Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) offered up a pointed critique of potential reductions to the nation’s nuclear stockpile, suggesting yesterday that the nation’s current nuclear deterrent provides a “bargain” and that it should be maintained even as the government faces significant pressure to reduce spending. “Securing the nation is the most basic function of government and nuclear weapons are the foundation of national security,” Hoeven, a first-term Senator who sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a speech at the Capitol Hill Club. “Funding the nuclear enterprise is the definition of a top priority.” Government-wide budget cuts known as sequestration are set to go into effect March 1, and the weapons complex would not be spared. But Hoeven said the $22 billion that the nation spends annually on the nuclear deterrent, which he said includes maintenance and modernization of the weapons complex, nuclear arsenal and nuclear triad, is well worth the price tag. “The short-term expense of streamlining warhead designs and refurbishing their components is more than offset by the value of solidifying our deterrence for the years to come,” Hoeven said. “The effectiveness of our strategic deterrent a decade from now depends on sustaining funding in the next several federal budget cycles.”
Hoeven also argued that the U.S. should not consider reductions to the size of its nuclear arsenal until reductions under the New START Treaty are implemented, and dismissed the recommendations of a Global Zero report co-authored by Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel. That report called for the U.S. to cut its stockpile to 900 total weapons, eliminate the ICBM leg of the nuclear triad and scale back the submarine and bomber legs as well. “We’re going from 2,200 to 1,550” under New START, Hoeven said. “It’s like anything. At what point do you go too far and, ‘Whoops.’ When you’re driving at the cliff and you’re going 60 mph, how close can you get before you can’t stop in time and you go over. I defy anyone here or anyone else to tell me exactly where that point is. I’m not willing to take that chance. I think it’s a dangerous game if you keep going lower and that’s what we’re facing.”
