Cut Down On Nukes To Shave the Deficit 369
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.'"
That's dumb. (Score:2, Interesting)
Easiest way to save money (Score:4, Interesting)
Most of it not spent on nukes (Score:5, Interesting)
There are a lot of pockets to line before any of that money actually turns into rocket fuel.
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
The amount of nukes around today is just insane. There is no real need for the amount that exists. Keep the nuclear submarines and then have a few land based nukes on ICBM:s and you will have enough.
The only reason why there are so many is because there is a fear that none of them will reach the target before being shot down. However that risk is relatively small.
What you really shall worry about is if a nuke is smuggled into a major port in a container and go off on the ship. That would take out the port for a considerable time.
Re:Someone has an axe to grind (Score:3, Interesting)
well the sub force exists largely just to hunt enemy subs(which have nukes) and to deploy revenge nukes. the intelligence work etc doable with them is just related to that. the subs don't exist even for putting up a naval blockade. as far as bombers.. well, you got some nice bombers already and some strike aircraft capable of carrying quite a bit of bombs, the force is big enough even for traditional carpet bombing. but of course with the subs the question is what's wrong with the old subs? that's a national secret, right? I mean apart from the need to run a high tech shipyard industry experiment. but all that sounds like a joke considering that usa doesn't even have those xxx billion dollars.
Re:Wat? (Score:2, Interesting)
No, the main reason why we haven't had a WWIII break out is that there are to MAD capable nuclear inventories in the world. One in the US and the other with Russia. If you think you need 10 nukes, then you really need at least 30 nukes as you have to have a few extras so that you can deploy them in various places and you need to have a few spares for times when you need to test or service them.
Going much below 2k for the US and 2k for Russia is a really bad idea as it greatly limits the ways in which they can be deployed globally and restricts the possibility of acting quickly enough to prevent a larger attack.
Re:Wat? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
The warheads are cheap. The expensive parts of them are made that is the fission material. The other part that has to be replaced is the Tritium and that has to be replaced as it decays.
It is the delivery systems. The Ohio class subs are getting old as are the Trident missiles. The D5 is at least 20 years old and the Subs that carry them are getting close to 30 years old. It costs a good percentage of the cost of a new sub to refuel and update an old one. Also you have to keep making new subs so you can make new subs. You have to keep the knowledge alive because it would take a long to recreate it if you need it.
It isn't the number of warheads that is the cost driver but the cost of the delivery systems. The Minuteman III is at least 40 years old. It was supposed to be replaced by MX but that was retired early because of START. It was too big to keep. Bombers do tend to be good investments for the US. The B-52 sure was. The B-1 and B-2 are also being used today. Even if you cut the warheads in half you would still have about the same costs to build the workable deterrent. You can argue that we don't need any or not but with Russia building new Missiles, subs, and possible bombers and China building new Subs and missiles I can not honestly say that we are ready to beat our swords into plowshares.
Re:Easiest way to save money (Score:5, Interesting)
You need to take a serious look at the value you're getting for your money. The US spends as much per capita on social programs as many countries that already have universal health care. Maybe capitalism isn't quite the mecca of efficiency it's supposed to be.