Are we entering a new arms race with Russia? (photo: Jung Yeon-Je/AFP/Getty Images)
Obama's
Russian Rationale for $1 Trillion Nuke Plan Signals New Arms Race
By Alex Emmons, The
Intercept
23 February 16
The
Obama administration has historically insisted that its massive $1 trillion
nuclear weapons modernization program does not represent a return to Cold
War-era nuclear rivalry between Russia and the United States.
The
hugely expensive undertaking, which calls for a slew of new cruise missiles,
ICBMs, nuclear submarines, and long-range bombers over the next three decades,
has been widely panned by critics as “wasteful,” “unsustainable,” “unaffordable,” and “a fantasy.”
The
administration has pointed to aging missile silos, 1950s-era bombers, and
other outdated technology to
justify the spending, describing the steps as intended to maintain present
capabilities going forward — not bulking up to prepare for a future
confrontation.
Last
year, speaking to NATO allies, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter insisted that
“the Cold War playbook … is not suitable for the 21st century.”
But
President Obama’s defense budget request
for 2017 includes language that makes it clear that nuclear “modernization”
really is about Russia after all.
The
budget request explicitly cites Russian
aggression, saying, “We are countering Russia’s aggressive policies through
investments in a broad range of capabilities … [including] our nuclear
arsenal.”
In
December, Brian McKeon, principle deputy undersecretary of defense for
policy, testified before Congress:
“We are investing in the technologies that are most relevant to Russia’s
provocations … to both deter nuclear attacks and reassure our allies.”
The
public acknowledgement that Russia is the impetus for U.S. modernization has
critics concerned the Cold War-era superpowers are now engaged in a
“modernization” arms race.
“Both
Russia and the United States are now officially and publicly using the other
side as a justification for nuclear weapons modernization programs,” said Hans
Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project, in a statement emailed
to The Intercept.
Early
in his presidency, Obama was an outspoken advocate of nuclear disarmament. In
April 2009, he pledged his commitment
“to achieving a nuclear free world,” together with former Russian President
Dimitri Medvedev. Later that month, Obama delivered a celebrated speech in Prague, saying he
sought “the security of a world without nuclear weapons.” And he negotiated a
2011 nuclear treaty with Russia, which required both countries to reduce their
arsenals to 1,550 operational warheads each.
But
according to Obama’s advisers, Russia’s invasion of Crimea halted
his disarmament efforts. In a 2014 interview with
the New York Times, Gary Samore, one of Obama’s top first-term
nuclear advisers, said, “The most fundamental game changer is Putin’s invasion
of Ukraine. That has made any measure to reduce the stockpile unilaterally
politically impossible.”
Former
officials have proposed ways of trimming the trillion-dollar budget. In
December, former Defense Secretary William Perry called for the
Pentagon not to replace its aging ICBMS, arguing that submarines and bombers
were enough to deter nuclear threats.
Retired
Gen. Eugene Habiger, the former head of U.S. Strategic Command, which overseas
the Pentagon’s nuclear weapons, has argued that U.S.
nuclear forces have little to no deterrent effect on Russia and China, and that
the U.S. can safely reduce its active arsenal to 200-300 weapons.
Last
year, in an effort to cut the costs of nuclear modernization, Sen. Ed Markey,
D-Mass., and Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., introduced a bill that would reduce
the number of planned missile-bearing submarines from 14 to eight. The bill,
which would save an estimated $4 billion per submarine, was co-sponsored by
Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Democrat who is now running for president.
When asked about nuclear
modernization at a campaign event in Des Moines, Iowa, Hillary Clinton
responded, “Yeah, I’ve heard about that, I’m going to look into that, it
doesn’t make sense to me.” Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio, on
the other hand, supported the expense,
saying, “Deterrence is a friend to peace.”
Religious
groups have also voiced opposition to nuclear modernization. “We were pleased
with the president’s statement calling for a world without nuclear weapons,”
said Mark Harrison, director of the Peace with Justice program at the United
Methodist General Board of Church and Society.
David
Culp, a legislative representative at the Quaker-affiliated Friends Committee
on National Legislation, said, “The increased spending on U.S. nuclear weapons
is already provoking similar responses from Russia and China. We are slowly
slipping back into another Cold War, but this time on two fronts.”
Contracts
are already being signed. In October, the Pentagon awarded Northrop
Grumman the contract for the new long-range bomber. The total cost is secret, but expected to
exceed $100 billion.
C 2015 Reader Supported News
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