nuclear-news

The dangerous new Washington consensus for more nuclear weapons

What are all these nuclear weapons for? What would happen if we used them? Or a fraction of them? How many would die? Would our nation survive? What would be the impact on global climate?

These are topics that are assiduously avoided by nuclear weapons proponents,

“We’re going to go on offense, not just on defense. Maximum lethality, not tepid legality. Violent effect, not politically correct.”

By Joe Cirincione | September 9, 2025

Two former Biden administration defense officials warn of a “Category 5 hurricane of nuclear threats” rapidly approaching. Their solution? Build more nuclear weapons.

The officials, Vipin Narang and Pranay Vaddi, develop their strategy in a July 17 article in Foreign Affairs. From their perches at the Department of Defense and the National Security Council, they helped guide President Joe Biden’s nuclear policies that kept—and even increased—the weapons programs and budgets inherited from the first Trump administration. Now, they say, we need more.

Much more.

Attempting to chart a course for “how to survive the new nuclear age,” they instead repeat the oldest strategic mistake of the nuclear age: seeking security through numbers.

Eighty years ago, before the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a team of Manhattan Project scientists led by James Franck and Eugene Rabinowitz (who would later found The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists) warned that the United States could not rely on its current advantage in atomic weaponry. Nuclear research would not remain an American monopoly for long. Staying ahead in production, they said, also gave a false sense of security: “The accumulation of a larger number of bigger and better atomic bombs… will not make us safe from sudden attack.”

They were ignored. During its first nuclear build-up, the United States sprinted from two atomic weapons in 1945 to 20,000 atomic and thermonuclear weapons by 1960, over twenty times the number of weapons held by the Soviet Union. It didn’t matter. We were ahead but afraid, with false fears of “missile gaps” dominating security debates.

Twenty years later, with the US arsenal at 24,000 warheads and the Soviets with 30,000, Ronald Reagan was swept into office with the backing of the Committee on the Present Danger and their fears that a “window of vulnerability” was opening that would allow the Soviets to launch a deadly first strike unless we vastly increased our forces. Committee members filled top defense posts and began the second nuclear build-up with new weapons and the false promise of missile defense shields. The “launch on warning” policy they adopted on an “interim basis” to protect US ICBMs from Russian attack still haunts us today, argues Princeton professor Frank von Hippel. This policy has contributed to several close calls when missiles were almost mistakenly launched.

Narang and Vaddi channel these past prophets of doom. The authors cite nuclear programs in North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran as justification for increasing the size of the US arsenal, largely ignoring diplomatic efforts that in the past effectively contained some of these programs and prevented others.

They also cite the interest of US allies in Europe and Asia in considering their own national nuclear programs as a proliferation risk that can only be addressed by  “more, different, and better nuclear capabilities” and “more advanced missile defense… to intercept small or residual adversary nuclear forces.” They argue that if confronted by nuclear threats in Europe in the near future, “the United States might need to respond with nuclear use, and potentially with a larger nuclear exchange if it is unable to reestablish nuclear deterrence in Europe.”…………………………….

They fully endorse the third nuclear build up now underway, with an estimated cost of $2 trillion and rising. But it is not enough. “Washington needs to deploy not only more warheads but also more systems than originally planned under the modernization program,” they urge.

It is true that China’s force may grow, but as experts at the Federation of American Scientists point out, these projections are based on some questionable assumptions, including that future growth will follow recent growth on a straight line, that all the ICBM silos that we observe will be filled by new missiles, that China will be able to produce enough plutonium for all these new warheads, and that all the new warheads will be operational and deployed—which they currently are not.

Secondly, the authors understate the current US nuclear arsenal, which is more than 3,700 operational warheads, not 1,500. The United States currently has about 1,770 nuclear weapons deployed. (The New START treaty counts only 1,550 because it assumes each US bomber is loaded with only one weapon rather than the 8 to 20 they can carry.)

But that is only the deployed force. Approximately 1,930 nuclear warheads are held in reserve, ready to be deployed if needed. Finally, there are 1,477 retired but still intact warheads awaiting dismantlement—making for a total of more than 5,177 warheads in all, including those deployed, those on reserve, and those which are formally retired but intact. So, even if China does produce 1,500 weapons in ten years, it will still have only one-third the US force.

The real problem with the authors’ analysis, however, is not threat exaggeration or funny numbers. It is the war-fighting doctrine that it openly embraces.

What are all these nuclear weapons for? What would happen if we used them? Or a fraction of them? How many would die? Would our nation survive? What would be the impact on global climate?

These are topics that are assiduously avoided by nuclear weapons proponents, whether they be the corporations that realize large profits from the now $100 billion annual nuclear budget, or by the academics and policy operatives who provide the strategic justification for the indefinite continuation of the nuclear balance of terror.

Thus, the authors say “Congress will need to back an accelerated effort to overhaul the U.S. arsenal with significant funding and give the project urgent priority” because in addition to the standard rational that the United States must maintain a large nuclear arsenal “able to survive a first strike and impose assured destruction on its attacker in retaliation,” they argue the US must have weapons and policies “to meaningfully limit the amount of damage the attacker can inflict on the United States and its allies. To do this, the United States must maintain the capability to destroy as many of the attacker’s nuclear weapons as practicable before or after they are launched.”

This “damage limitation” strategy is key to the argument for larger forces. The authors seem to favor using US nuclear weapons first, to destroy the enemy’s weapons “before” they are launched, as well as believing without evidence that there could be a national missile defense system so effective that it could destroy missiles “after” their launch.

Former dean of the Georgetown University School of Foreign Affairs Robert Gallucci writes in his brief rebuttal to the authors: “One is left to wonder how the pursuit of all the ‘counterforce’ capability required of the second part of the strategy—an extraordinary characterization of the traditional goal of ‘damage limitation’ laid out in past U.S. nuclear posture reviews—can be distinguished from the pursuit of a disarming, preemptive, ‘first strike’ capability.”

Indeed, that is precisely what may be motivating the Chinese increases that the authors claim as the justification for an urgent US build-up. Narang and Vaddi do not discuss the impact on other nations of the massive US investment in offensive and defensive nuclear systems over the past ten years, or its withdrawal form the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 that began the deterioration of the arms control regime.

From the Chinese perspective, however, the new, more capable and proliferated offensive nuclear weapons (especially those close to their borders) must indeed appear to be first-strike weapons, particularly when combined with a massive proposed national missile defense system erected to intercept any missiles not destroyed by an initial barrage of the United States.

China expert Fiona Cunningham of the University of Pennsylvania believes that it is very possible that “China is reacting to the continued development of some of the U.S. capabilities that could hold its nuclear arsenal at risk.” These include national missile defense, “its development of conventional strike capabilities that might be able to degrade its nuclear forces,” and the “idea that you would try and attack an adversary’s nuclear forces before they end up being launched.”

The Trump administration’s decision to “go on the offense” will further exacerbate these concerns. As the newly renamed Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, said: “We’re going to go on offense, not just on defense. Maximum lethality, not tepid legality. Violent effect, not politically correct.”

The Chinese increase in forces may indeed be malevolent. But it also looks very similar to what one would do if trying to create exactly the kind of survivable force the authors say the United States must have for a credible deterrent. As Cunningham notes, “We should expect that if adversary capabilities change, then Chinese nuclear forces are going to change in tandem.”

The authors may intend to pave new ground, to develop a strategy for the “new nuclear age,” but they end up mirroring the failed policies of the past. In many ways, their article echoes the 1980 Foreign Policy article by nuclear hawks Colin Gray and Keith Payne, “Victory is Possible.”  In support of that era’s nuclear modernization, they argued that “the United States must possess the ability to wage nuclear war rationally.” They, too, thought arms control was unattainable and out-of-date with current threats. They, too, thought “parity or essential equivalence is incompatible with extended deterrence.”  They, too, claimed that “war-fighting… is an extension of the American theory of deterrence.”

Gray and Payne said that a war that resulted in 20 million dead Americans could still save 200 million or more. Narang and Vaddi are not as cavalier, but at the core, they are embracing the idea that the ability to fight and win a nuclear war is essential for national security.

The worst news is that they are not alone. Their views may be the dominant views in Washington now, in both parties. Cloaked in ominous strategic rhetoric, ignoring inconvenient truths, and backed by a formidable nuclear weapons lobby and massive budgets, these ideas are the new consensus. Without a vibrant, persistent pushback, these policies will not only prevail in the current Trump administration but in future governments as well. https://thebulletin.org/2025/09/the-dangerous-new-washington-consensus-for-more-nuclear-weapons/

September 12, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Israel bombed Qatar to assassinate Hamas’s lead ceasefire negotiators

Amid ongoing ceasefire talks, Israel attempted to assassinate the Hamas negotiating team in an airstrike on the Doha office of its lead negotiator, senior Hamas leader Khalil al-Hayya. Hamas officials say the negotiating team survived the attack.

By Qassam Muaddi  September 9, 2025 , https://mondoweiss.net/2025/09/israel-bombed-qatar-to-assassinate-hamass-lead-ceasefire-negotiators/

Amid ongoing ceasefire talks, Israel attempted to assassinate the Hamas negotiating team in an airstrike on the Doha office of its lead negotiator, senior Hamas leader Khalil al-Hayya. Hamas officials say the negotiating team survived the attack.

By Qassam Muaddi  September 9, 2025

Israel attempted to assassinate top Hamas leaders in Qatar on Tuesday, after large explosions were heard in the capital city of Doha, and smoke columns rose from the building targeted in the attack. A joint statement by the Israeli army and Israel’s internal intelligence agency confirmed that it was targeting Hamas’s senior leadership in a “precise strike.” The statement added that the targeted leaders were “directly responsible” for the October 7 attack and that “measures were taken in order to mitigate harm to civilians.” 

Israeli media said that the strike targeted the office of the lead Hamas negotiator in the ongoing ceasefire talks, Khalil al-Hayya, in addition to other members of the negotiating team. Hamas politburo member Suheil al-Hindi told Al Jazeera on Tuesday evening that the negotiating team led by al-Hayya had survived “the cowardly assassination attempt.” Al-Hindi also told the Qatari news network that Hamas “will not raise the white flag.”

Al Jazeera reported that five “lower-ranked members were killed.”

The Israeli strike occurred as the Hamas negotiating team met to discuss the latest ceasefire proposal presented by U.S. President Donald Trump, al-Hindi told Al Jazeera.

The Qatari Foreign Ministry strongly condemned the attack, calling it “criminal” and “cowardly.” The Ministry added that Qatar “will not tolerate” attacks that “threaten the safety of Qatar’s citizens and residents.”

An unnamed White House official told AFP that the U.S. was notified in advance of Israel’s planned attack in Qatar.

The office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement that the attack was a “wholly independent Israeli operation.”

“Israel initiated it, Israel conducted it, and Israel takes full responsibility,” the statement added.

The Israeli PM and Israeli Defense Minister, Israel Katz, said in a joint statement that they had given the green light to attack the Hamas leadership following a shooting attack in Jerusalem yesterday that left six Israelis dead. Hamas’s armed wing, the Qassam Brigades, had claimed responsibility for the shooting, which was carried out by two Palestinians from the West Bank towns of Qatanna and Qebeibeh.

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres condemned the Israeli attack on the Qatari capital as a “flagrant violation of sovereignty.”

Targeting negotiators during ceasefire negotiations

The Israeli attack comes after Trump had put forward a proposal for a 60-day ceasefire that would see the release of all Israeli captives in the first 48 hours of the agreement. In exchange, negotiations to permanently end the war on Gaza would commence, with personal guarantees from the U.S. President that Israel would engage in the negotiations “in good faith.”

Trump’s proposal would also see Hamas relinquish control over Gaza and give up its arms. Hamas has repeatedly said that it is willing to relinquish control over the Strip and allow for an independent technocratic government to rule in its stead, but has maintained that disarming remains a “red line” for the group.

A previous ceasefire proposal last August was accepted by Hamas and awaited Israel’s approval, but Israel did not respond before Trump presented his most recent proposal.

The August proposal had included a 60-day ceasefire in which Israeli captives would be released in exchange for the release of 1,700 Palestinian prisoners, the entry of humanitarian aid, and the withdrawal of the Israeli army to specified areas at the edges of the Strip. 

Continuous assassinations across the region

Last month, Israel killed 12 top officials in the Yemeni government, including Yemen’s Prime Minister, Ahmad al-Rahawi.

Since October 7, Israel has assassinated several top Hamas leaders in exile across the region, including Hamas’s previous politburo chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, and senior Hamas politburo member Saleh Aruri in Beirut.

Israel has also assassinated several top commanders of the al-Qassam Brigades, including its longtime commander, Muhammad al-Deif. Two weeks ago, Hamas confirmed the death of Deif’s successor, Muhammad Sinwar, the brother of Hamas’s slain Gaza leader Yahya Sinwar, who was killed by accident in October 2024 when he was struck by a tank shell during combat in Rafah. 

At the end of August, Israel claimed to have assassinated Abu Obeida, the military spokesperson of the Qassam Brigades, in a strike on a residential building in Gaza City. Hamas has neither confirmed nor denied Abu Obeida’s fate.

Attempt to derail ceasefire negotiations ahead of Gaza City invasion

The attack on Doha comes as Israel continues to advance its offensive against Gaza City, levelling several high-rise buildings housing thousands of refugees, who were forced to leave the towers after receiving evacuation orders from the Israeli army.  In recent weeks, the Israeli army’s offensive has flattened entire neighborhoods in eastern Gaza City, including the Shuja’iyya, Sabra, and Zeitoun neighborhoods.

The Israeli army has also dropped leaflets over the city ordering its entire population to evacuate to the overcrowded Mawasi area on the coast of Khan Younis in southern Gaza. The Israeli army says its occupation of the city will last for at least a year.

The Palestinian Civil Defense said that if the invasion of the city proceeds as announced, it expects a daily casualty count of around 300 Palestinians.

September 12, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

US Considers Bombing Venezuela as It Deploys F-35 Fighter Jets to Puerto Rico

 ANTIWar.com, by Dave DeCamp | September 7, 2025

The Trump administration is considering multiple options for launching military strikes against alleged drug cartels in Venezuela, including hitting targets that could weaken Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, as it is deploying F-35 fighter jets to Puerto Rico, CNN has reported.

US officials told CNN that the US bombing of a boat near Venezuela last week was just the beginning of a much larger effort against drug trafficking that could lead to the ouster of Maduro. US officials claim the pressure on Venezuela and Maduro is about drug trafficking and a response to overdose deaths in the US, but fentanyl doesn’t come from or through Venezuela, and the majority of the cocaine that is transported to the US comes through the Pacific, not the Caribbean……………………

The US deployed F-35s to Puerto Rico after it claimed that two Venezuelan F-16 fighter jets flew over a US Navy vessel. The Department of Defense, now known as the Department of War, said in a press release that the Venezuelan flight was “provocative” despite the fact that the US deployed a large number of naval vessels near Venezuela’s coast…………………….https://news.antiwar.com/2025/09/07/us-considers-bombing-venezuela-as-it-deploys-f-35-fighter-jets-to-puerto-rico/

September 12, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment