nuclear-news

USA military top brass call for revising USA’s nuclear weapons – DOWN

There may not be agreement on the size or shape of the future force, but there is a growing consensus that revising the outdated nuclear posture will not only save billions of dollars,
but also make for a more effective national security strategy.

The call for a revised nuclear strategy THE HILL, By Mary Kaszynski, policy analyst,  American Security Project  – 07/30/12   There may not be agreement on the size and shape of the future force, but there is growing consensus among the nation’s leaders that it’s time to bring U.S. nuclear strategy into the 21st century. This consensus includes two former commanders of U.S. Strategic Command….
“The current U.S. nuclear force remains sized and organized operationally for fighting the “last war” – the Cold War – even though threats from that era posed by the Soviet Union and China have greatly diminished or disappeared,” reads Gen. Cartwright’s joint testimony with Ambassador Thomas Pickering before the Senate Appropriations Committeelast week.

“The U.S. (and Russian) arsenal is thus over-stocked. Ample latitude exists for further nuclear cuts,” the testimony concludes, reflecting the analysis of a panel Gen. Cartwright chaired, which included former Senator Chuck Hagel and General Jack Shaheen.

Gen. Cartwright is not the only STRATCOM commander to determine that the U.S. nuclear force, which numbers some 8,000 warheads, is unsuited to today’s strategic environment. General Eugene Habiger, STRATCOM
commander from 1996 to 1998, also recommends scaling back the massive
arsenal.
“In my view, 20 years after the Cold War, we could be at much lower
levels. We’ve made good progress, but there’s much progress left to be
made,” General Habiger said in an interview last fall.

Gen. Habiger’s recommended force level is even lower than the 900
warheads recommended by the Cartwright Commission. “600 nuclear
weapons in our arsenal should be enough to do what we need to do,”
Gen. Habiger said.
These two former STRATCOM Commanders are part of a growing consensus
of U.S. leaders who recognize that the current nuclear posture
isoutdated and unaffordable.

Plans to update the massive nuclear arsenal will cost hundreds of
billions over the coming years. These plans include buying 12 new
nuclear submarines (at a total cost of $100 billion, potentially
crowding conventional ships out of the Navy’s budget), building a $4
billion facility that can produce new nuclear warhead components, and
extending the service life of the B-61 bomb nuclear bomb – current
cost estimate: $10 billion, significantly higher than last year’s
estimate of $4 billion.

This level of spending reflects an arsenal geared towards Cold War
threats. U.S. leaders policymakers from LtGen. Dirk Jameson, former
deputy commander in chief of STRATCOM, to former Secretary of State
Colin Powell agree that maintaining excess nuclear capabilities is not
just fiscally irresponsible – it’s bad strategy.  Buying more nuclear
capabilities that we do not need means buying less of the capabilities
that we do need.  …..There may not be agreement on the size or shape
of the future force, but there is a growing consensus that revising
the outdated nuclear posture will not only save billions of dollars,
but also make for a more effective national security strategy.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/241103-the-call-for-a-revised-nuclear-strategy

July 31, 2012 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, weapons and war