Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
New York Times
February 24, 2009
Two nuclear missile submarines — one British, one French — armed with a likely total of well more than 100 thermonuclear warheads collided under the Atlantic Ocean earlier this month. It’s a terrifying reminder of how many of these hugely destructive weapons are still routinely deployed and how little thought is given to keeping them as safe and secure as possible.
Two decades after the end of the cold war, all of the nuclear powers have been inexcusably negligent about rethinking nuclear strategies, sharply reducing arsenals and eliminating needlessly risky practices, including some that contributed to this month’s collision.
Fortunately, the damage to the submarines was minor, and the warheads were not compromised. British and French missiles, like those of the United States, are protected against accidental launch or detonation of their warheads. But a stronger impact could have sent both subs and their crews to the bottom and possibly dispersed plutonium into surrounding waters.
The warheads on the two submarines that collided could, if ever launched, kill millions of people. And Britain and France together have far fewer than 1,000 nuclear warheads in their arsenals. The United States and Russia still have more than 20,000.
President Obama must move quickly to revive arms negotiations with the Russians — committing to deep reductions both in deployed weapons and the many thousands more in storage. He must then bring the British, French and Chinese into the talks.
The most important missiles to retain in any shrinking arsenal would be those based on submarines. Because they are quiet and constantly moving, they are essentially invulnerable to pre-emptive attack; there is less pressure to use them or lose them. That advantage is also at the root of this month’s accident.
The four nuclear navies operating in the Atlantic — American, British, French and Russian — refuse to disclose any information about which parts of the ocean their missile submarines operate in. Such accidents are rare. But they can and should be made rarer. That can be done without compromising security.
All that would have to happen is for the nuclear navies to agree on respective cruising depths (like airplanes do to prevent midair collisions). Their actual locations would remain secret; they could be anywhere in the Atlantic. And these assigned depths could even be rotated every few months between the navies so that no one could possibly feel advantaged or disadvantaged.
As long as we depend on nuclear weapons for our security, we will have to live with uncomfortable risks. Governments must keep those risks to an absolute minimum by eliminating thousands of weapons that no longer have any military justification and insisting on the highest possible safety standards.
February 24, 2009
Two nuclear missile submarines — one British, one French — armed with a likely total of well more than 100 thermonuclear warheads collided under the Atlantic Ocean earlier this month. It’s a terrifying reminder of how many of these hugely destructive weapons are still routinely deployed and how little thought is given to keeping them as safe and secure as possible.
Two decades after the end of the cold war, all of the nuclear powers have been inexcusably negligent about rethinking nuclear strategies, sharply reducing arsenals and eliminating needlessly risky practices, including some that contributed to this month’s collision.
Fortunately, the damage to the submarines was minor, and the warheads were not compromised. British and French missiles, like those of the United States, are protected against accidental launch or detonation of their warheads. But a stronger impact could have sent both subs and their crews to the bottom and possibly dispersed plutonium into surrounding waters.
The warheads on the two submarines that collided could, if ever launched, kill millions of people. And Britain and France together have far fewer than 1,000 nuclear warheads in their arsenals. The United States and Russia still have more than 20,000.
President Obama must move quickly to revive arms negotiations with the Russians — committing to deep reductions both in deployed weapons and the many thousands more in storage. He must then bring the British, French and Chinese into the talks.
The most important missiles to retain in any shrinking arsenal would be those based on submarines. Because they are quiet and constantly moving, they are essentially invulnerable to pre-emptive attack; there is less pressure to use them or lose them. That advantage is also at the root of this month’s accident.
The four nuclear navies operating in the Atlantic — American, British, French and Russian — refuse to disclose any information about which parts of the ocean their missile submarines operate in. Such accidents are rare. But they can and should be made rarer. That can be done without compromising security.
All that would have to happen is for the nuclear navies to agree on respective cruising depths (like airplanes do to prevent midair collisions). Their actual locations would remain secret; they could be anywhere in the Atlantic. And these assigned depths could even be rotated every few months between the navies so that no one could possibly feel advantaged or disadvantaged.
As long as we depend on nuclear weapons for our security, we will have to live with uncomfortable risks. Governments must keep those risks to an absolute minimum by eliminating thousands of weapons that no longer have any military justification and insisting on the highest possible safety standards.