Major news outlets are endorsing principles of nuclear arms spending reductions that PNA, PSR, and the Campaign for a Nuclear-Weapons-Free World have supported, among many other friends. Highlights from the NY Times editorial, “The Bloated NuclearWeapons Budget.”
“Twenty years after the end of the cold war, the United States still has about 2,500 nuclear weapons deployed and 2,600 more as backup. The Obama administration, in an attempt to mollify Congressional Republicans, has also committed to modernizing an already hugely expensive complex of nuclear labs and production facilities. Altogether, these and other nuclear-related programs could cost $600 billion or more over the next decade. The country does not need to maintain this large an arsenal. It should not be spending so much to do it, especially when Congress is considering deep cuts in vital domestic programs.
“A war with Russia is now unthinkable, conventional weapons are increasingly capable, and the main nuclear threat comes from Iran and North Korea. To have the credibility to try to contain their ambitions, the United States needs to be weaning itself from its reliance on nuclear weapons. Reducing the number of weapons, scaling back unnecessary modernization programs, and delaying or scrapping plans to replace some delivery systems will save billions and help make the world safer.” NY Times, Oct. 30, 2011.
____________________________________________________
In fact, our friends in PNA, as well as in allied groups such as Coalition for Peace Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the ACA—Arms Control Association—have supported nuclear spending cuts, and have been calling and Emailing Congress to support it. Go to Email Congress, to participate. (If we call our Super Committee members now, especially Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, we have time to influence the vote on the Federal Budget, which must be trimmed by Thanksgiving under the current schedule. Sen. Toomey is at 215-597-7200, and anyone who answers can record your position as a PA voter, on this issue.)
What can be safely cut, without jeopardizing national security, freeing up money for health, education, and student loan needs, among other things, in the Super Committee? We can:
• Cancel a new fleet of nuclear submarines. Savings: $125 billion.
• Cancel the overhauling of thousands of old nuclear weapons; Army War College studies show we can “safely reduce” to below 1000 deployed weapons (one study says down to 331 is perfectly safe). Gen. James Cartwright said in July we should re-examine the whole program. Savings: $65-80 billion.
• Don’t build 100 new bombers and a new ICBM nuclear missile. Any new missile we build should be for space exploration, now being neglected, not for nuclear warheads, a relic of the 1980’s Cold War. Savings: over $20 billion.
These measures alone can save over $200 billion. And not only Rep. Ed Markey, a Democrat, has led the way on nuclear cuts. Here’s Republican Sen. Tom Coburn’s plan:
“Senator Tom Coburn, one of the few Republicans to support nuclear reductions, has called for cutting the number of deployed strategic warheads to 1,220, the ballistic missile submarine fleet to 11 from 14, and intercontinental ballistic missiles to 300 from 500. He also favors delaying the purchase of new bombers until the mid 2020s. Total savings, according to Mr. Coburn, would be at least $79 billion over the next decade. It is a smart beginning.”
_____________________________________________________________________________
Tom Coburn (R-OK) is one example of a Republican who combines fiscal prudence with a strong defense. We should ask Senator Toomey to follow his lead, and cut nuclear weapons spending by $200 billion in the Super Committee.
_____________________________________________________________________________
For the full NY Times editorial: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/opinion/sunday/the-bloated-nuclear-weapons-budget.html?_r=1