Skip to main content

America’s nuclear weapons complex

Earlier this month the Pentagon released a devastating assessment of its own management of the nation’s nuclear arsenal. The report, authored by two widely respected former four-star officers, judged that America’s nuclear weapons complex — particularly the personnel who operate and maintain it — is near its breaking point, worn down by years of neglect, lack of funding and unnecessarily invasive and inquisitorial screening of employees. This malaise has been exacerbated by bouts of apathy and even hostility on the part of prominent voices in and out of government: The prevalent attitude is that there are more important national security priorities and, among some, that nukes are useless and should be left to rust.
The situation is considerably worse than we thought — even worse than in 2007 when it was revealed that the Air Force had inadvertently transported six live nuclear weapons from North Dakota to Louisiana. Last week a senior Pentagon official claimed in a background briefing that unless immediate and substantial action is taken to modernize antiquated infrastructure, prioritize the issue, and relieve suffocating bureaucratic pressure, the nation’s nuclear complex risks coming apart at the seams.
To avert this, the Pentagon has identified roughly 100 remedial actions, steps estimated to cost around one to two billion dollars annually, on top of the $15-$16 billion per year the department anticipates spending on nuclear forces in the coming half-decade.
That’s a pretty penny. And so voices have quickly been raised to say that this would be a foolhardy waste of money. Aren’t nuclear weapons becoming obsolete? Shouldn’t we welcome this review as a step toward a nuclear-free world? Shouldn’t we spend this money on conventional forces we might actually use? Aren’t nukes a monetary sinkhole and a strategic dead-end?
The answer to all these questions is no. Spending this money and making these changes is not just advisable, it’s essential.
First, the world is becoming more dangerous. America and the allies it has pledged to defend face challenges from a resurgent Russia, an increasingly assertive China, a bellicose North Korea and a recalcitrant Iran. At the same time, Russia, China and North Korea have all been modernizing their nuclear arsenals with a view toward using them in the event of conflict with the United States. Moreover, as the Pentagon is making more and more clear, non-nuclear military buildups, especially in Russia and China, are jeopardizing America’s conventional military advantages — advantages that had until now allowed America to reduce its emphasis on its nuclear arsenal.
These dynamics are also leading non-nuclear allies of the United States to worry, prompting them to make growing noises about pursuing nuclear arsenals of their own. Together, these factors mean that the United States’ nuclear arsenal is becoming more, not less, relevant.
At the same time, the problems identified in the report and the consequent need for money and attention are not the product of some irremediable defect in the nation’s nuclear arsenal. They arose, as the Pentagon review made clear, because America’s nuclear weapons have suffered from a quarter century of neglect from the Pentagon, the Air Force and Congress.

Read the full story here. 

HOME

Popular posts from this blog

The Confederacy's Love Affair with Donald Trump: Unraveling the Historical, Cultural, and Political Factors

The love affair between certain segments of the Confederacy and Donald Trump , the 45th President of the United States , is a complex phenomenon that intertwines historical, cultural, and political factors. This blog aims to explore the reasons behind the affinity some individuals in former Confederate states developed for Trump , examining how his policies, rhetoric, and persona resonated with certain aspects of their identities. The legacy of the Confederacy and its Civil War history continues to influence some individuals in former Confederate states. For some, Trump 's " Make America Great Again " slogan might have stirred sentiments of nostalgia, harking back to an era they perceive as a time of greater prosperity and traditional values. This historical resonance could be seen as an appeal to a lost past, which Trump implicitly promised to restore during his campaign. The Confederacy' s love affair with Trump can be linked to cultural conservatism . Many resid

Donald Trump Hates Obama And Obama's Legacy?

The political landscape in the United States witnessed a remarkable contrast between the presidencies of Barack Obama and Donald Trump . The transition of power from Obama, a Democrat who symbolized hope and change, to Trump , a Republican who embraced an unconventional and divisive approach, highlighted stark differences in their policies, rhetoric, and leadership styles. Their relationship, shaped by mutual animosity and occasional civility, played a crucial role in shaping the nation's discourse during this period. The transition of power between Barack Obama and Donald Trump was marked by both cordiality and tension. Despite their contrasting political ideologies, President Obama upheld the tradition of a peaceful transition of power and extended a warm welcome to President-elect Trump . They met at the White House , discussing national security and other critical issues. However, behind closed doors, reports suggested that Obama warned Trump about the challenges of the

Is There A Relationship Between Donald Trump And White Supremacists?

The relationship between President Donald Trump and white supremacists has been a topic of considerable controversy and debate. During his tenure as the 45th President of the United States, Trump' s rhetoric and actions often sparked discussions about his association with white supremacis t groups and the extent to which he may have emboldened them. This blog aims to explore the complexities of this relationship, considering key incidents and statements that shed light on the matter. To understand Trump' s connection to white supremacists, we must first examine his rise to political prominence. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump 's appeal was rooted in populism, voicing concerns shared by a portion of the American population regarding immigration, trade deals, and economic opportunities. However, some critics argue that elements of his rhetoric, such as the infamous "Muslim ban" proposal and his emphasis on border security, inadvertently resonated wit