nuclear-news

 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, – “The massive nuclear arsenal we inherited from the Cold War era of bipolar military confrontation is poorly suited to address the challenges posed by suicidal terrorists and unfriendly regimes seeking nuclear weapons.”
The most pressing security threats we face today, such as terrorism and cyber attack, simply cannot be addressed with nuclear weapons.

Time to rethink nuclear weapons spending The Hill, By Tom Z. Collina and Daryl G. Kimball, Arms Control Association, 13 Dec 11       The supercommittee’s failure to reach agreement on a deficit reduction plan may trigger deep, automatic reductions in future U.S. defense spending. At the same time, some in Congress are finally beginning to examine how much the United States plans to spend on nuclear weapons in the years ahead.
The automatic reductions, known as “sequestration,” would double the amount of money the Pentagon must cut from its projected budget growth, from about $450 billion to roughly $1 trillion, over the next decade.

No matter how deeply the defense budget will be cut or how many hundreds of billions of dollars the federal government plans to spend on nuclear weapons, one thing is clear: Republicans and Democrats need to work together to reduce Cold War-era nuclear weapon systems that do not address likely security threats.
As the Obama administration noted in its 2010 Nuclear Posture Review,
“The massive nuclear arsenal we inherited from the Cold War era of
bipolar military confrontation is poorly suited to address the
challenges posed by suicidal terrorists and unfriendly regimes seeking
nuclear weapons.”
The most pressing security threats we face today, such as terrorism
and cyber attack, simply cannot be addressed with nuclear weapons. The
United States does not need to continue to deploy as many as 1,550
strategic nuclear warheads as allowed under the New START treaty to
deter nuclear attack from Russia or any other nuclear-armed state, nor
does it need to spend hundreds of billions over the next decade to
rebuild the nuclear “triad.”
Fortunately, the Obama administration is currently re-examining the
fundamental purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons and how many the country
really needs. This review, called the NPR Implementation Study, will
likely alter obsolete nuclear deterrence requirements and clear the
way for further reciprocal nuclear reductions with Russia.

If that happens, the United States would not need to buy as many new
missiles, bombers and submarines as it now plans. Even though current
nuclear delivery systems will remain operational for another 20-30
years, key decisions on their replacements are being made right
now….
Rather than build a new, more expensive version of the nuclear triad
from the 1960s, we must recognize that the world has changed. The
United States can save at least $45 billion over the next 10 years and
still maintain a formidable and survivable nuclear force.  Here’s
how:….
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/199089-time-to-rethink-nuclear-weapons-spending