Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Boston Globe
October 27, 2008
Weapons' role being debated
By Robert Burns, Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The mighty US arsenal of nuclear weapons, midwived by World War II and nurtured by the Cold War, is declining in power and purpose while the military's competence in handling the world's most dangerous arms has eroded. At the same time, international efforts to contain the spread of such weapons look ineffective.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, for one, wants the next president to think about what nuclear middle-age and decline means for national security.
Gates joins a growing debate about the reliability and future credibility of the American arsenal with his first extensive speech on nuclear arms tomorrow. The debate is attracting increasing attention inside the Pentagon, even as the military fights insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Gates is expected to call for increased commitment to preserving the deterrent value of atomic weapons. Their chief function has evolved from first stopping the Nazis and Japanese, then the Soviets. Now the vast US stockpile serves mainly to make any other nation think twice about developing or using even a crude nuclear device of its own.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, wrote in the current issue of an internal publication, Joint Force Quarterly, that the United States is overdue to retool its nuclear strategy. He discussed the concept of nuclear deterrence - the idea that the credible threat of US nuclear retaliation is enough to stop a potential enemy from striking first with a weapon of mass destruction.
"Many, if not most, of the individuals who worked deterrence in the 1970s and 1980s - the real experts at this discipline - are not doing it anymore," Mullen wrote. "And we have not even tried to find their replacements."
General Kevin Chilton, commander of US Strategic Command, which is responsible for maintaining the nation's nuclear war plans, told Congress last spring that technical nuclear expertise also is lagging.
"The last nuclear design engineer to participate in the development and testing of a new nuclear weapon is scheduled to retire in the next five years," Chilton said.
Of the two senators competing to succeed President Bush, Democrat Barack Obama is most unequivocally against building new nuclear weapons. Both he and Republican John McCain say in their campaign materials that they support the longstanding US commitment to eventually do away with nuclear arms. Neither says explicitly that the safety or credibility of the arsenal is in question; that's an argument made most frequently by congressional Republicans.
Senator John Kyl of Arizona, for example, said in a speech Sept. 15 that the network of laboratories and industrial plants that produce and maintain US nuclear weapons is, in some cases, "simply falling down from age," and that this amounts to an alarming national emergency.
Some private analysts dispute Kyl's assessment. "It's completely overblown," said Hans M. Kristensen, who tracks nuclear weapons developments for the Federation of American Scientists, which opposes the Bush administration's plan to develop a new nuclear weapon design.
Gates has expressed concern about lack of official attention to the nuclear arsenal.
In June he fired the Air Force's top general, Michael Moseley, after an inquiry concluded that the Air Force had not adequately heeded warning signs that its nuclear expertise, performance, and stewardship were eroding.
October 27, 2008
Weapons' role being debated
By Robert Burns, Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The mighty US arsenal of nuclear weapons, midwived by World War II and nurtured by the Cold War, is declining in power and purpose while the military's competence in handling the world's most dangerous arms has eroded. At the same time, international efforts to contain the spread of such weapons look ineffective.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, for one, wants the next president to think about what nuclear middle-age and decline means for national security.
Gates joins a growing debate about the reliability and future credibility of the American arsenal with his first extensive speech on nuclear arms tomorrow. The debate is attracting increasing attention inside the Pentagon, even as the military fights insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Gates is expected to call for increased commitment to preserving the deterrent value of atomic weapons. Their chief function has evolved from first stopping the Nazis and Japanese, then the Soviets. Now the vast US stockpile serves mainly to make any other nation think twice about developing or using even a crude nuclear device of its own.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, wrote in the current issue of an internal publication, Joint Force Quarterly, that the United States is overdue to retool its nuclear strategy. He discussed the concept of nuclear deterrence - the idea that the credible threat of US nuclear retaliation is enough to stop a potential enemy from striking first with a weapon of mass destruction.
"Many, if not most, of the individuals who worked deterrence in the 1970s and 1980s - the real experts at this discipline - are not doing it anymore," Mullen wrote. "And we have not even tried to find their replacements."
General Kevin Chilton, commander of US Strategic Command, which is responsible for maintaining the nation's nuclear war plans, told Congress last spring that technical nuclear expertise also is lagging.
"The last nuclear design engineer to participate in the development and testing of a new nuclear weapon is scheduled to retire in the next five years," Chilton said.
Of the two senators competing to succeed President Bush, Democrat Barack Obama is most unequivocally against building new nuclear weapons. Both he and Republican John McCain say in their campaign materials that they support the longstanding US commitment to eventually do away with nuclear arms. Neither says explicitly that the safety or credibility of the arsenal is in question; that's an argument made most frequently by congressional Republicans.
Senator John Kyl of Arizona, for example, said in a speech Sept. 15 that the network of laboratories and industrial plants that produce and maintain US nuclear weapons is, in some cases, "simply falling down from age," and that this amounts to an alarming national emergency.
Some private analysts dispute Kyl's assessment. "It's completely overblown," said Hans M. Kristensen, who tracks nuclear weapons developments for the Federation of American Scientists, which opposes the Bush administration's plan to develop a new nuclear weapon design.
Gates has expressed concern about lack of official attention to the nuclear arsenal.
In June he fired the Air Force's top general, Michael Moseley, after an inquiry concluded that the Air Force had not adequately heeded warning signs that its nuclear expertise, performance, and stewardship were eroding.