Linkypoo
If the White House has its way, America could soon reduce its nuclear arsenal dramatically, possibly even to the point where it would possess fewer atomic bombs than congressmen. And though Republicans on the Hill are already complaining that the plans are "reckless lunacy," the administration appears to have plenty of military thinkers on its side.
According to a report this week from the Associated Press, President Obama is considering three proposals by the Pentagon to cut the number of deployed nukes. The biggest proposal would reduce America's active stockpile to just 300 to 400 warheads—fewer than the US has had since the earliest days of the Cold War. Since the dawn of the nuclear age, the US has reportedly built close to 70,000 atomic bombs. The recent New START treaty with Russia requires both countries to cut their deployed warheads to 1,550, so these new reduction plans would be dramatic, indeed.
Any real movement on this front may not come until 2013; follow-up reporting by theWashington Postsuggested that the White House won't make a change until it resumes negotiations with the Russians, which is likely only to come after presidential elections take place in both countries this year. But the fact that plans are brewing for a major arsenal reduction is itself significant, and it signals where Obama may really be headed on nuclear strategy if elected to a second term.
The DOD's top dogsspent much of their time in Congress on Wednesdaystressing that all options are still on the table, including maintaining the current number of nukes. Even so, Republicans pounced on the proposed reductions. "I just want to go on record as saying that there are many of us that are going to do everything we possibly can to make sure that this preposterous notion does not gain any real traction," Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)declaredin a House Armed Services Committee Hearing. (He was the one who deemed the plan "reckless lunacy.") Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a powerful advocate for nuclear forces,ridiculed the planas a cynical re-election ploy by Obama. (Catering to public opinion on spending reductions—imagine that.)
As I've reported before, many conservative politicians, and some moderate and progressive ones, have historically considered America's nuclear arsenal to be sacrosanct. After all, it's backed by a robust and expensive weapons complex that keeps legions of contractors in business. But away from Capitol Hill, American academics and military officers are getting beyond the sound bites and provincial interests, and asking the impolitic question: In the post-Soviet age can the US do as much—or more—with fewer nukes? The answer seems to be:Yes, we can.
On the eve of the New START signing in 2010, three Air Force researchers argued in a military journal that the US should tweak its nuclear strategy to focus on "proportional deterrence"—the idea that America doesn't need to annihilate its enemies out of existence, but instead just needs enough firepower to threaten an enemy's most valuable targets. It's straight out of Clausewitz: You can win merely by taking away the adversary's will to fight—like that moment at the end ofWar Games, when the self-aware missile-launching computer realizes that global thermonuclear war is as futile as tic-tac-toe: "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play." MotherJones
tl:dr - Pentagon proposes to cut down nukes. Obama is considering cutting it down dramatically to pre-Cold War levels. Republicans don't like it and are pissed. Military strategists approve and support Obama's potential decision. None of this will happen regardless until most likely after 2012 re-elections.
Log in to comment