home > by publication type > daily analysis > Cold War-Era Nuclear Debate Returns
Email
| Prepared by: |
|---|
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.
In Restoring the Balance: A Middle East Strategy for the Next President, experts from the Council on Foreign Relations and the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution propose a new, nonpartisan Middle East strategy drawing on the lessons of past failures to address both the short-term and long-term challenges to U.S. interests.
This report lays out a thoughtful agenda for U.S. policy toward the Democratic Republic of Congo, arguing that what happens there should matter to the United States--for humanitarian reasons as well as economic and strategic ones.
In this report, CFR Senior Fellow Michael A. Levi analyzes the potential use of deterrence in preventing terrorist groups from acquiring nuclear weapons and recommends a new approach to U.S. declaratory policy, as well as ways to improve U.S. capabilities to determine the sources of terrorist attacks.
Complete list of Council Special Reports.
This report argues that the United States must lead with domestic action on climate change and proposes a U.S. negotiating strategy for a global UN climate agreement that includes commitments from all major economies, while also promoting a less formal Partnership for Climate Cooperation that would focus the world's largest emitters on implementing aggressive emissions reductions.
This Task Force report examines changes in Latin America and in U.S. influence there, while taking account of the region's enduring importance to the United States. The Task Force offers an agenda for U.S. policy toward Latin America and identifies four critical areas that should provide the basis of a new U.S. approach.
About Independent Task Forces at CFR.
A selection of Foreign Affairs pieces by and about the preeminent political scientist of the last half century.
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.
To request permission to reuse Council materials, please email publications@cfr.org or fax +1.212.434.9859.
Please include the complete information of the requested work—author, title, sections/pages to be copied or reprinted, and number of copies to be made—along with a brief description of where and how you would like to reuse the work.
You may also request permission for Council material through Copyright Clearance Center. For more information, please click on the link below.
Copyright 2009 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved.
Global Economy 