Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
New York Times
October 13, 2008
Pg. 28
With the Bush administration, no bad idea ever dies. So it should be no surprise that the Pentagon and the Department of Energy have released a new policy paper — pitched to the next president — arguing the case for a new nuclear warhead.
Nearly two decades after this country stopped building nuclear weapons, it should not get back into the business.
As the paper signed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman acknowledges, the current stockpile remains “safe, secure and reliable.”
Any decision to build a new weapon would feed already deep suspicions about America’s judgment and motives and further undercut efforts to contain the dangerous nuclear ambitions of North Korea, Iran and other wannabes.
The administration’s pitch sounds seductive. The proposed Reliable Replacement Warhead (how’s that for branding?) is supposed to be sturdy, reliable, secure from terrorists and not really new, just improved. And, oh yes, it’s supposed to contain fewer toxic materials.
Officials also claim that if they get the new warheads, the government probably won’t have to keep as many backup warheads in the stockpile to hedge against technical failure — although nobody is making any promises. Officials also insist there will be no need to test the new warheads — computers can model it all.
The United States has not tested a nuclear weapon since 1992, one of the few arms controls taboos President Bush hasn’t broken. But Mr. Bush also rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, so any promises about not testing the R.R.W. have always been suspect.
The Pentagon became concerned about “aging” warheads only after it could not persuade Congress to finance a new “bunker buster” weapon to go after deeply buried targets. The nation’s nuclear weapons labs have long been lobbying for a new challenge to lure a new generation of nuclear scientists. But nuclear weapons cannot be a jobs project.
Congress has wisely delayed financing a new warhead at least until a blue-ribbon study on nuclear weapons policy — led by two former defense secretaries, William Perry and James Schlesinger — is completed in December. Neither presidential candidate has categorically ruled out a new weapon. They both should.
If the existing stockpile is “safe, secure and reliable,” there is no reason to build a new nuclear weapon.
October 13, 2008
Pg. 28
With the Bush administration, no bad idea ever dies. So it should be no surprise that the Pentagon and the Department of Energy have released a new policy paper — pitched to the next president — arguing the case for a new nuclear warhead.
Nearly two decades after this country stopped building nuclear weapons, it should not get back into the business.
As the paper signed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman acknowledges, the current stockpile remains “safe, secure and reliable.”
Any decision to build a new weapon would feed already deep suspicions about America’s judgment and motives and further undercut efforts to contain the dangerous nuclear ambitions of North Korea, Iran and other wannabes.
The administration’s pitch sounds seductive. The proposed Reliable Replacement Warhead (how’s that for branding?) is supposed to be sturdy, reliable, secure from terrorists and not really new, just improved. And, oh yes, it’s supposed to contain fewer toxic materials.
Officials also claim that if they get the new warheads, the government probably won’t have to keep as many backup warheads in the stockpile to hedge against technical failure — although nobody is making any promises. Officials also insist there will be no need to test the new warheads — computers can model it all.
The United States has not tested a nuclear weapon since 1992, one of the few arms controls taboos President Bush hasn’t broken. But Mr. Bush also rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, so any promises about not testing the R.R.W. have always been suspect.
The Pentagon became concerned about “aging” warheads only after it could not persuade Congress to finance a new “bunker buster” weapon to go after deeply buried targets. The nation’s nuclear weapons labs have long been lobbying for a new challenge to lure a new generation of nuclear scientists. But nuclear weapons cannot be a jobs project.
Congress has wisely delayed financing a new warhead at least until a blue-ribbon study on nuclear weapons policy — led by two former defense secretaries, William Perry and James Schlesinger — is completed in December. Neither presidential candidate has categorically ruled out a new weapon. They both should.
If the existing stockpile is “safe, secure and reliable,” there is no reason to build a new nuclear weapon.