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."
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. US voters have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
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."