For much of the past six years, President Obama has
talked about working toward a world without nuclear weapons. Yet his
administration is now investing tens of billions of dollars in modernizing and
rebuilding America’s nuclear arsenal and facilities, as The Times reported in
detail on Monday. And after good progress in making nuclear bomb material more
secure around the world, Mr. Obama has reduced his budget requests for that
priority. This is a shortsighted and disappointing turn.
Related Coverage
Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
U.S. Ramping Up Major Renewal in Nuclear ArmsSEPT.
21, 2014
With the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and
Syria dominating news headlines, it is easy to forget the threat that nuclear
weapons and nuclear material continue to pose around the world. The Bulletin of
the Atomic Scientists says there are 16,300 nuclear weapons located at some 98
sites in 14 countries, a vast majority in the United States and Russia. There
are also 25 countries that possess enough nuclear and radiological materials to
build a weapon, with such material held at hundreds of sites, many vulnerable
to extremists.
When he first came to office, Mr. Obama was
clearsighted about nuclear dangers and ambitious in his disarmament goals. His major
arms control achievement was the New Start treaty with Moscow aimed at reducing
deployed strategic nuclear weapons to 1,550 on each side, down from 2,200, by
February 2018. But to win Republican support for the treaty in 2010, Mr. Obama
made a Faustian bargain, promising to spend $84 billion to upgrade aging
nuclear weapons over the next decade, a $14 billion increase over the regular
$70 billion modernization budget.
But the Congressional Budget Office now estimates
that Mr. Obama’s plans will cost $355 billion over the next decade; other
studies put the price at $1 trillion over three decades. The wish list includes
12 new missile submarines, up to 100 new bombers, 400 land-based missiles, plus
upgrades to eight major plants and laboratories.
There has been little debate among members of
Congress and the public about the decision by Mr. Obama and Congress to pour
billions of dollars into new nuclear weapons systems — even as other government
programs have been cut significantly.
Not only is this spending unwise and beyond what the
nation can afford, multiple studies by the Government Accountability Office
have described the modernization push as badly managed. In a statement released
on Monday, nuclear weapons experts from the Arms Control Association, the
Federation of American Scientists and others called the modernization plan
excessive and said the country can reduce the number of missiles and bombers it
buys and still maintain a safe and reliable nuclear arsenal.
Worse yet, the administration is making a foolish
trade-off — pouring money into modernization while reducing funds that help
improve security at nuclear sites in Russia and other countries where
terrorists or criminals could get their hands on nuclear materials.
Since Mr. Obama took office, he has pushed the
international community to improve nuclear security. The result is that 13
countries have eliminated their nuclear materials stockpiles and 15 others
removed or disposed of portions of theirs. But a report by experts at the
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy
School of Government says the Obama administration’s proposed 2015 budget would
cut spending for nuclear security by 21 percent, from $700 million this year to
$555 million. While Congress restored some of that money in a stopgap spending
bill, it expires in December and no one knows what happens after that.
Fortunately, 26 senators have recognized that such
cuts are dangerous and urged that they be reversed. Investing in nuclear
security protects Americans more than unwise investment in new nuclear weapons.
No comments:
Post a Comment