iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

James Cartwright Calls For Deep Cuts In Nuclear Arms

Posted:

James Cartwright

WASHINGTON -- A blue ribbon commission headed by a former commander of U.S. nuclear forces Tuesday called for an end to "Cold War thinking" and a sharp reduction in America's arsenal of nuclear weapons to better fit security threats in the 21st century.

A report by the Global Zero U.S. Nuclear Policy Commission, headed by former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James "Hoss" Cartwright, urged "an urgent and transformational change in U.S. nuclear force structure, strategy and posture" over the next 10 years. It recommended reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal to 900 warheads from nearly 5,000 currently, a reduction it said would cut spending on nuclear weapons programs by as much as $100 billion over the next decade.

"The strategy inherited from the Cold War, which remains in place, artificially sustains nuclear stockpiles that are much larger than required for deterrence today," the report said. "The actual existing threats to our two countries (and the globe) cannot be resolved by using our nuclear arsenals. No sensible argument has been put forward for using nuclear weapons to solve any of the major 21st century problems we face -– threats posed by rogue states, failed states, proliferation, regional conflicts, terrorism, cyber warfare, organized crime, drug trafficking, conflict-driven mass migration of refugees, epidemics or climate change. A large standing Cold War-like nuclear arsenal cannot productively address any of these dangers."

The expert panel, brought together by the international arms-control advocacy group Global Zero, included former Republican senator Chuck Hagel, former chief START negotiator Richard Burt, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Thomas Pickering and former Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic for NATO, retired Gen. Jack Sheehan.

Their blueprint comes as President Barack Obama weighs options to shrink the number of nuclear weapons under the New START treaty with Russia that was ratified by the Senate in December 2010. Under the agreement, each country would be limited to 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads and 800 delivery vehicles.

But there is nothing stopping the Pentagon or the Kremlin from going lower and the Cartwright group lays out in its 26-page report how the two largest nuclear powers could disarm even further. The experts call for renewed arms negotiations with Russia that would reduce the U.S. arsenal to 900 total strategic nuclear weapons on modified alert, with half deployed and half kept in reserve. Instead of the current hair-trigger system that provides leaders just minutes to decide whether to launch or respond to an attack, the deployed warheads would be "de-alerted" to require from 24 hours to 72 hours to ready missiles for launch.

The panel of military and diplomatic experts urged the elimination of all U.S. tactical nuclear weapons over the next 10 years. "Their military utility is practically nil," the report said.

As for hostile countries that possess or are pursuing nuclear weapons, namely Iran and North Korea, "vigilant missile defenses and conventional forces kept on constant alert" are the answer, according to the report.

But Russia, as well as China, "are not enemies of the United States," the report stated. It noted that Russia wasn't included in a recent survey of policy experts as being among the top 20 contingencies directly threatening the U.S. homeland -- despite Mitt Romney's insistence that it is "our number one geopolitical foe." The Republican candidate, who has promised to increase defense spending, not cut it, has said he would review the implementation of New START if elected president.

While the report maintained that, "mutual assured destruction no longer occupies a central psychological or political space in the U.S.-Russian relationship," there may be more fundamental barriers to turning the recommendations into reality: politics.

In keeping with its post-Cold War theme, the experts recommended eliminating land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), part of the traditional nuclear triad that includes submarines and bombers. "ICBMs in fixed silos are inherently targetable," the report said. Because they must be fired within minutes to avoid being destroyed by incoming enemy missiles, their "rapid reaction posture … runs a real risk of accidental or mistaken launch," it said.

The report called for a two-pronged nuclear defense instead, made up of 10 Trident ballistic missile submarines armed with 720 strategic missile warheads (360 deployed, 360 reserve) and 18 B-2 bombers armed with 180 gravity bombs (90 deployed, 90 reserve). Plans for upgraded ICBMs would be scrapped. All existing silo-based ICBMs in North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming would be dismantled or converted to conventional munitions.

Good luck with that. As reported by The Huffington Post last month, members of Congress from rural states that are home to America's land-based nuclear arsenal are likely to go ballistic at any efforts to uproot the missiles in their midst.


FOLLOW POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- A blue ribbon commission headed by a former commander of U.S. nuclear forces Tuesday called for an end to "Cold War thinking" and a sharp reduction in America's arsenal of nuclear weapon...
WASHINGTON -- A blue ribbon commission headed by a former commander of U.S. nuclear forces Tuesday called for an end to "Cold War thinking" and a sharp reduction in America's arsenal of nuclear weapon...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 263
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bushywhacky
Gods' crash-test dummy
07:05 PM on 10/20/2012
Whenever I read articles like this it reminds me of a book I read back in high school "On the Beach".
It takes place in Australia after a nuclear war and everyone is waiting for the nuclear cloud to reach them and finish off human life on earth. A great read.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bushywhacky
Gods' crash-test dummy
06:52 PM on 10/20/2012
How much of a deterrent are nuclear weapons to people who think they are heaven bound if they die in a holy war ?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
KIVPossum
Moldova Marsupial
08:58 AM on 05/16/2012
How about we cut our entire military to a defensive military and stop spending more on arms than the rest of the world combined?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bushywhacky
Gods' crash-test dummy
07:10 PM on 10/20/2012
Imagine if we did that and just spent a fraction of that money on things that would benefit us ?
photo
Anonmouse33
The GOP, separating mind and state since 1968.
08:53 AM on 05/16/2012
really?

you mean it actually took a nuclear physicists to figure out that an empire that can destroy the planet a thousand times over is still worthless if it can't agree on how to handle the bills?

"Here lies the USA. bankrupt, but boy did they have a big d!ck!"

...best epitaph ever, huh fellas?
photo
wheelsofsteel
Layin' tracks.
12:55 PM on 05/16/2012
haha
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bushywhacky
Gods' crash-test dummy
07:15 PM on 10/20/2012
When those gung ho Green Beret types said "better dead than red " they intended to take the rest of us with them if they went.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris Carpenter
08:52 AM on 05/16/2012
"The actual existing threats to our two countries (and the globe) cannot be resolved by using our nuclear arsenals. No sensible argument has been put forward for using nuclear weapons to solve any of the major 21st century problems we face -– threats posed by rogue states, failed states, proliferation, regional conflicts, terrorism, cyber warfare, organized crime, drug trafficking, conflict-driven mass migration of refugees, epidemics or climate change. A large standing Cold War-like nuclear arsenal cannot productively address any of these dangers."

Gee, look at that. The Pentagon even thinks Climate Change is a real and growing threat. Why don't their biggest supporters?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nitwitsRus
my udder username is...
08:48 AM on 05/16/2012
& if there ain't a more
Capitalistic System
than the Entertainment Industry
there ain't a more
Political System than
The Military
SO
ya does havta wait till you're retired
right?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
verflixed
It will come to pass
08:44 AM on 05/16/2012
If you are standing in a room filled up to your chest with gasoline you do not need more than 1 match to call it quits. Similarly you do not need more than 1 nuclear weapon. In other words we should unilaterally get rid of all nuclear weapons. Now imagine we had none would Russia then use nukes against us? No. Because the fallout would harm them too, and the world as we know it would basically be over.
02:30 PM on 05/16/2012
Nuclear weapons keep peace for nomore then the fact the nightmarish thought of having to use them against a other country keeps peace. The use of them would mean the end, there is no winning. "The only way to win World War III is to prevent it." Dwight D. Eisenhower September 19, 1956]
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bushywhacky
Gods' crash-test dummy
06:57 PM on 10/20/2012
So 1 or 2 weapons is all we need right ?
08:26 AM on 05/16/2012
Global Zero stands for the U.S. to disarm and everyone else keeps their nukes. Yawn, sorry Hoss ain't going to happen. Hooorah!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris Carpenter
08:56 AM on 05/16/2012
You do understand that when a nuclear weapon is detonated, the fallout spreads all over the world, right? No one is safe from nuclear fallout.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Haveissues
You well heeled big wheel, ha ha, charade you are
09:21 AM on 05/16/2012
Did you read the article? They call for reducing the US arsenal. We would still have plenty of nukes to destroy ourselves.
photo
somewhatodd
micro-bio undetectable to the naked eye
08:18 AM on 05/16/2012
the MIC says more nukes, not less, so the GOP says more nukes, not less.

there is only one socialist pork that the republicans truly love, and that's military spending.

repairing roads and bridges will ruin us, they say, but more nukes are sorely needed.
08:33 AM on 05/17/2012
The MIC doesn't say more nukes. Just the opposite. As our nuclear forces shrink the greater the push for more conventional forces including missile defense.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug MacKenzie
I refuse to live in FEAR
08:13 AM on 05/16/2012
As a former nuclear weapons specialist in the USAF, I concur with the general. Exactly how many times over do we really need to destroy the world?
08:37 AM on 05/17/2012
As a former nuclear specialist in the USAF you should know that not all of our 5,000 weapons are on alert ready to use.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug MacKenzie
I refuse to live in FEAR
09:20 AM on 05/17/2012
Actually, your numbers are off. In reality, you do not know how many warheads we have on active status. That is a closely held secret, despite what others may tell you. I know. I lived in that world. I also know that the number of warheads needed to eradicate all life on the planet (as far as is practical) is far lower than the 5,000 you state.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug MacKenzie
I refuse to live in FEAR
10:21 AM on 05/17/2012
I know that your numbers are off. Even the best-guess estimates people make are off. And I know that we need far fewer nuclear weapons to destroy the world than what we have in the field and in inactive stockpiles.
calypso54
Illegitimi non carborundum
08:12 AM on 05/16/2012
That won't go over well in some circles!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Passenger57
Keeping Calm And Carrying On...
08:07 AM on 05/16/2012
But-but-Mitt Romney says to beware of them RussiansDUCKANDCOVER...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
verflixed
It will come to pass
08:45 AM on 05/16/2012
Romney can not think past the tip of his nose.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Passenger57
Keeping Calm And Carrying On...
09:31 AM on 05/20/2012
Yup. Just enough to not flop over in his exotic animal soup...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:06 AM on 05/16/2012
Weird Reagan would of agreed......
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ahoyhoy
Whatever You Are, Be a Good One. --A.Lincoln
08:29 AM on 05/16/2012
AND Dick Lugar. This stuff is his proudest legacy.
photo
maconmo
Up to my nose in Micro-Bio
08:04 AM on 05/16/2012
members of Congress from rural states that are home to America's land-based nuclear arsenal are likely to go ballistic at any efforts to uproot the missiles in their midst.

How fast would they flip-flop on that if one of them missles went off in a silo?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug MacKenzie
I refuse to live in FEAR
01:58 PM on 05/16/2012
If you mean by saying "went off", you're referring to a nuclear detonation, you can rest easy. They can't. I know. I used to work on the warheads when I was in the USAF. There are so many fail-safes built into these monsters that it is next to impossible to detonate one without the consent of Congress and the POTUS. -They can't simply go boom. The factors built into warheads to prevent such an event are thorough and total. They won't go off nuclear if you try, with all your might, to make them. You could set one on fire, blow it up with conventional weapons, do whatever you want. They simply won't detonate. That's the way they're designed....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wallyone
08:00 AM on 05/16/2012
Future generations will look back at our insane nuclear arsenal and shake their heads in disbelief. I suppose the phrase "What were they thinking?" will be a typical response.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Haveissues
You well heeled big wheel, ha ha, charade you are
09:08 AM on 05/16/2012
Hell, I can look at it now and ask "what are we thinking".
08:43 AM on 05/17/2012
I would hope so, because if they didn't that would mean humans hadn't progressed.