Cash for Nuclear Clunkers

Co-authored by Benjamin Loehrke, Ploughshares Fund Research Assistant.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has ordered a $60 billion cut in spending over the next five years. The Joint Chiefs of Staff should trade in their old, high-cost nuclear bombs for cash required to buy the effective conventional equipment they need.

Word of these cuts filtered out last week, but Gates has been making his logic clear for months. In his June 16 speech in Chicago, the Secretary said:

The grim reality is that with regard to the budget we have entered a zero-sum game. Every defense dollar diverted to fund excess or unneeded capacity - whether for more F-22s or anything else - is a dollar that will be unavailable to take care of our people, to win the wars we are in, to deter potential adversaries, and to improve capabilities in areas where America is underinvested and potentially vulnerable. That is a risk I cannot accept and I will not take.

Gates wants the Pentagon to shift dollars away from excess capacities in order to better protect America's real interests. Reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal will do that and more.

The U.S. spends $54 billion-a-year on nuclear weapons. In a study for the Carnegie Endowment, Stephen Schwartz estimates that the Department of Defense alone spends over $22 billion-a-year maintaining the U.S. nuclear arsenal, including a small fortune to keep thousands of weapons ready to use on a moment's notice.

We have more than enough nuclear weapons for any conceivable military mission. As Daryl Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association, said last week in a speech at U.S. Strategic Command:

Quite simply, maintaining a large nuclear arsenal dedicated to perform a wide range of missions is unnecessary and contrary to the United States security interest. The number and role of U.S. nuclear weapons should be strictly limited to what is essential and unique...

Yesterday's nuclear doctrines and arsenals do not fit today's realities.

How many weapons are in our excessive nuclear arsenal? Let's count 'em up:

• 2,200 strategic nuclear weapons ready to launch on long-range missiles, submarines and bombers
• 2,500 more warheads in reserve
• 500 short-range weapons
• 4,200 warheads held in storage awaiting dismantlement

That is a grand total of 9,400 warheads. All are hydrogen bombs, ten times more powerful than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 64 years ago this week. The Russians have an estimated 13,000 bombs. Together, we hold 96 percent of all the nuclear weapons in the world. We have steadily reduced our arsenals for 20 years, but we still have enough to destroy the world many times over.

These weapons are a liability, not a security asset. More weapons means more risk.

• Eliminating hundreds of redundant nuclear weapons from American and Russian arsenals would lower the chance of accidental nuclear war. In 1995, after the Cold War ended, Russia almost launched its nuclear missiles when they mistook a Norwegian weather rocket for a U.S. nuclear attack.

• Eliminating weapons reduces the risk of nuclear mishaps. In 2007 Air Force crews mistakenly loaded 6 nuclear weapons on a B-52 and flew the bombs across the country. No one knew where the bombs were for 36 hours. Air Force crews have scored poorly in several security checks since. If the U.S. has serious flaws with command and control of its nuclear weapons, how can we be confident in Russia's ability to prevent the loss, theft or accidental use of its nuclear weapons? How about Pakistan?

• Eliminating or securing weapons and nuclear materials stored in warehouses reduces the opportunities for terrorists to steal or buy a weapon they could use to destroy an American city.

The process of achieving serious negotiated reductions, previously neglected by the Bush administration, has been restarted. President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed during the Moscow Summit on July 6 to go down to 1500 to 1675 deployed strategic nuclear weapons each from the current nonbinding limit of 2200 weapons. More reductions should follow.

If Secretary Gates is looking to save money and make us safer, there is no better place to start than by eliminating the security liabilities we promote in our arsenal of nuclear clunkers.

Follow Joe Cirincione on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Cirincione

Comments

[unitron]

If the GHW Bush administration had been anywhere near competent, they would have been over in the Soviet Union as soon as it started coming apart and needed money, and would have been buying up every nuke they could get their hands on.

[Ed Aguilar]

"Unfortunately, they probably cost more to destroy than to maintain."

Actually, if you read the Stephen Schwartz piece--which is excellent-- that Joe cites, you'll see two pie charts-- one, Nuclear Forces and Operational Support, totals $29.1 Billion for FY 2008. By contrast, the Nuclear Threat Reduction budget for the same period includes only $1.07 Billion for "Elimination" (dismantlement) of nukes, and only $0.99 Billion for Non-Proliferation. I've also spoken to Stephen, and found that the cost to reduce and eliminate these weapons is actually lower than to maintain the arsenal.

This set of facts is little-discussed in the media, and Schwartz has done the US a service by exploding the myth that nukes are somehow "cheaper" than freedom from nukes-- quite the opposite, not to mention that in the long run, freedom from nukes will be safer than the risk they're used again. If we used just 10% of what we save from Operations, we could also double the amount to make the International Atomic Energy Agency more effective in preventing proliferation.

[noneIn2008]

We could add on cash for clunker military bases in Germany, Japan, S. Korea.....­..........­...
Imagine the billions we could save by cutting the old military complex.
Maybe we should start by getting our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress and Obama could do this today, just pull the funding, TODAY.

[Aaror]

By the way, the worst parts of those nukes could be recycled. Nuclear bombs use Uranium and/or Plutonium to create a fission blast that compresses enriched hydrogen to create a fusion blast. The Fissile materials can be used in nuclear reactors (diluted with U-238), and the heavy water can be used for fusion experiments. Contaminated materials would be a problem, but the half lifes are not that bad for the ones that are a problem (C-14 lasts a while, but won't kill you). What we need is some sort of decontamination process for beta particle contaminated materials so they can emit the excess beta particles safely (into lead or carbon or water, for instance), and then return them to use once they are safe.

[research]

There is a Russian fast reactor being used to burn up weapons grade materials. It does that, but I have not seen a life cycle analysis of the waste generated by the whole process.

[jsarets]

Unfortunately, they probably cost more to destroy than to maintain.

[TJCole]

Joe; we and the Russian could cut our arsenals by 50% without any real effect upon our or their security or insecurity needs...!

I don't know why Obama didn't present this proposal to Medvedev right off, they need a relief from the expense of maintaining this insanity of these huge arsenals even more than we do...!

We have 10,000 or more strategic warheads I know of, that's just plain crazy..

We could exclude the Nuclear sub arsenals from this if need be...

[ChampLessFuzzy]

You don't know what was discussed between Obama and Medvedev...none of us do. Most on threads such as this throw darts of anger or frustration based on sound bites and interview excerpts in hopes of hitting some target of satisfaction.

Well, we don't know what is going on in President Obama's head, how he's placing chess pieces, how many moves ahead he's planning. We don't know what's going on in Vice President Biden's head, what he and Obama have discussed in foreign policy and appreciation of their developement of message. Biden is brilliant in his knowledge of Russia, Georgia and Ukraine...I wouldn't underestimate his mind in matters related to this region for all the gold in the world. I also know Obama is smart if not wise. We are not privy to discussions betweem Obama and BIden that common sense tells us are taking place.

But I'll guarantee that they do indeed talk and discuss...in depth...and neither gentleman is an embicile, although it certainly appears that people on the outside of their heads wish to think so.

We shout out simple solutions, but we know in our hearts there are no simple problems.

[Mark Mack]

I think that there should be more budget scrutiny and nuclear weapons expenditures reorganized, reconsidered, and re-examined. I was under the impression that the Defense Department never has tracked “total” annual nuclear weapons expenditures. $ 52 billion was "appropriated" in 2008 FY but that doesn’t reveal how the total is burned up and disbursed. Maybe the State Department winning a greater budget role on this matter may help shift these dollars away from going back into the Military Industrial Complex.

[Merlin7]

The U.S. should slash its nuke arsenal to near zero, but it's really a moot point. The nuclear cat not only is out of the bag, it is rampaging through the garden party. After Iran goes nuke, so will Syria and other nations in the Mideast. North Korea is likely to share its nukes with Burma, just for the hell of it. And skittish Japan and Taiwan probably will nuke up just in case. And certain folks in South America probably are eagerly awaiting a chance to do the same.

The U.S. government needs to start routinely educating the public on what to do in case of a nuclear blast nearby. Now the topic is forbidden, as if such a thing is unthinkable. But it's more thinkable -- and more likely -- every day. It's unconscionable that the U.S. government is failing to prepare the public for it.

[mcmutter]

duck and cover....didn't you listen in the 1950s ?

[Aaror]

In the event of a nuclear blast, bend over and kiss your hiney goodbye.
Seriously, if you are within 10-100 miles of target (depending on yield), you are dead. Depending on the nature of the threat and your location, you might be better off going towards the target than away from it.
I remember being 40 miles from a nuclear target (I was living in Wasilla, Alaska), and realizing that if I was in Anchorage, my death by nuke would be instant, but in Wasilla I would be blind, burnt, and slowly die of radiation poisoning. Which would you prefer?

[Steve Parker - Huffpost Blogger]

The nuclear industry in this country (companies like GE, Westinghouse, et al) will fight this tooth and nail ... always have and always will and usually they've won.
It's bad enough the US and Russia have almost 22,000 warheads. As the author says, who is minding the store in Pakistan? How about India? North Korea? Israel? On a Charlie Rose show a couple of years ago, a top Indian businessman explained a near nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan ... and only calls to the Indian PM explaining that such a war would destroy the Indian economy stopped it.
Too many warheads ... and I understand the strategic weapons, the large bombs meant to destroy cities, but how many 'smaller,' tactical weapons are there?
Why don't Obama and Medvedev agree to have only the number of warheads experts on both sides think 'absolutely necessary?'
I knew the story of the B52 flying cross-country with six live nuclear cruise missiles ... and apparently a lot of heads rolled in the Air Force over that one (and other 'mistakes'). But I did not know that no one knew where these weapons were for 36 hours as the author states. At least the public should have been advised ... or that 'terror threat' raised...

[LizM]

I don't know...based on the response by some in Russia ( and here, for that matter) to what Vice President Biden had to say recently, I'm not at all sure that they are the least bit serious about reducing nuclear arsenals.

[TJCole]

Biden's intemperate comments, did not help in this regard one bit..!

Of course Bush and Condi Rice-a-Roni did all they could to restart the Cold War even make it, luke warm if that makes any sense...

[LizM]

Why is it, do you suppose, that some people are so unable to hear the truth and just accept it and not get their shirts twisted in a knot over it?

I would have thought that more people would appreciate an elected official who speaks the truth with candor and who knows infinitely more than most of us about international relations and how to re-set them. It was Biden who first talked about re-setting the relationship between Russia and the US.

By the way, did you read all of the excerpts from the Wall Street Journal interview with Biden? I'm wondering why they won't release the whole interview transcript?

In case you didn't see it, the WSJ had an editorial the other day in support of Joe Biden over all the flack he'd been taking over this interview. Well, that depends on how you define 'support'! They basically said that Joe Biden is on the same page as Dick Cheney on the nuclear issue. Ha! There goes any credibility that the WSJ editorial page may have had.