Modernizing
the Opportunities for Nuclear War
By Lawrence
Wittner
January 21, 2016 "Information
Clearing House"
- 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?
Lawrence
Wittner is a prominent American historian who has
combined intellectual life with activism for peace
and social justice. Professor Wittner is the author
of nine books, the editor or co-editor of another
four, and the writer of over 250 published articles
and book reviews.
http://www.lawrenceswittner.com/ |