Obama’s Drive to Disarm America

By IndepthAfrica
In Uncategorized
Feb 23rd, 2012
0 Comments
30 Views

America’s policy of nuclear deterrence is being seriously threatened as President Obama considers proposals by the Defense Department that could cut the US nuclear arsenal by as much as 80 percent, reducing America’s deployed nuclear strategic warheads to as few as 300.

While the New START nuclear treaty with Russia commits the United States to reducing its arsenal of deployed strategic long-range nuclear weapons from 5,113 to 1,550 by 2018, it does not prohibit either country from cutting below those mandated levels.

Thus, the White House — as part of the Obama administration’s evaluation of America’s nuclear force requirements — is exploring ways to go even further below that nuclear threshold. The White House has directed the Defense Department to examine three levels of deployed strategic nuclear warheads: 1,000 to 1,100 warheads; 700 to 800 warheads; and 300 to 400 warheads.

Cutting America’s nuclear arsenal to 300 warheads — a level not seen since 1950 — would place the number of US strategic nuclear weapons at a level comparable with France, heightening fears that it would make America’s strategy of nuclear deterrence obsolete.

Yet, even if President Obama ultimately accepts the 1,100 level of strategic nuclear warheads, it would still represent a significant and serious nuclear cutback given that many American military officials claim that the 1,550 level mandated by New START is the lowest level that can be used to maintain deterrence of a nuclear attack.

Moreover, they argue, such a cutback in nuclear weapons would also serve to undermine the credibility of the nuclear “umbrella” that the United States extends to its allies (such as South Korea and Japan). Absent US nuclear protection, those countries may very well feel compelled to build their own nuclear forces. In fact, Saudi Arabia is already planning to initiate its own nuclear program if Iran gets a nuclear bomb.

Unfortunately, the decision to neuter America’s nuclear forces comes at the same time the Obama administration is working to heavily diminish America’s conventional forces, a process begun in January when Obama ordered a shift from the nation’s longstanding capability to fight two major conflicts at once.

That policy shift notwithstanding, the administration’s plan to cut its nuclear forces engendered harsh rebukes, with former UN ambassador John Bolton saying it was by itself “sufficient to vote against Obama in November,” while Republican Senator Jim Inhofe accused Obama of “catering to his liberal base that believes that, if we unilaterally disarm, the rest of the world will follow suit.”

For its part, the Obama administration maintains it is not pursuing unilateral cuts, but it is saying that the different nuclear level proposals being floated represent nuclear arsenal levels that could be negotiated with Russia in a future round of arms-control talks.

However, it doesn’t seem as if the Russians are in any hurry to further pare down their nuclear arsenal more than what has been mandated by New START. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin acknowledged as much when he recently said that Russia should keep its nuclear deterrence potential to ensure its strategic stability, saying, “We should not lead anyone to temptation by our weakness. That is why under no circumstances will we give up the strategic deterrence potential and we will strengthen it.”

To prove Putin’s point, in 2011 alone the Russian government announced plans that it was buying 36 strategic ballistic missiles, two strategic missile submarines, and 20 strategic cruise missiles. Additionally, during that time it reportedly modified its ICBMs and SLBMs (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles) and increased its number of MIRVS (Multiple, Independently Targeted Warheads).

Also, in December 2011 Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces (SMF) announced that it would begin renovating its Topol-M and Yars RS-24 missile systems and start construction on a new 100-ton ballistic missile to replace the RS-36 Voyevoda ICBM, known as the Satan missile.

Of course, Russia isn’t the only nuclear state seeking to upgrade its nuclear arsenal. A recent report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri) reported that both Pakistan and India “continue to develop new ballistic and cruise missile systems capable of delivering nuclear weapons” as well as “expanding their capacities to produce fissile material for military purposes.”

To that end, Pakistan has reportedly increased its nuclear arsenal from an estimated 90 nuclear warheads in 2009 to 110 nuclear warheads, with reports it can reach 150-200 nuclear warheads within a decade. In July 2011, India received from Russia its the Akula-II class “Nerpa” nuclear attack submarine, equipped with 28 nuclear-capable cruise missiles with a striking range of 3,000 kilometers.

Finally, China is reportedly modernizing every element of its strategic triad for delivering nuclear warheads (submarine-launched ballistic missiles, ground-based ballistic missiles, and weapons launched from big bombers), upgrades which include the production of two new ICBMs, a new ballistic missile submarine, and a new bomber.

In fact, China’s estimated arsenal of 240 nuclear warheads may actually be much greater than believed given that it has built a 5,000 mile network of tunnels that many analysts say conceals the true buildup of its nuclear arsenal, with reports that China may have stashed 1,000 to 3,500 nuclear devices inside the vast underground system.

So, given all that, it wasn’t surprising that Congressional Republicans have vowed to block the Obama administration from slashing the US nuclear arsenal, views expressed most recently in a letter sent to President Obama by 34 Republicans from the House Armed Services Committee.

In that letter, the lawmakers urged the president to “cease” pursuing the nuclear reductions, especially given “the growth in quantity and quality of nuclear weapons capabilities” in Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and, “perhaps soon the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

Moreover, the lawmakers noted in the letter the Obama administration’s failure to fully support the $85 billion US nuclear weapons modernization program it had committed to as part of the effort to secure Senate ratification of New START in 2010.

Specifically, the president’s proposed 2013 defense budget not only cuts 15 percent from the nuclear modernization program, but it also calls for a two-year delay in the development of a new generation of nuclear carrying ballistic missile submarines.

The necessity of upgrading and modernizing America’s nuclear forces stems directly from the fact that the United States has not built a nuclear warhead in years; has old nuclear delivery systems; and is plagued by an aging and shrinking nuclear workforce.

Since America has not built a nuclear warhead since the Cold War, it has chosen instead to upgrade existing warheads with new technology. As such, those weapons, heavily modified from their original designs, are untested to ensure accuracy. That has led the Defense Science Board (DSB) to report that the United States faces “great dangers in the reliability of the guidance, re-entry systems, and propulsion of its ICBM force.” To make matters worse, America’s nuclear delivery platforms are some of the oldest in the world. For example, the average age of US nuclear delivery platforms is 50 years for the B-52H bomber; 41 years for the Minuteman III; 28 years for the Ohio-class submarine; 21 years for the Trident II D-5 SLBM; and 14 years for the B-2 bomber.

Finally, the nuclear workforce charged with developing, operating, and maintaining America’s nuclear arsenal is shrinking. According to DSB reports an aging workforce has created a “critical skills gap” as the “number of individuals working on the various programs continues to decline and the people with these skill sets are not being replaced.”

As former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates once observed, “to be blunt, there is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without either resorting to testing or pursuing a modernization program.”

Of course, the actions by the Obama administration to defang America’s nuclear arsenal is really not too surprising given President Obama’s desire for a “nuclear zero” policy, one he first announced in Prague in 2009.

Yet, as Republican lawmakers asked the president in their recent letter to him, “Surely you believe that blind ideology cannot drive a matter as US nuclear forces over reality.”

Given the direction his administration is headed, apparently it can.

Frank Crimi is a San Diego-based writer and author of the upcoming book, Raining Frogs and Heart Attacks (Tate Publishing). You can read more of Frank’s work at his blog, www.politicallyunbalanced.com.

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS