With just a few weeks remaining before the Joint Select Committee on Debt Reduction is expected to complete its work, the New York Times weighed in on the nation’s nuclear budget with a scathing take on the Obama Administration’s nuclear modernization plans. In an editorial published yesterday, the Times mirrors positions taken recently by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and other anti-nuclear activists, suggesting that the United States should reduce its nuclear weapons stockpile to a total of 1,000 weapons and arguing that increasing spending on nuclear modernization “makes no sense.” Specifically, the Times advocated scrapping the National Nuclear Security Administration’s three biggest construction projects and one major warhead life extension program as part of the nation’s current round of belt-tightening, citing data from the Global Zero movement and the Project on Government Oversight. “The country will need some number of nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future,” the newspaper wrote. “And it must ensure that they are safe and reliable. But spending on the arsenal must be rational and consistent with national security goals—not driven by inertia or politics.”
The Times suggests that cutting the Uranium Processing Facility, Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility, and Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility as well as the refurbishment of the B61 warhead would save $14.5 billion. Joined by 64 other lawmakers last month, Markey asked the deficit committee to cut the same programs to “Freeze the nukes so we can fund the future.” In a letter to the committee, he said: “We can save hundreds of billions of dollars by restructuring the U.S. nuclear program for the 21st century. … Why then do we need all of these weapons? There is no good reason. America no longer needs, and cannot afford, this massive firepower.”
The Times suggests that the move to 1,000 deployed and reserve nuclear weapons should be made with or without the cooperation of Russia, and argues that such a move would give the U.S. the “credibility” to contain the ambitions of nuclear aspirants like North Korea or Iran. “Reducing the number of weapons, scaling back unnecessary modernization programs, and delaying or scrapping plans to replace some delivery systems will save billions and help make the world safer,” the paper wrote.