missile defense.
He visited Israel with an AIPAC group in September 2009.
He was awarded a Meritorious Achievement Award by the National Defense Industrial Association on June 10, 2009
He is the grandson of Eugen Rosenstock Huessy, a noted Christian and Jewish scholar at Dartmouth College who was a colleague and friend of Franz Rosensweig, the author of the Jewish classic “The Star of Redemption”. He also grew up with Freya von Moltke, the widow of Helmut James Graf von Moltke, the leader of the Kreisau Circle which during World War II directed the attempted assassination of Hitler in July 1944. Von Moltke was murdered by the Nazis in January 1944. Freya came to Norwich, Vermont to live with Rosenstock-Huessy in 1960 and remained there until her passing in January 2013.
Mr. Huessy is on the Board of the In Series Theater in Washington; EMPACT, the organization devoted to protecting the US from EMP threats; and MTA, the Maryland Taxpayers Association. He authored legislation calling for the divestment of US pensions from any company doing business with Iran and testified before a number of state legislatures on this subject and on counter terror policy, including whether or not drivers licenses should be made available to those illegally in the US. He is also a member of Secure American Energy, an organization devoted to breaking the back of OPEC and providing the US with American sources of energy.
He has lectured around the world and across the USA on nuclear terrorism, nuclear deterrence, missile defense, homeland security, counter terrorism policy, and strategic threats to the US and its allies including at the Prague Security Institute.
In 2001, he spoke at the University of Chicago on the relationship between Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King and Ronald Reagan and the role of our Judeo-Christian Heritage in their lives at the 113th anniversary of the birth of noted scholar Eugen Rosentock-Huessy, his grandfather.
Are there reasonable grounds to believe that the time is ripe for the United States and its Middle Eastern allies to put together a new, but sound, positive, and effective Middle East regional security policy? And which would have as its core three objectives the US and its allies might adopt: (1) the elimination of the Iranian Revolutionary Islamic objectives (found in the Iranian constitution); (2) an end, not a pause, to Iran’s nuclear weapons program; and (3) limits on Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities.
The United States is planning to modernize its nuclear deterrent over the next 25 years, an effort already two decades late in implementation. That delay, a procurement holiday, resulted in all elements of our nuclear enterprise—the warheads, the communications, the submarines, the land based missiles and the bombers and their associated cruise missiles--reaching the end of their service life nearly simultaneously.
America’s top nuclear adversaries—Russia and China—are both markedly improving their nuclear forces at a pace not seen even during the height of the Cold War. Russian President Putin has called for continued such modernization, describing Russian nuclear forces as already sixty percent modernized and the strongest in the world. Russia also has a multi-thousand advantage in tactical or theater nuclear weapons (not subject to arms control limits) which further complicates US deterrent policy. China’s modernization involves all three elements of its nuclear forces, but especially both its new land based missiles and submarines.
The United States has not modernized or upgraded its nuclear forces for roughly 30 years, except for building 21 B2 bombers shortly after the end of Cold War, when the plane's production was cancelled. And it will be another decade at the earliest when the United States begins to build the planned new nuclear deterrent force.
The government thinks there are 32 million illiterate people in America, about 10% of the population.
Israeli missile expert Uzi Rubin warns us that in the past 10 months North Korea despite some missile test failures launched a second satellite aboard the giant Unha rocket, unveiled a second generation ICBM and a close-up of what is described as an implosion nuclear warhead for ballistic missiles. The North also launched a live test of an indigenous air defense missile – which looks like a twin brother of the Russian S-300, a flight test of the hitherto mysterious “Musudan” IRBM (intermediate range ballistic missile), and an underwater solid propellant SLBM (sea-launched ballistic missile) – which looks like the twin brother of the vintage Soviet liquid propellant SSN 6.
American victims of terror want to strike back at their attackers. One way could be by court rulings allowing seizure of the assets of terror states and their terror affiliates. The idea is, hurt them financially and their terrorism will be deterred and their victims compensated. For many years survivors and families of victims of the 9-11 attacks have tried to secure the right to bring civil suits agains state sponsors of terrorism, especially Saudi Arabia, as set forth in a bill entitled, Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA).
Brad Roberts, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense and head of the nuclear posture review, warned June 28th in a speech at the Carnegie Endowment that regional conflicts could very well see the use of nuclear weapons against the United States. The reason is that superior U.S. conventional capability forestalled Chinese and Russian objectives in Ukraine and the South China Sea.
In the Washington discussion over the future of our nuclear deterrent the arguments continue to emphasize that it is better to have fewer warheads in our force than what we have today.
Every day, two-thirds of all oil consumed world-wide passes through seven ocean choke points. The most vital of these, the Strait of Hormuz, is the gateway to the Persian Gulf’s oil shipment ports, and is bordered by Iran, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates.
Since 1991, arms control has been a driving force in our relationship with Russia. In that period the two countries agreed to three nuclear weapons agreements with arsenals on both sides reduced by over 90 percent.
The president’s visit to the Gulf Cooperative Council Summit this month is an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone.
We have heard much about how the United States can unilaterally reduce its strategic nuclear deterrent to 1,000 warheads from the current 1,550 (plus additional bomber weapons not counted) because the number of secure, retaliatory survivable weapons would be the same -- essentially 4-5 submarines at sea at any one time irrespective of the number of other warheads deployed on land based missiles and bombers, both legs of the Triad that are not considered “survivable."
The North Korean regime is often described as dangerous and unpredictable, particularly after Pyongyang launches missile tests or explodes another nuclear weapon. Others dismiss the North Korean actions as primarily all bluff and bluster, primarily aimed at solidifying internal political support for the Kim family enterprise rather than a preliminary move toward actually carrying out a military attack against ROK or USA forces in the region.
Stephen Kinzer’s 2008 book All the Shah’s Men traces the roots of today’s Middle East terror to when the United States and Great Britain engineered the return of the Shah of Iran to power in Iran in a 1953 “coup."
When Churchill warned in 1936 that Germany was planning war against all of Europe the popular response at the time was largely to dismiss such fears as warmongering. From his backbench he warned "Germany is arming, she is rapidly arming." He further explained the "Peril is not a peril from which one can fly. It is necessary to face it where we stand. We cannot possibly retreat."
Nicholas Kristof explains in the July 30th New York Times that the naysayers about the Iran deal are wrong. He puts together this unwieldy political sandwich, with layers of baloney and misconception, on top of a bed of wilted fairy tales and false narratives.
When putting together legislation on Capitol Hill a rule of thumb we usually followed in the Reagan administration was you have to trust folks to do the right thing. And the best way to do that was to bring everyone on board up front you needed to pass a bill. And to be open and transparent about what it was you were trying to do.