nuclear-news

Upgrading B61 tactical nuclear bombs – irrelevant goldplating?

If B61 nuclear bombs’ strategic purpose is unclear, why spend more on them? Heather Hurlburtguardian.co.uk,  24 April 2013  The controversy about upgrading US tactical weapons is a microcosm of unresolved issues over Pentagon budget cuts

The Obama administration’s 2014 defense budget, with its proposal to cut $460m from nuclear non-proliferation activities and use that money to pay for new features on its B61 tactical nuclear bombs, has sparked heated debate. Is the modernization desperately needed or irrelevant goldplating? Is the administration undercutting its own non-proliferation agenda for domestic politics, or making a smart investment in the deterrent of the future?

Unfortunately, by and large, these are the wrong questions. The right questions are these: how do those bombs fit into US national securitystrategy; and wherever it is that they fit, is their cost proportionate to their benefits?

Analysts from across the political spectrum have proposed variations on a “strategic reshaping” for the Pentagon as a whole, insisting that strategic goals and priorities should drive funding choices in a tough fiscal environment. This is a great talking point, but difficult to carry out in practice – when every prioritization has military consequences; international political consequences; domestic political consequences; and financial consequences.

Nuclear weapons are a particularly vivid example. A prestigious and bipartisan movement of senior military and government officials – the much-maligned Global Zero – has called for their role in US national security to be downsized and eventually eliminated. But the political backlash to the idea has prevented robust debate on how that might happen, what US interim nuclear postures should be, and how the deterrence concerns of US allies – especially when those allies oppose the idea of US denuclearization – should be managed.
At the same time, a vociferous minority of GOP senators and House representatives has called for more investment in nuclear weapons – but again, without any specifics about what newer, more sophisticated nuclear weapons would do. This has led some commentators to allege that the Obama administration is just spending on nuclear weapons for political reasons.

But let’s stop and consider, first, what role do these tactical weapons serve now?…… http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/24/b61-nuclear-bombs-strategic-purpose

April 25, 2013 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, weapons and war