home > by publication type > daily analysis > Cold War-Era Nuclear Debate Returns
Email
| Prepared by: | Michael Moran |
|---|
A deactivated Minuteman II intercontinental ballistic missile. Policymakers question the value of modernizing the nuclear arsenal. (AP Images/National Park Service, HO)
Underneath the Iraq war debate and other more celebrated issues, a showdown looms between the Bush administration and Congress over a plan to modernize the nation’s arsenal of strategic nuclear warheads. President Bush has asked for $88 million to fund the “Reliable Replacement Warhead,” a program meant to ensure the aging point of the thermonuclear sword remains sharp. The philosophical and scientific argument, laid out in this widely read 2005 paper (PDF) and endorsed by the leaders of U.S. nuclear research labs, holds that the U.S. nuclear deterrent, without modernization, will become increasingly unreliable and even dangerous over the next decade.
To date, the Reliable Replacement Warhead exists only on paper and had received less than $10 million in funding, rendering it almost nonexistent in the realm of defense budgeting. The Senate in June approved a $66 million expansion (DefenseNews). But the House cut the funding completely. “Currently there exists no convincing rationale for maintaining the large number of existing Cold War nuclear weapons, much less producing additional warheads,” the House Appropriations Committee said in a report following its vote. The disagreement sets up a classic “conference committee” clash between House and Senate negotiators, who each year have to reconcile differing approaches before submitting a final budget for the president’s signature.
Yet disagreements on the wisdom of the Bush administration’s approach don’t follow national-security typecasts. Scientists diverge, as a paper from the Naval Postgraduate School notes, on the question of whether modernization is needed for safety reasons. A recent Congressional Research Service report (PDF) says that even the Defense Department appears split on the issue. Leaders of U.S. Strategic Command endorse the new warheads. But the CRS report notes that “DOD’s 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review gave it only a mild endorsement.”
Outside the military, the idea that the U.S. nuclear arsenal needs a comprehensive—and expensive—redesign has stirred deep controversy (NYT) in some realms. Administration strategists say the age of these weapons, none of which were built after 1990, renders them less and less reliable. Some go so far as to intimate they might pose a danger of accidental detonation—though even advocates of the modernization plans agree that is far-fetched. Others believe the Bush plan too timid: The Heritage Foundation’s Baker Spring argues modernization should focus on innovation, not retrofitting outdated weapons.
On the other side, a variety of former top policymakers, along with defense budget watchdogs, view the “next generation” debate as an excuse for failing to take arms control to the next level. In January, this argument took full voice in a Wall Street Journal op-ed signed by Henry J. Kissinger, George P. Schulz, William J. Perry, and Sam Nunn. “Reassertion of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and practical measures toward achieving that goal would be, and would be perceived as, a bold initiative consistent with America's moral heritage,” they wrote. The Union of Concerned Scientists lays out its arguments against the Reliable Replacement Warhead in this briefing, while the Center for Defense Information offers this resource page. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists features a package of stories on the RRW in its August edition.
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.
To order Task Force reports, Council Special Reports, and Critical Policy Choices, please call, fax, or order online from our distributor, the Brookings Institution Press: phone +1.800.537.5487, fax +1.410.516.6998.
For information on other reports that are not for sale, or for general publications information, please call +1.212.434.9516 or email publications@cfr.org.
Start-Up Nation addresses the trillion-dollar question: How is it that Israel—a country of 7.1 million, only sixty years old, surrounded by enemies— produces more start-up companies than large, peaceful, and stable nations like Japan, China, India, Korea, Canada, and the UK? With the insights of geopolitical experts and investors, the authors examine this nation’s adversity-driven culture to answer this question and offer prescriptions for a global economy on the rebound.
In Forces of Fortune, Vali Nasr presents a paradigm-changing revelation that will transform the understanding of the Muslim world at large. He reveals that there is a vital but unseen rising force in the Islamic world—a new business-minded middle class—that is building a vibrant new Muslim world economy and that holds the key to winning the cold war against Iran and extremists.
In Cuba: What Everyone Needs to Know, Julia E. Sweig presents a remarkably accessible portrait of Cuba's unique place on the world stage over the past fifty years, including its internal politics, its often fraught relationship with the United States, and its shifting relationship with the global community.
Complete list of CFR Books
The report of this bipartisan Task Force of distinguished leaders and experts represents a strong consensus on the importance of repairing America's immigration policy. It makes the case that maintaining America's political and economic leadership depends on attracting talented and hard-working immigrants, and on securing the country's borders in a smart, effective, and humane way.
This report finds that nuclear weapons will remain a fundamental element of U.S. national security in the near term, and makes recommendations on how to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. deterrent nuclear force, prevent nuclear terrorism, and strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime.
About Independent Task Forces at CFR
Complete list of Task Force reports
Identifying international threats and acting on them may be the most difficult job for U.S. policymakers. This report
provides an actionable road map for managing international threats before they erupt into crises and makes a strong case that preventive action is not a luxury but a necessity.
For more than a decade, the United States has mostly watched from the sidelines as Asian countries organize themselves into an alphabet soup of new multilateral groups. In this report, the authors review the relationship between pan-Asian and trans-Pacific institutions and suggest policy guidelines for a new U.S. approach to this new Asian landscape.
Complete list of Council Special Reports
To request permission to reprint or reuse CFR material, please fill out this permissions request form (PDF), referring to the instructions on page 1.
Copyright 2009 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved.