Thoughts on the military and military activities of a diverse nature. Free-ranging and eclectic.

Friday, March 26, 2004



This is coolbert. "NO person can command a nuclear equipped unit, if there is even the appearance of wrong doing, even if totally unfounded."

This is the military regulation that applies to commanders of nuclear equipped units. Could be a Pershing missile battery, a nuclear armed submarine, or a B-52 bomber [Kelly Flinn].

Now, during a fifty year period, about 60,000 persons were reassigned as being unqualified to serve in a nuclear equipped unit. NOT commanders, but unit members. Usually for "excessive consumption of alcoholic beverage". Could also be for other reasons, drugs, extra marital affairs, etc. Some reason. And this is not the commanders. Just the rank and file.

The standard for commanders in the military is very strict. Some would say even too strict. But that is the standard. Obvious why! You don't want a person that is susceptible to blackmail or is mentally unstable or is an abuser in any sense of the word to command units equipped with such deadly weapons. Policy and regs bend over way beyond what is normal and reasonable to ensure that this is so!

Now, when President Bush the First was President, he nominated John Tower to be his Secretary of Defense.



And Tower was rejected. And why was this? Well, Senator Hollings stood on the Senate floor and read the regulation that was quoted in the first sentence of this blog. Tower's nomination was rejected. It was rumored that Tower was a womanizer and a heavy drinker [both were later to be determined to be unfounded]. But nonetheless, Tower, even though he was a civilian, was rejected for the appointment. What was the reasoning? Well, by this regulation, Tower could not command a nuclear equipped unit. Even if the allegations were not true [they were not], just the appearance is enough to disqualify you. The argument was that if you could not command a nuclear equipped unit, you have no business being in charge of overseeing such a unit, as Tower would have done as Secretary of Defense.

Now, consider this argument in the light of the President Clinton impeachment trial.

Obviously, the Pres is the commander of ALL the nuclear equipped units. Gives the "go-code" to use nukes. And obviously, there was wrong doing on the part of the Pres that if he had been the commander in the military of a nuclear equipped unit, would have disqualified him from further command. The behavior of the Pres did not just constitute appearances, it was fact. And what did the man now running for Pres himself have to say about this? John Kerry said that "the standard is different for the President in this category." And it is. The Pres is not held to military law or military regs. He is an elected official and exempt from such standards. Nonetheless, President Clinton, commander of all the nuclear equipped units, was morally unfit to further hold office by the standard applied to military personnel commanding nuke units.

Yet, at the impeachment trial, this moral lapse was never brought up or considered. Go figure??

coolbert.