Slashdot Mirror
Cut Down On Nukes To Shave the Deficit
Hugh Pickens writes "Joe Cirincione writes in the Atlantic that the US government is set to spend almost $700 billion on nuclear weapons over the next 10 years, roughly as much as it spent on the war in Iraq over the last decade. Most of the money will be spent without any clear guidance on how many weapons we need and for what purpose. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we will need some to deter nuclear threats from others, but do we really need to duplicate the entire nuclear triad for another 50 years? 'The Pentagon budget includes funds to develop a new fleet of 12 nuclear-armed submarines with an estimated cost of $110 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Also planned is $55 billion for 100 new bombers, and a new missile to replace the recently upgraded 450 Minutemen III intercontinental ballistic missiles. ... The consensus among military officials and bipartisan security experts is that nuclear reductions enhance US national security,' writes Cirincione. As the Nuclear Posture Review says, 'Our most pressing security challenge at present is preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism, for which a nuclear force of thousands of weapons has little relevance.'"
One of the big expenses is the reliability of the nuclear arsenal. Nuclear material is hot - radioactive - and that means it's also "disappearing" as it decays. Triggers, main charges, and other elements of a nuclear warhead do age and this needs to be addressed. We've done a lot of work with computer models since we're no longer willing to test fire any of these weapons, even underground. But this only goes so far, and if you ARE going to rely on those computer models, then you HAVE to make sure that what was modeled is actually what is IN those warheads. If we don't do this, it won't matter how many missiles and warheads we have. They won't be viewed as a credible threat if we can't show that they'll actually work. And all of this is in support of the strategy of deterrence, which seems to be our only strategy so far, since we're not willing to forcibly stop proliferation. Whether deterrence is even a viable strategy going forward is certainly up for debate. But I can tell you this. If North Korea or Iran end up nuking us somehow, we damn sure better be able to flatten those countries, or else we should get used to the idea of getting periodically nuked.
Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
WTF do people think all the START things are? It stands for STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty. The US and Russia have been cutting back their arsenals for more than twenty years. The reason there is huge upcoming expenditures being budgeted for is because the US nuclear arsenal is pretty much late 1980's vintage. Nuclear warheads don't stay viable forever, and planes and submarines wear out. Most of the expenditure is going to be on the planes and submarines, not Nuclear warheads, and those planes and submarines have non-nuclear warfare use
The B-52 was designed as a nuclear bomber, but has probably dropped more conventional ordnance then all other aircraft combined ever. Most SSBNs around the world have been adapted to be capable of firing either non-nuclear IMRBM or non-nuclear cruise missiles. They aren't just sitting under the ice with a cargo of nukes waiting for the Russkis to push the button.
The expensive thing isn't nuclear weapons, it is launch platforms and manpower. If you start cutting those heavily you may as well cut the carrier fleets and a few army divisions as well and accept not having the ability to fight three different wars at once.
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
Bullshit. Some of us lived through the period. We were never "at the Soviets mercy." You are entitled to your own opinion about the man, but buddy you are not entitled to your own facts, particularly ones that can only be found on films from your last colonoscopy / ear exam. Must be nice to see one specialist for both, however.
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
The bombings of Tokyo damaged more and killed more than both nukes combined.
The two nuclear bombs ended the war, not because we vaporized two cities, but because they had no idea how many more we had.
Actually, the US and Great Britain are both designing new ballistic submarines, with the US's existing fleet being a 35yr old design and the newest 15yrs old. The French started building their new Triomphant class in the late 90's, with their latest entering service just last year. The Russians recently restarted their Borei class with two ships launched, and a third due out next year. The remaining five are postponed, not due to funding cuts, but because they want to redesign it significantly into a new class.
The US is not alone. Everyone, including Russia, is spending money on new nuclear hardware.
The stimulus didn't fail. The economy was in free fall, whereas now it's just stagnant. Had we done another round of stimulus the odds are pretty good that we'd be going in the right direction. But, it's pretty dishonest to say that it didn't work when rather than free fall we're moving in the right direction, albeit slowly.
At any rate, cutting taxes for the wealthy hasn't exactly been working out so well. And we've got more than enough capital right now in the markets. What we don't have is consumer spending because all that money is going to the wealthiest.
Nice logic, but the military is only the 3rd largest piece of the US budget.
The biggest part of the US budget is health care subsidies currently at $793 billion a year.
The second largest part of the budget is social security currently at $701 billion a year.
The military budget is currently at $689 billion a year.
If we cut the $700 billion, 10 year nuclear program (which I think is a good idea), we would save ~$70 billion a year. Our deficit is on the order of $1 trillion a year. If we cut the entire military budget, we would still be running a yearly deficit. So yeah, we should start with the biggest pieces and start whittling down.
This is not an argument for military spending. I agree that it's too high, we don't need 11 carriers for example, but we have to be honest with ourselves about the cost social programs.