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.'"

Comments

Most of it not spent on nukes

[sl4shd0rk]

There are a lot of pockets to line before any of that money actually turns into rocket fuel.

Re:Wat?

[swb]

I don't know, but I suspect the idea that the US will, for the foreseeable future, be able to retaliate with nuclear weapons at a level that leaves the future of an aggressor's entire civilization as an open question is very valuable.

Think of it this way -- if Iran develops a viable nuclear weapon, they might decide that they could unilaterally close the Straights of Hormuz to all shipping using conventional means, with the understanding that a conventional defense risked a short-range regional nuclear retaliation (ie, to prevent the Saudis from playing with the conventional weapons the US has provided to them).

What's to stop the Iranians in this situation? The only thing to stop them is the knowledge that if they actually used a nuclear weapon -- or maybe even seriously threatened to use one -- against an American backed target that they were at risk of an overwhelming nuclear retaliation from the US.

One that would be impossible to stop (ie, ICBMs, sub-launched missiles) and would be at a level of devastation that might reduce Iran to the same category of civilization as Carthage. Assured destruction means that - your cities in ruins, your population reduced to a small fraction and your land unused.

It sounds crazy, but I believe that this keeps a lid on a lot of trouble.