Does Obama's Nuclear Modernization Make the Unthinkable 'Thinkable'?
Even those who have advised President Obama on his modernization plan are concerned about the risks posed by the updated weapons
A new investigative report on Monday sheds light on the United States' modernization of its nuclear arsenal and the details are troubling: weapons that are smaller, more accurate, and potentially more likely to be used--and a president who, critics say, has turned his back on hope for a global weapons ban.
Under President Obama, the Energy Department and the Pentagon have been modernizing existing weapons to produce "a smaller, more reliable arsenal," write New York Times reporters William Broad and David Sanger, which allows Obama to claim allegiance to his 2010 pledge to end the development of new U.S. nuclear warheads or capabilities.
One such model, the B61 Model 12, "is the first of five new warhead types planned as part of an atomic revitalization estimated to cost up to $1 trillion over three decades," the Times reports. "As a family, the weapons and their delivery systems move toward the small, the stealthy and the precise."
Last year the bomb was flight-tested by the U.S. government in the Nevada desert. At the time, Russia's Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov slammed the tests as "irresponsible" and "openly provocative."
Internally, the updated arms have set off concerns that the once "unthinkable" deployment of a nuclear warhead may now enter the realm of the possible.
Though he backed the upgrades, Gen. James E. Cartwright, one of the president's most influential nuclear strategists and former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged to the reporters that "what going smaller does...is to make the weapon more thinkable."
In a subsequent interview, Cartwright expressed concern that the overall modernization plan, and the new precision of the weapons, could alter how military officials assess the risk of using nuclear weapons. "Does it make them more usable?" Cartwright asked. "It could be."
A similar concern was voiced by the Federation of American Scientists, which in early 2014 argued that "the high accuracy and low destructive settings [of the B61 Model 12] meant military commanders might press to use the bomb in an attack, knowing the radioactive fallout and collateral damage would be limited."
Another updated weapon, a nuclear-tipped cruise missile--which the Times describes as "a 'standoff weapon' that bombers can launch far from their targets"--has set off additional alarm.
Andrew C. Weber, a former assistant secretary of defense, and William J. Perry, a secretary of defense under President Clinton and advocate for nuclear draw-down, co-authored a recent article that argued that the new cruise missile might compel a future president to consider "limited nuclear war."
Such warnings are particularly resonant as some U.S. presidential hopefuls have expressed an eagerness to employ the country's nuclear arsenal.
Weber told the Times that, with the new modernization plan, Obama has passed on a real chance at arms control.
"The president has an opportunity to set the stage for a global ban on nuclear cruise missiles," Weber said. "It's a big deal in terms of reducing the risks of nuclear war."
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
A new investigative report on Monday sheds light on the United States' modernization of its nuclear arsenal and the details are troubling: weapons that are smaller, more accurate, and potentially more likely to be used--and a president who, critics say, has turned his back on hope for a global weapons ban.
Under President Obama, the Energy Department and the Pentagon have been modernizing existing weapons to produce "a smaller, more reliable arsenal," write New York Times reporters William Broad and David Sanger, which allows Obama to claim allegiance to his 2010 pledge to end the development of new U.S. nuclear warheads or capabilities.
One such model, the B61 Model 12, "is the first of five new warhead types planned as part of an atomic revitalization estimated to cost up to $1 trillion over three decades," the Times reports. "As a family, the weapons and their delivery systems move toward the small, the stealthy and the precise."
Last year the bomb was flight-tested by the U.S. government in the Nevada desert. At the time, Russia's Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov slammed the tests as "irresponsible" and "openly provocative."
Internally, the updated arms have set off concerns that the once "unthinkable" deployment of a nuclear warhead may now enter the realm of the possible.
Though he backed the upgrades, Gen. James E. Cartwright, one of the president's most influential nuclear strategists and former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged to the reporters that "what going smaller does...is to make the weapon more thinkable."
In a subsequent interview, Cartwright expressed concern that the overall modernization plan, and the new precision of the weapons, could alter how military officials assess the risk of using nuclear weapons. "Does it make them more usable?" Cartwright asked. "It could be."
A similar concern was voiced by the Federation of American Scientists, which in early 2014 argued that "the high accuracy and low destructive settings [of the B61 Model 12] meant military commanders might press to use the bomb in an attack, knowing the radioactive fallout and collateral damage would be limited."
Another updated weapon, a nuclear-tipped cruise missile--which the Times describes as "a 'standoff weapon' that bombers can launch far from their targets"--has set off additional alarm.
Andrew C. Weber, a former assistant secretary of defense, and William J. Perry, a secretary of defense under President Clinton and advocate for nuclear draw-down, co-authored a recent article that argued that the new cruise missile might compel a future president to consider "limited nuclear war."
Such warnings are particularly resonant as some U.S. presidential hopefuls have expressed an eagerness to employ the country's nuclear arsenal.
Weber told the Times that, with the new modernization plan, Obama has passed on a real chance at arms control.
"The president has an opportunity to set the stage for a global ban on nuclear cruise missiles," Weber said. "It's a big deal in terms of reducing the risks of nuclear war."
A new investigative report on Monday sheds light on the United States' modernization of its nuclear arsenal and the details are troubling: weapons that are smaller, more accurate, and potentially more likely to be used--and a president who, critics say, has turned his back on hope for a global weapons ban.
Under President Obama, the Energy Department and the Pentagon have been modernizing existing weapons to produce "a smaller, more reliable arsenal," write New York Times reporters William Broad and David Sanger, which allows Obama to claim allegiance to his 2010 pledge to end the development of new U.S. nuclear warheads or capabilities.
One such model, the B61 Model 12, "is the first of five new warhead types planned as part of an atomic revitalization estimated to cost up to $1 trillion over three decades," the Times reports. "As a family, the weapons and their delivery systems move toward the small, the stealthy and the precise."
Last year the bomb was flight-tested by the U.S. government in the Nevada desert. At the time, Russia's Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov slammed the tests as "irresponsible" and "openly provocative."
Internally, the updated arms have set off concerns that the once "unthinkable" deployment of a nuclear warhead may now enter the realm of the possible.
Though he backed the upgrades, Gen. James E. Cartwright, one of the president's most influential nuclear strategists and former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged to the reporters that "what going smaller does...is to make the weapon more thinkable."
In a subsequent interview, Cartwright expressed concern that the overall modernization plan, and the new precision of the weapons, could alter how military officials assess the risk of using nuclear weapons. "Does it make them more usable?" Cartwright asked. "It could be."
A similar concern was voiced by the Federation of American Scientists, which in early 2014 argued that "the high accuracy and low destructive settings [of the B61 Model 12] meant military commanders might press to use the bomb in an attack, knowing the radioactive fallout and collateral damage would be limited."
Another updated weapon, a nuclear-tipped cruise missile--which the Times describes as "a 'standoff weapon' that bombers can launch far from their targets"--has set off additional alarm.
Andrew C. Weber, a former assistant secretary of defense, and William J. Perry, a secretary of defense under President Clinton and advocate for nuclear draw-down, co-authored a recent article that argued that the new cruise missile might compel a future president to consider "limited nuclear war."
Such warnings are particularly resonant as some U.S. presidential hopefuls have expressed an eagerness to employ the country's nuclear arsenal.
Weber told the Times that, with the new modernization plan, Obama has passed on a real chance at arms control.
"The president has an opportunity to set the stage for a global ban on nuclear cruise missiles," Weber said. "It's a big deal in terms of reducing the risks of nuclear war."