“The Air Force has announced it will develop a highly stealthy nuclear cruise missile at an estimated cost of $25 billion. The missile will force the Russians and the Chinese to accelerate their own programs, so what’s the point?
“Couldn’t that $25 billion could be better used providing, say, affordable high-quality preschool for all 3- and 4-year-olds? Research shows the longterm value of high-quality preschool for both children and their communities. Isn’t this more important to the long-term strength and security of the United States?” --Robert Reich
The NY Times reports, “ . . . the Air Force announced major new contracts for an overhaul of the American nuclear force: $1.8 billion for initial development of a highly stealthy nuclear cruise missile, and nearly $700 million to begin replacing the 40-year-old Minuteman missiles in silos across the United States.
“While both programs were developed during the Obama years, the Trump administration has seized on them, with only passing nods to the debate about whether either is necessary or wise. They are the first steps in a broader remaking of the nuclear arsenal — and the bombers, submarines and missiles that deliver the weapons — that the government estimated during Mr. Obama’s tenure would ultimately cost $1 trillion or more.
“Even as his administration nurtured the programs, Mr. Obama argued that by making nuclear weapons safer and more reliable, their numbers could be reduced, setting the world on a path to one day eliminating them. Some of Mr. Obama’s national security aides, believing that Hillary Clinton would win the presidential election, expected deep cutbacks in the $1 trillion plan.
“Mr. Trump has not spoken of any such reduction, in the number of weapons or the scope of the overhaul, and his warning to North Korea a few weeks ago that he would meet any challenge with “fire and fury” suggested that he may not subscribe to the view of most past presidents that the United States would never use such weapons in a first strike.”
We should, of course, upgrade our nuclear arsenal while there is a nuclear threat, but at the same time reduce the number of nuclear weapons. As of 2016, the United States estimate of nuclear weapons is 6,970, of which 1,750 are operational. The question is how many do you need to be a deterrent. It is estimated, according to ploughshares that the U.S. government could instantly massacre 2.88 billion people and leave most of the rest slowly dying in a nuclear wasteland. I would call that a bit excessive?
 |
| An unarmed Minuteman missile at a former launch facility near Wall, S.D. Credit Jim Lo Scalzo/European Pressphoto Agency |
By David E. Sanger And William J. Broad
