Need Cash? Cut Nukes

President-Elect Barack Obama can get over $28 billion for new programs by cutting Cold War nuclear weapons. That could help save the auto industry, or finance anti-terrorism efforts, or rebuild the Army and Marine Corps crippled by the Iraq War.

The new president needs money. "To make the investments we need," he said last week, "we'll have to scour our federal budget, line by line, and make meaningful cuts and sacrifices, as well."

There is no better place to start than the nuclear weapons budget. He can cut obsolete programs and transfer tens of billions of dollars per year to pressing conventional military and domestic programs.

Transfers to domestic programs will help jumpstart the economy. Military spending provides some economic stimulus but not as much as targeted domestic spending. This is one reason Representative Barney Frank has called for a 25 percent reduction in military budgets that have exploded from $305 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $716 billion in fiscal year 2009, including the $12 billion spent every month for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We must, of course, spend what we need to defend the country. But a good part of the military budget is still devoted to programs designed for the Cold War, which ended almost 20 years ago. This is particularly true of the $31 billion spent each year to maintain and secure a nuclear arsenal of almost 5,400 nuclear weapons, with 1,500 still deployed on missiles ready to launch within 15 minutes.

We can safely reduce to 1,000 total weapons, as recommended by Senator John Kerry and other nuclear experts. That reduction would save $21 billion a year, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

The reductions could be done without any sacrifice to US national security, particularly if the Russians did the same (as they indicated they'd be willing to do) either by a negotiated treaty or the kind of unilateral reductions executed by former presidents George H.W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991.

The arsenal of 1,000 warheads could be deployed on 10 safe and secure Trident submarines, each with enough weapons to devastate any nation. In total, the smaller, cheaper arsenal would still be sufficient to destroy the world several times over. Further reductions would generate further savings over time.

Additional savings are available in the related anti-missile programs created during the Bush administration. Total spending is now $13 billion a year - up from $4 billion in 2000. Bush and former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld exempted the agency from the normal checks of Pentagon tests and procurement rules in an effort to institutionalize the program, locking in the next president. Obama will inherit half-built facilities in Alaska and California, along with plans to build new sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, but no assurance that the interceptors actually work -and a huge bill to pay. If Obama were to continue the program as is, he would spend an estimated $62 billion through 2012.

In a congressional review of these programs, Representative John Tierney of Massachusetts concluded, "Since the 1980s, taxpayers have already spent $120 to $150 billion - more time and more money than we spent on the Manhattan project or the Apollo program, with no end in sight." Tierney recommends refocusing the program to concentrate on defenses against the short-range weapons Iran and other nations currently field, and restoring realistic testing and realistic budgeting. Doing so could save $7 billion or more a year.

Further savings can be found by stopping a planned expansion of nuclear weapons production facilities pushed by contractors and some government nuclear laboratories. The facilities would cost tens of billions of dollars and produce hundreds of new nuclear warheads. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates strongly backs the expansion. In a direct challenge to Obama's plans to reduce nuclear weapons and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Gates said in October, "there is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without either resorting to testing our stockpile or pursuing a modernization program." Obama will have to back him down or pony up billions to pay Gates's nuclear tab.

What will the new president do? He comes to office with a comprehensive nuclear policy that could save billions. Obama will now have to show that his new security team will implement the change he promised, not their own parochial agendas.

A version of this article was published in The Boston Globe on December 3, 2008

Comments

[aceholiday]

war on drugs? war on terror? theres your financial hemorrhage

[oldgeek1]

There is an array of systems who have appeal to some supporter within Defense and the Congress.

Some of the spending is based on protecting rice bowls within agencies, some based on ensuring spending continues within certain states and to certain contractors and in all cases the packaging is based upon someone selling a threat, either real or imagined.

No one has a crystal ball and sometimes the unimaginable happens. Major reductions to the Defense budget are justified, getting that done is clearly not easy. Do we need the size of the nuclear arsenal that we have, IMO No. Nuclear weapons for the Navy or Army probably not necessary. The DOE is a bloated agency however advocated by politically active members in the Congress who will provide 100's or reasons for this spending, some reasonable others not but taking reductions to spending, Nope.

The Military still has 100's of bases that are under utilized, aged and wasteful. Just try to close one of them forget the so called tip of the spear.

[LizM]

...too many budgets and career paths blocking any real change?...

I hope that is a roadblock than can be demolished! Certainly, if Obama/Biden cannot put us on a track now toward real change in the national security apparatus - change that will actually make us all safer - then I am afraid to say that the last real opportunity for getting that done may have come and gone.

Joe Cirincione in a top advisory and policymaking role in the new administration would go a long way to making sure this opportunity for change is not squandered.

[lletaa]

in my life all ive seen is wars and genocides. what a waste of time and money, bottom line. the science of geology has made war between humans as silly. with deep core samples and infared high altitude phtogoraphy

[newshawk14]

I think that PE Obama should make it a priority with Russia to reduce our nuclear arsenals, and
have extensive contacts between our respective defense agencies. I don't mind our continuing
research on ABM systems, but trying to deploy them at this time, strikes me as pretty close to
insanity, or granting defense contractors the right to lighten our wallets once again.

[UberReaganite]

Having just rambled about Defense spending I would like to add that I agree with reduction. We could do with less warheads. Don"t confuse ICBMS or Cruise missiles with warheads though, they are different things. Vehicles versus payload. You will still need a strategic triad of Sub, Bomber and Land based weapons systems and anyone who understands anything about defensive strategy understands the need for that concept. Dispersal and selectivity of method are essential aspects. So yes, we could do with less warheads. Also, in my opinion if you would consolidate military BASES to have more than one service branch and mission at each base you could reduce the number of bases and reduce the cost or sustainment greatly. Resistance to the idea of fewer and larger bases is more do to the reluctance of Congressmen to lose jobs in their states and districts and also to the military leaders with their Napoleonic complex of wanting to have so many Base commander positions available for little empires. Let"s face it, the only attack on American soil in decades was not at an operational military base at all but at civilian targets and at military management at the puzzle palace. Base consolidation and warhead reduction are both good ideas and quite possible with some smart leadership and unselfish congressional decision making.

[haramagoti]

We can do with zero warheads, like everyone else should. They'll never be used, their intended use is saber-rattling and it's an extremely expensive form of rattling, world round. How many go hungry for every nuke built, how much does our infrastructure lapse at that cost? This year 50% of America's children went hungry and we justify our defense strategies. Diplomacy is the most effective defense strategy and it costs nothing but a phone call or a plane ticket. There should be enforcement of a treaty created to end nuclear weapons completely. We cannot hide behind our threats of the use of our weapons so cowardly. The high cost of the bases has a lot to do with Kellogg Brown & Root, a la Halliburton, who overcharge the taxpayer for menial tasks and upkeep, generally extremely inflated maintenance, a heist.

http://www.contractormisconduct.org/index.cfm/1,73,221,html?ContractorID=29&ranking=6

It will be different, i believe, with Obama as President. However i believe our bases have been a spring board for all kinds of nefarious and covert acts, whether for use as CIA interrogation prisons, safehouses for Special Ops performing regime change tweak assasinations within the host country's streets, or simply an on call crew.

So far as there being only one attack on American soil, did you mean a foreign attack, or terrorist?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/no-attacks-since-when_b_148857.html

[Joe Cirincione - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for all the great comments.

This is just the beginning of where we can save money. Secretary Gates himself has decried our obsession with high-tech weapons. See his article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs (www.cfr.org).

I listed both domestic and military alternatives for the funds wasted on nuclear weapons. We need both. I look forward to the congressional debate this year on how to rebalance our spending and redefine national security to include the serious environmental, energy and global poverty threats.

I propose going down to 1000 total weapons as a first step. (See more on this in "The Logic of Zero" by Ivo Daldaar and Jan Lodel in the last Foreign Affairs.) I have been on record for more than 15 years as favoring the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. This is official US policy; it is just that we have rarely meant it. We have an historic moment now where the president-elect, the core of America's security elite (Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Sam Nunn, Bill Perry and many others) and a broad range of public groups and analysts favor seriously moving towards elimination. Now is the time to institutionalize this policy.

Finally, thank LizM for your kind comments. I greatly admire Rachel Maddow and always appreciate her analysis and the chance to talk with her on AirAmerica and MSNBC. You can see our exchange from Dec 2 here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#28042433

[rwt1138]

Joe, I am not sure that I would advocate the complete elimination of Nuclear weapons; in fact, I am not convinced that it wouldn't be a better idea for Russia and the US to distribute their surplus weapons more widely.

There is a method to my madness: In a weird way, nuclear weapons might actually be the one weapon ever designed that deserves the moniker "Peacekeeper". Nuclear weapons are ghastly, horrific weapons that instantly vaporize entire cities. However, as a deterrent, this is actually a positive feature. No nuclear power has ever been conventionally attacked. The reason is that entire divisions could be wiped out with a single warhead and those are hard to replace. If Iran did have a bomb all talk of invasion would instantly end. I am convinced that the ONLY reason India and Pakistan have never escalated to full scale war is that they both have nukes and the means to deliver them.

Is it not true that in a room full of armed men, nobody pulls a gun? I suspect that another world war would be far more likely if they were eliminated entirely, not to second guess you or other experts.

[PierreLeClerke]

If your logic were based on actual human behavior, I could support it.
The concept of mutually assured destruction has been around since Ike and was in part what he referred to in his most dire warning.

The world, and particularly our species, has far greater immediate threats pressing us urgently to the brink, than the petty squabbles tin pot weapons warlords continue to create to mask their profit motives.

Swords to plowshares is way over due!

[Liberal2]

You are correct, rwt. Since the advent of nuclear weapons the number of world wars went from one per generation to zero (world wars having been made possible by modern transportation and food storage). Modern computerized weapons systems mean five billion dollar aircraft carriers are simply floating bullseyes. If China said, "We need the Middle East's oil and we're taking it," what could the US military really do? Iraq proves nothing because the Iraqi army didn't have good weapons nor the competence to properly use what they did have.

China has the manpower to trade soldier for soldier. We'd have to have to be ready to go nuclear if we wanted to preserve existing alliances with Europe. If we didn't have the nuclear option China would laugh at us.

Japan surrendered at the end of WW2 only because they were uncertain how many bombs the US had. They didn't know two was it. Truman was looking at US casualty figures of up to one million for an invasion an occupation of Japan. Estimates of Japanese civilian casualties, based on Okinawa, would have meant Japan would have hated us for centuries.

Nukes, by making world war unwinable, make world war unstartable. Without nukes, Stalin would have moved into all of Europe.

[UberReaganite]

ROE lol, I meant ROI. Return on investment. I'm still half asleep.

[UberReaganite]

Inevitably when the economy suffers, as it has many times in the past, liberals run immediately to the Defense budget. I'm not saying liberals like it"s a swear word either. I feel they greatly moderate the right and are a sanity check that keeps right wing crazies from ruining the planet. People believe taking money from defense will somehow translate into effective government. It will not. Defense spending is a comparatively small part of the American budget and it contributes a lot back in actual tangible benefits like jobs, technology, security, education etc...

At least when you spend on defense you get something for it. Please tell me what America has gotten from all of the money it has invested in other facets of the American economy? Well? Fell free to reply? Where is the ROI?

Is health care better better/cheaper/more available to the average American now? Is education better/cheaper/more available now that you drive your kids to school instead of them taking the bus and getting a free lunch? Is our infrastructure safer/better/more efficient? Is it keeping place with the growing population and demands on transportation systems? How about government itself? You pay more for it every year and is your government more reliable? Is it financially sound? Has its massive oversight resulted in a better America economically?

Reducing defense spending does not equal reducing government waste and ineffectiveness. As every time in the past, you will see no ROI from it.

[haramagoti]

First, what do you mean by: "People believe taking money from defense will somehow translate into effective government"? A government would be more effective, certainly, because we wouldn't be involving massive amounts of capital into destroying other human beings as opposed to helping other human beings and the environment the live in.
Okay, regarding the defense budget's ROI as compares to it's increasing the suffering and subsequent erosion of every other feasible facet of America, for both 2007 & 2008, your information is here. Feel free to self-correct. The ROI in health care is that people get treated and don't die as quickly as they would without it. The ROI in infrastructure is that our buildings don't fall down upon us, and our bridges and roads don't fall from below us. If elected officials are not reliable, the people must respond accordingly, as must the peers of the unreliable. If our rules had not been bent for corporate gain during Bush's administration, and if regulation of the lending markets had not been thus laxed, we would be financially much more sound than the reality we now face, the lack of oversight was the problem.

re: Your assertion that "Defense spending is a comparatively small part of the American budget" and that "Reducing defense spending does not equal reducing government waste and ineffectiveness."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/04/AR2006020401179.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/05/AR2007020501552.html

[haramagoti]

I must challenge your assertion that a ROI in the defense budget benefits education. It is understood that tuition in fact has risen in an overtly increasing proportion to military education benefits, making it increasingly unlikely soldiers will ever be able to use them.

"The gap between the veterans' benefit and the cost of college has worsened in the last few years. Now operating under the Montgomery GI Bill, enacted in 1984, the Department of Veterans Affairs annually increases the education payments to track changes in the Consumer Price Index. Unfortunately, college tuition has risen much faster than the CPI. Occasionally, Congress has bumped up the payments in an effort to keep pace with college costs, but the last significant increase was in 2002. Since then, the cost of attending a public university has risen 29 percent, while education benefit payments have risen 12 percent."

In the middle of your comment you pose many questions that have no reference to which period you are contrasting your points, as compared to when?

The US's elected officials are only as reliable as the public and those officials' peers in active policing of that reliability.
The country is not financially sound because rules for the regulation of lending practices got tweaked by money thirsty bankers/investment firms and subsequently there was not the diligent and responsible oversight, regulating, of those institutions, ensuing in a crash that affected corporations at home and overseas who'd invested in those exported loan portfolios.

[UberReaganite]

Inevitably when the economy suffers, as it has many times in the past, liberals run immediately to the Defense budget. I'm not saying liberals like its a swear word either. I feel they greatly moderate the right and are a sanity check that keeps right wing crazies from ruining the planet. People believe taking money from defense will somehow translate into effective government. It will not. Defense spending is a comparitively small part of the American budget and it contributes a lot back in actual tangible benefits like jobs, technology, security, education etc...

At least when you spend on defense you get something for it. Please tell me what America has gotten from all of the money it has invested in other facets of the American economy? Well? Fell free to reply? Where is the ROE?

Is health care better better/cheaper/more available to the average American now? Is education better/cheaper/more available now that you drive your kids to school instead of them taking the bus and getting a free lunch? Is our infrastructure safer/better/more efiicient? Is it keeping place with the growing population and demands on transportataion systems? How about government itself? You pay more for it every year and is your government more reliable? Is it financially sound? Has its massive oversite resulted in a better America economically?

Reducing defense spending does not equal reducing goverment waste and ineffectiveness. As every time in the past, you will see no ROE from it.

[darthdarcy]

Joe we need 10,000 Strategic Nuclear Warheads because....because...

Because.....

Wait it will come to me....

[ThinkCreeps]

The reduced cost is not in proportion to the reduced number of warheads. The infrastructure for maintaining bombs and knowledge can't be cut back as fast as warhead numbers.

Submarine-only basing does not provide sufficient quick response, flexibility and assurance to maintain the current deterrent.

The message of cutting numbers beneath START levels would be a good and realistic one; however, take a look at the costs of `special weapons' in the context of the overall DoD budget, and it's a bubble in the jacuzzi.

[Marlyn]

"enough weapons to devastate any nation" ???

MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction)

Why have weapons that can't be used (unless we are trying to commit suicide)?

[UberReaganite]

Its called Deterrance and...it works. For over 60 years it has worked so dont knock it unless you truly understand the concept. Nukes aren't there to SAVE America they are there let every nation on this planet know unequivocally that should they be stupid enough to threaten American soverignty they will pay a price they cannot afford. Lose, lose. It is a proven concept historically too. Many times in history when armies showed up for battle and it was obvious to one or both sides that they could lose the battle or even that if they won they would suffer such a high price in casualties it would render them weak and vulnerable to other enemies, they would inevitably seek tio negotiate instead of fight. MANY times strength has deterred war and led to diplomacy but weakness in the face of the enemy has NEVER deterred war or aggression. I'm sorry that the world isn't a happy loving place where people, tribes, nations settle matters solely by diplomacy but....IT NEVER HAS BEEN AND NEVER WILL BE. Humans are self-serving, violent, greedy, and ruthles creatures by nature and you can not negotiate with them from aposition of weakness and intellect. Sorry if the truth hurts, blame your God for creating this crappy product.

[MajorKong]

You realize that there was history that occurred before 1938?

World War II happened because nobody was ready for war.

World War I happened because EVERYBODY was ready for war. A little appeasement might have gone a long way in 1914.

[jcorrington]

I thought you were impressive on Rachel the other nite, Joe. I hope someone listens to you!.

[shadowgm]

Weren't we already in the process of drawing down our nuclear armaments when the Bush crowd decided to bail out of START, try to fund the RNEP (robust near-earth penetrator, or bunker-busting bomb), and whinge about how we needed the RRW (reliable replacement warhead) program?

But even if we switch from an aggressive stance of promoting nuclear stockpiles, we'd adopt the costs of peace - diplomacy as well as funding of IAEA or another verification agency, so the savings aren't as simple as 'look, we can dump the nukes and save trillions!'

[rwt1138]

I've been wondering about that, is that even legal? I mean, only Congress can ratify a treaty but the president can abrogate them at will? Despite the fact that they carry the full weight and force of the US Constitution?
I know to him it's "just a goddamn piece of paper" but we loyal citizens actually care about it and want it observed.

[Overd0g]

Eliminating a few cabinet level departments in the gov (like the department of Education) would save some big bucks too.

[rwt1138]

We need education. We don't need 10,000 nuclear weapons.

[JPHR]

Perhaps simple economic necessity will force some common sense. A 6% (or more?) of GDP the US spends more on defense than all other nations together. This is clearly detrimental to economic growth. Defense produces security which is priceless when in short supply, but worth next to nothing in terms of GDP. A triple deficit and exploding national debt (11 or 12 trillion) with the associated interest payments will definitely provide some additional incentive. The differential in growth between for instance the US and China would be greatly reduced if not for this defense spending. This imperial overstress will negatively impact US future security and position in the world. In effect this current excessive focus on defense is a sure way to not be able to afford even adequate defense in the future. So a defense review will have to consider scaling back on a much wider range of programs and forces.

[bluff]

(Actually, weapons of war make up more like 18-20 percent of our GDP.)

After Pearl in 1941 this country converted to a war-time economy practically overnight - considering how long it seems to take us to do anything else on a large scale. If we could do that, we can convert to a peace-time economy practically overnight. The nuts-and-bolts of conversion are not the problem. The problem is that we have developed a sick love-affair with power wielded out of the barrel of a gun - that's going to be much harder to get rid of.

[MajorKong]

We had already started re-arming before 1941.