The
Frightening Prospect of a Nuclear War Is About to Become a Lot More Likely
Lawrence S.
Wittner
Sunday,
January 17, 2016
History
News Network
A fight now
underway over newly-designed U.S. nuclear weapons highlights how far the Obama
administration has strayed from its commitment to build a nuclear-free world.
The fight,
as a recent New York Times article [1] indicates, concerns a variety of nuclear weapons that the
U.S. military is currently in the process of developing or, as the
administration likes to say, “modernizing.” Last year, the Pentagon
flight-tested a mock version of the most advanced among them, the B61 Model 12.
This redesigned nuclear weapon is the country’s first precision-guided atomic
bomb, with a computer brain and maneuverable fins that enable it to more
accurately target sites for destruction. It also has a “dial-a-yield” feature
that allows its handlers to adjust the level of its explosive power.
Supporters
of this revamped weapon of mass destruction argue that, by ensuring greater
precision in bombing “enemy” targets, reducing the yield of a nuclear blast,
and making a nuclear attack more “thinkable,” the B61 Model 12 is actually a
more humanitarian and credible weapon than older, bigger versions. Arguing that
this device would reduce risks for civilians near foreign military targets,
James Miller, who developed the nuclear weapons modernization plan while undersecretary
of defense, stated in a recent interview that “minimizing civilian casualties
if deterrence fails is both a more credible and a more ethical approach.”
Other
specialists were far more critical. The Federation of Atomic Scientists pointed
out that the high accuracy of the weapon and its lower settings for
destructiveness might tempt military commanders to call for its use in a future
conflict.
General
James E. Cartright, a former head of the U.S. Strategic Command and a retired
vice chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, conceded that possessing a smaller
nuclear device did make its employment “more thinkable.” But he supported
developing the weapon because of its presumed ability to enhance nuclear
deterrence. Using a gun as a metaphor, he stated: “It makes the trigger easier
to pull but makes the need to pull the trigger less likely.”
Another
weapon undergoing U.S. government “modernization” is the cruise missile.
Designed for launching by U.S. bombers, the weapon—charged William Perry, a
former secretary of defense—raised the possibilities of a “limited nuclear
war.” Furthermore, because cruise missiles can be produced in nuclear and
non-nuclear versions, an enemy under attack, uncertain which was being used,
might choose to retaliate with nuclear weapons.
Overall,
the Obama administration’s nuclear “modernization” program—including not only
redesigned nuclear weapons, but new nuclear bombers, submarines, land-based
missiles, weapons labs, and production plants—is estimated to cost as much
as $1 trillion [2] over the next thirty years. Andrew C. Weber, a former
assistant secretary of defense and former director of the interagency body that
oversees America’s nuclear arsenal, has criticized it [3] as “unaffordable and unneeded.” After all, the U.S.
government already has an estimated 7,200 nuclear weapons [4].
The nuclear
weapons modernization program is particularly startling when set against
President Obama’s April 2009 pledge [5] to build a nuclear weapons-free world. Although this public
commitment played a large part in his receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize that
year, in succeeding years the administration’s action on this front declined
precipitously. It did manage to secure a strategic arms reduction treaty [6] (New START) with Russia in 2010 and issue a pledge [7] that same year that the U.S. government would “not develop
new nuclear warheads.” But, despite promises to bring the 1996 Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty to the Senate for ratification [8] and to secure further nuclear arms agreements [9] with Russia, nuclear disarmament efforts ground to a halt.
Instead, plans for “nuclear modernization” began. The president’s 2016 State of the Union address [10] contained not a word about nuclear disarmament, much less a
nuclear weapons-free world.
What
happened?
Two
formidable obstacles derailed the administration’s nuclear disarmament policy.
At home, powerful forces moved decisively to perpetuate the U.S. nuclear
weapons program: military contractors, the weapons labs, top military officers,
and, especially, the Republican Party. Republican support for disarmament
treaties was crucial, for a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate was required to
ratify them. Thus, when the Republicans abandoned the nuclear arms control and
disarmament approach of past GOP presidents [11] and ferociously attacked the Obama administration for
“weakness” or worse, the administration beat an ignominious retreat. To attract
the backing of Republicans for the New START Treaty, it promised an upgraded U.S. nuclear weapons
program [12].
Russia’s
lack of interest in further nuclear disarmament agreements with the United
States provided another key obstacle. With 93 percent [4] of the world’s nuclear weapons in the arsenals of these two
nations, a significant reduction in nuclear weapons hinged on Russia’s support
for it. But, angered by the sharp decline of its power in world affairs, including
NATO’s advance to its borders, the Russian government engaged in its own nuclear buildup [13] and spurned U.S. disarmament proposals.
Despite
these roadblocks, the Obama administration could renew the nuclear disarmament
process. Developing better relations with Russia, for example by scrapping
NATO’s provocative expansion plan, could smooth the path toward a
Russian-American nuclear disarmament agreement. And this, in turn, would soften
the objections of the lesser nuclear powers to reducing their own nuclear
arsenals. If Republican opposition threatened ratification of a disarmament
treaty, it could be bypassed through an informal U.S.-Russian agreement for parallel weapons reductions [14]. Moreover, even without a bilateral agreement, the U.S.
government could simply scrap large portions of its nuclear arsenal, as well as
plans for modernization. Does a country really need thousands of nuclear
weapons to deter a nuclear attack? Britain possesses only 215 [4]. And the vast majority of the world’s nations don’t possess any.
Given the
terrible dangers and costs posed by nuclear weapons, isn’t it time to get back
on the disarmament track?
A fight now
underway over newly-designed U.S. nuclear weapons highlights how far the Obama
administration has strayed from its commitment to build a nuclear-free world.
The fight,
as a recent New York Times article [1] indicates, concerns a variety of nuclear weapons that the
U.S. military is currently in the process of developing or, as the
administration likes to say, “modernizing.” Last year, the Pentagon
flight-tested a mock version of the most advanced among them, the B61 Model 12.
This redesigned nuclear weapon is the country’s first precision-guided atomic
bomb, with a computer brain and maneuverable fins that enable it to more
accurately target sites for destruction. It also has a “dial-a-yield” feature
that allows its handlers to adjust the level of its explosive power.
Supporters
of this revamped weapon of mass destruction argue that, by ensuring greater
precision in bombing “enemy” targets, reducing the yield of a nuclear blast,
and making a nuclear attack more “thinkable,” the B61 Model 12 is actually a
more humanitarian and credible weapon than older, bigger versions. Arguing that
this device would reduce risks for civilians near foreign military targets,
James Miller, who developed the nuclear weapons modernization plan while
undersecretary of defense, stated in a recent interview that “minimizing
civilian casualties if deterrence fails is both a more credible and a more
ethical approach.”
Other
specialists were far more critical. The Federation of Atomic Scientists pointed
out that the high accuracy of the weapon and its lower settings for
destructiveness might tempt military commanders to call for its use in a future
conflict.
General
James E. Cartright, a former head of the U.S. Strategic Command and a retired
vice chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, conceded that possessing a smaller
nuclear device did make its employment “more thinkable.” But he supported
developing the weapon because of its presumed ability to enhance nuclear
deterrence. Using a gun as a metaphor, he stated: “It makes the trigger easier
to pull but makes the need to pull the trigger less likely.”
Another
weapon undergoing U.S. government “modernization” is the cruise missile.
Designed for launching by U.S. bombers, the weapon—charged William Perry, a
former secretary of defense—raised the possibilities of a “limited nuclear
war.” Furthermore, because cruise missiles can be produced in nuclear and
non-nuclear versions, an enemy under attack, uncertain which was being used,
might choose to retaliate with nuclear weapons.
Overall,
the Obama administration’s nuclear “modernization” program—including not only
redesigned nuclear weapons, but new nuclear bombers, submarines, land-based
missiles, weapons labs, and production plants—is estimated to cost as much
as $1 trillion [2] over the next thirty years. Andrew C. Weber, a former assistant
secretary of defense and former director of the interagency body that oversees
America’s nuclear arsenal, has criticized it [3] as “unaffordable and unneeded.” After all, the U.S.
government already has an estimated 7,200 nuclear weapons [4].
The nuclear
weapons modernization program is particularly startling when set against
President Obama’s April 2009 pledge [5] to build a nuclear weapons-free world. Although this public
commitment played a large part in his receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize that
year, in succeeding years the administration’s action on this front declined
precipitously. It did manage to secure a strategic arms reduction treaty [6] (New START) with Russia in 2010 and issue a pledge [7] that same year that the U.S. government would “not develop
new nuclear warheads.” But, despite promises to bring the 1996 Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty to the Senate for ratification [8] and to secure further nuclear arms agreements [9] with Russia, nuclear disarmament efforts ground to a halt.
Instead, plans for “nuclear modernization” began. The president’s 2016 State of the Union address [10] contained not a word about nuclear disarmament, much less a
nuclear weapons-free world.
What
happened?
Two
formidable obstacles derailed the administration’s nuclear disarmament policy.
At home, powerful forces moved decisively to perpetuate the U.S. nuclear
weapons program: military contractors, the weapons labs, top military officers,
and, especially, the Republican Party. Republican support for disarmament
treaties was crucial, for a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate was required to
ratify them. Thus, when the Republicans abandoned the nuclear arms control and
disarmament approach of past GOP presidents [11] and ferociously attacked the Obama administration for
“weakness” or worse, the administration beat an ignominious retreat. To attract
the backing of Republicans for the New START Treaty, it promised an upgraded U.S. nuclear weapons
program [12].
Russia’s
lack of interest in further nuclear disarmament agreements with the United
States provided another key obstacle. With 93 percent [4] of the world’s nuclear weapons in the arsenals of these two
nations, a significant reduction in nuclear weapons hinged on Russia’s support
for it. But, angered by the sharp decline of its power in world affairs,
including NATO’s advance to its borders, the Russian government engaged in its own nuclear buildup [13] and spurned U.S. disarmament proposals.
Despite
these roadblocks, the Obama administration could renew the nuclear disarmament
process. Developing better relations with Russia, for example by scrapping
NATO’s provocative expansion plan, could smooth the path toward a
Russian-American nuclear disarmament agreement. And this, in turn, would soften
the objections of the lesser nuclear powers to reducing their own nuclear
arsenals. If Republican opposition threatened ratification of a disarmament
treaty, it could be bypassed through an informal U.S.-Russian agreement
for parallel weapons reductions [14]. Moreover, even without a bilateral agreement, the U.S.
government could simply scrap large portions of its nuclear arsenal, as well as
plans for modernization. Does a country really need thousands of nuclear
weapons to deter a nuclear attack? Britain possesses only 215 [4]. And the vast majority of the world’s nations don’t possess any.
Given the
terrible dangers and costs posed by nuclear weapons, isn’t it time to get back
on the disarmament track?
- See more
A fight now
underway over newly-designed U.S. nuclear weapons highlights how far the Obama
administration has strayed from its commitment to build a nuclear-free world.
The fight,
as a recent New York Times article indicates, concerns a variety of nuclear
weapons that the U.S. military is currently in the process of developing or, as
the administration likes to say, “modernizing.” Last year, the Pentagon
flight-tested a mock version of the most advanced among them, the B61 Model
12. This redesigned nuclear weapon is the country’s first
precision-guided atomic bomb, with a computer brain and maneuverable fins that
enable it to more accurately target sites for destruction. It also has a “dial-a-yield”
feature that allows its handlers to adjust the level of its explosive power.
Supporters
of this revamped weapon of mass destruction argue that, by ensuring greater
precision in bombing “enemy” targets, reducing the yield of a nuclear blast, and
making a nuclear attack more “thinkable,” the B61 Model 12 is actually a more
humanitarian and credible weapon than older, bigger versions. Arguing
that this device would reduce risks for civilians near foreign military
targets, James Miller, who developed the nuclear weapons modernization plan
while undersecretary of defense, stated in a recent interview that “minimizing
civilian casualties if deterrence fails is both a more credible and a more
ethical approach.”
Other
specialists were far more critical. The Federation of Atomic Scientists
pointed out that the high accuracy of the weapon and its lower settings for
destructiveness might tempt military commanders to call for its use in a future
conflict.
General
James E. Cartright, a former head of the U.S. Strategic Command and a retired
vice chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, conceded that possessing a smaller
nuclear device did make its employment “more thinkable.” But he supported
developing the weapon because of its presumed ability to enhance nuclear
deterrence. Using a gun as a metaphor, he stated: “It makes the
trigger easier to pull but makes the need to pull the trigger less likely.”
Another
weapon undergoing U.S. government “modernization” is the cruise missile.
Designed for launching by U.S. bombers, the weapon—charged William Perry, a
former secretary of defense—raised the possibilities of a “limited nuclear
war.” Furthermore, because cruise missiles can be produced in nuclear and
non-nuclear versions, an enemy under attack, uncertain which was being used,
might choose to retaliate with nuclear weapons.
Overall,
the Obama administration’s nuclear “modernization” program—including not only
redesigned nuclear weapons, but new nuclear bombers, submarines, land-based
missiles, weapons labs, and production plants—is estimated to cost as much as
$1 trillion over the next thirty years. Andrew C. Weber, a former
assistant secretary of defense and former director of the interagency body that
oversees America’s nuclear arsenal, has criticized it as “unaffordable and
unneeded.” After all, the U.S. government already has an estimated 7,200
nuclear weapons.
The nuclear
weapons modernization program is particularly startling when set against
President Obama’s April 2009 pledge to build a nuclear weapons-free
world. Although this public commitment played a large part in his receipt
of the Nobel Peace Prize that year, in succeeding years the administration’s
action on this front declined precipitously. It did manage to secure a
strategic arms reduction treaty (New START) with Russia in 2010 and issue a
pledge that same year that the U.S. government would “not develop new nuclear
warheads.” But, despite promises to bring the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty to the Senate for ratification and to secure further nuclear arms
agreements with Russia, nuclear disarmament efforts ground to a halt.
Instead, plans for “nuclear modernization” began. The president’s 2016
State of the Union address contained not a word about nuclear disarmament, much
less a nuclear weapons-free world.
What
happened?
Two
formidable obstacles derailed the administration’s nuclear disarmament
policy. At home, powerful forces moved decisively to perpetuate the U.S.
nuclear weapons program: military contractors, the weapons labs, top
military officers, and, especially, the Republican Party. Republican
support for disarmament treaties was crucial, for a two-thirds vote of the U.S.
Senate was required to ratify them. Thus, when the Republicans abandoned
the nuclear arms control and disarmament approach of past GOP presidents and
ferociously attacked the Obama administration for “weakness” or worse, the
administration beat an ignominious retreat. To attract the backing of
Republicans for the New START Treaty, it promised an upgraded U.S. nuclear
weapons program.
Russia’s
lack of interest in further nuclear disarmament agreements with the United
States provided another key obstacle. With 93 percent of the world’s
nuclear weapons in the arsenals of these two nations, a significant reduction
in nuclear weapons hinged on Russia’s support for it. But, angered by the
sharp decline of its power in world affairs, including NATO’s advance to its
borders, the Russian government engaged in its own nuclear buildup and spurned
U.S. disarmament proposals.
Despite
these roadblocks, the Obama administration could renew the nuclear disarmament
process. Developing better relations with Russia, for example by
scrapping NATO’s provocative expansion plan, could smooth the path toward a
Russian-American nuclear disarmament agreement. And this, in turn, would
soften the objections of the lesser nuclear powers to reducing their own
nuclear arsenals. If Republican opposition threatened ratification of a
disarmament treaty, it could be bypassed through an informal U.S.-Russian
agreement for parallel weapons reductions. Moreover, even without a
bilateral agreement, the U.S. government could simply scrap large portions of
its nuclear arsenal, as well as plans for modernization. Does a country
really need thousands of nuclear weapons to deter a nuclear attack?
Britain possesses only 215. And the vast majority of the world’s nations
don’t possess any.
Given the
terrible dangers and costs posed by nuclear weapons, isn’t it time to get back
on the disarmament track?
Dr.
Lawrence Wittner (www.lawrenceswittner.com [16]) is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. His
latest book is a satirical novel about university corporatization and
rebellion, “What’s Going On at UAardvark?”
Source URL: https://portside.org/2016-01-19/frightening-prospect-nuclear-war-about-become-lot-more-likely
Links:
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/science/as-us-modernizes-nuclear-weapons-smaller-leaves-some-uneasy.html?em_pos=large&emc=edit_nn_20160112&nl=morning-briefing&nlid=46945321&_r=1
[2] http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/should-the-us-spend-1-trillion-on-nuclear-weapons/
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/science/as-us-modernizes-nuclear-weapons-smaller-leaves-some-uneasy.html?em_pos=large&emc=edit_nn_20160112&nl=morning-briefing&nlid=46945321&_r=0
[4] http://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/
[5] https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-barack-obama-prague-delivered
[6] https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/NewSTART
[7] https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/statement-president-barack-obama-release-nuclear-posture-review
[8] http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/white-house-again-lobby-congress-ctbt-ratification/
[9] https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/remarks-president-state-union-address
[10] https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/12/remarks-president-barack-obama-%E2%80%93-prepared-delivery-state-union-address
[11] http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/27/republican-presidents-efforts-to-reduce-nuclear-arms/
[12] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nuclear-usa-modernization-idUSTRE7485S420110509
[13] http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-nuclear-treaties-20150709-story.html
[14] https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R43037.pdf
[15] http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/161737#sthash.pKIDIib2.dpuf
[16] http://www.lawrenceswittner.com
[2] http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/should-the-us-spend-1-trillion-on-nuclear-weapons/
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/science/as-us-modernizes-nuclear-weapons-smaller-leaves-some-uneasy.html?em_pos=large&emc=edit_nn_20160112&nl=morning-briefing&nlid=46945321&_r=0
[4] http://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/
[5] https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-barack-obama-prague-delivered
[6] https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/NewSTART
[7] https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/statement-president-barack-obama-release-nuclear-posture-review
[8] http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/white-house-again-lobby-congress-ctbt-ratification/
[9] https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/remarks-president-state-union-address
[10] https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/12/remarks-president-barack-obama-%E2%80%93-prepared-delivery-state-union-address
[11] http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/27/republican-presidents-efforts-to-reduce-nuclear-arms/
[12] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nuclear-usa-modernization-idUSTRE7485S420110509
[13] http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-nuclear-treaties-20150709-story.html
[14] https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R43037.pdf
[15] http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/161737#sthash.pKIDIib2.dpuf
[16] http://www.lawrenceswittner.com
Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center,
325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-323-1607; Email:
mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class has always declared the wars; the
subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to
gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and
everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs
No comments:
Post a Comment