The Threat to America's Nukes

Politico Magazine ^ | February 25, 2014 | Michael Krepon

[2ndDivisionVet]

he wages of austerity are coming due for America’s military. On Monday, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced a major downsizing of the U.S. Army. He wants to retire the A-10 Warthog fleet of ground-support aircraft and the venerable U-2 manned spy planes. And he’s cutting the operations of the Navy’s cruiser fleet in half.

So far, Hagel has been silent about reductions in nuclear forces, promising to preserve all three legs of the so-called triad — missiles, bombers and submarines — while making “important investments to preserve a safe, secure, reliable and effective nuclear force.” But reductions in nuclear forces are coming: It’s not a question of whether, but when — and how deep.

The United States still has more than 5,000 nuclear weapons, all supported by a complex of bases, production facilities and nuclear laboratories likely to cost American taxpayers in excess of $20 billion per year this decade. But nuclear weapons seem anachronistic in the post-Cold War world. They have less military utility than conventional forces, their numbers are far larger than conceivable war plans and their replacement costs are extremely high.

Over the past half-century, the boosters of arms control and nuclear deterrence have managed to find common ground, bringing the size of America’s nuclear stockpile down from its Cold War peak of more than 30,000 warheads. All the while, these two camps have kept battling it out, even though their respective goals — ratifying treaties and modernizing America’s creaking nuclear infrastructure—remain linked. Both agendas have become harder to achieve as the Cold War fades into history. And now, this odd, fractious partnership may be breaking up over irreconcilable differences. Tight Pentagon budgets make the old bargain — treaty votes in return for promises to modernize the triad and bomb-related facilities — harder to cut....

[2ndDivisionVet]

I thought President Carter hollowed out our forces...

[Hoosier-Daddy]

Charlie is not only inside the wire, he’s calling the plays

[minnesota_bound]

Where is John Boehner and Mitch McConnell on this?

[depressed in 06]

The United States still has more than 5,000 nuclear weapons,...

Barack sh!t!

[2ndDivisionVet]

Who?

[matthew fuller]

The greatest immediate threat to the United States of America is a person of unknown origin ostensibly named Barak Hussein Obama. It is his mission to destroy the USA, and our Congress along with our Supreme Court are consenting to everything the Magic Negro wants to accomplish.

[Rembrandt]

Troops Ten Hut:

Circular pattern..Assemble:

Prepare to fire:

Ready. FIRE. Aim!

(brought to you by the DNC)

[matthew fuller]

He probably hollowed out Ft. Knox.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

I saw a chart years ago that looked at European defense spending and social spending. Not surprisingly, defense spending went straight-line toward zero over the years while social spending was doing the exact opposite. Europe could do this because the US provided for so much of their defense.

Who’s going to provide for our defense when we are on the same trajectory?

[Smokin' Joe]

The United States still has more than 5,000 nuclear weapons, all supported by a complex of bases, production facilities and nuclear laboratories likely to cost American taxpayers in excess of $20 billion per year this decade. But nuclear weapons seem anachronistic in the post-Cold War world. They have less military utility than conventional forces, their numbers are far larger than conceivable war plans and their replacement costs are extremely high.

Yeah. Kinda like having an elephant gun. You might never need it, but if you ever do, having it is critical.

I think it serves as a deterrent, too. I haven't seen an elephant roaming around N Dakota yet.

Part of the purpose of having a nuclear arsenal capable of destroying our enemies many times over was to make nuclear war unsurvivable and unthinkable.

Having the capability was insurance against having to use it.

Discard that and all bets are off, especially with the people getting nuclear capability nowadays. A marginal arsenal may just not be enough.

[Vinnie]

I was against Rumsfeld’s cuts years ago. This is idiotic.
On one hand Hagel tells us how uncertain and chaotic the world is then turns around and tells us we need to cut our military forces.

It’ s just amazing to me how these idiot SoDs can look at the difficulty we have/had fielding fresh soldiers w/o many multi tours and say we can safely cut our forces.
The old strategy of being able to fight on 2 fronts at the same time can’t possibly be done today.
The world is much less safe than during the Cold War days.

They are ignoring one of the few explicit demands in the Constitution, ‘ Provide for the common defense’....