President Obama should scale back plans to modernize the nation’s nuclear arsenal, the New York Times said in a Nov. 28 editorial. Referencing recent promises by former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to improve the working conditions of the Navy and Air Force legs of the nuclear deterrent, the Times suggested that “more spending on security and management of the existing program” was necessary, but it called for “less spending on pointless new weapons systems.” The Times didn’t specify the nuclear weapons systems to which it is referring, but it noted that a massive modernization effort of the nuclear triad and nuclear warheads would cost approximately $1 trillion over the next 30 years. “Mr. Obama still has time to advance the sensible disarmament agenda he once espoused,” he said. “That will mean more honest discussion of the diminished importance of nuclear weapons.”
Notably, a Nov. 29 article the Los Angeles Times took a different approach, with some nuclear experts–and the incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee–suggesting that new nuclear weapons should be developed and that the current nuclear stockpile may be “rusting” its way to disarmament. “It seems like common sense to me if you’re trying to keep an aging machine alive that’s well past its design life, then you’re treading on thin ice," Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) said, according to the Times. “Not to mention, we’re spending more and more to keep these things going.”
The U.S. hasn’t tested a nuclear weapon for more than two decades, but Thornberry voiced support for a resumption of testing. Other experts quoted in the article, including former Clinton Administration Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre, argued for a new program to develop and test a new warhead. “You don’t know how a car performs unless you turn the key over,” Thornberry said. “Why would we accept anything less from a weapon that provides the foundation for which all our national security is based on?”?
Jobs