Getting to Zero

If Obama does cut the U.S. nuclear arsenal by 80 percent, it won't endanger national security. It also won't be enough.

BY JOSEPH CIRINCIONE | FEBRUARY 17, 2012

U.S. President Barack Obama's conservative opponents in the media and on Capitol Hill whacked him hard this week after someone leaked details of a classified Pentagon-led review of options for reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal by as much as 80 percent. The Associated Press story published late Tuesday, Feb. 14, claimed that the review contained "at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons cutting to around 1,000 to 1,100, 700 to 800, or 300 to 400."

"Can you believe that the American people will stand by for this … so clearly putting the nation's defense at risk?" said Liz Cheney on Fox News. Radio host Rush Limbaugh called it "downright scary" and a shift in the balance of power toward Russia "by design." Equating reducing nuclear weapons with reducing American power, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said, "The idea that making ourselves weaker will somehow lead to increased global security and stability is ridiculous."

The administration has responded with a procedural defense. "This was all part of a nuclear posture review mandated by law," Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday. "There are a number of options. One is to maintain the status quo. It is a process of discussion within the national security team."

Officials have thus far not discussed the strategic basis of any new policy. But it's worth asking, would it really be so crazy to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal to 300 deployed weapons?

First, a few numbers. There are an estimated 20,500 nuclear weapons in the world. The United States and Russia hold over 95 percent of them, or about 19,500 weapons. (The United States has about 5,000 weapons in its active stockpile, with 1,790 counted under the New START treaty as deployed strategic weapons, plus about 3,500 weapons waiting to be dismantled.) The other seven nuclear-armed states together account for about 1,000 weapons, with only one -- France -- having more than 300. North Korea, a potential adversary, has fewer than 10. China, the only other conceivable adversary, has about 200, only 30 to 40 of which are on missiles capable of hitting the continental United States.

Since 1986, global arsenals have declined from their Cold War peak of some 65,000 weapons, reflecting changing global threats. Historically, Republicans have taken the initiative on making some of the biggest nuclear cuts. Ronald Reagan, working with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, cut intermediate-range weapons held by the United States and the Soviet Union by 100 percent, retiring thousands of missiles. George H.W. Bush reduced the total stockpile by 50 percent, thanks primarily to his unilateral decision to retire all the nuclear weapons deployed by the Army and the Navy's surface fleet. George W. Bush also intended to make unilateral reductions, but was convinced by Congress to negotiate a treaty with the Russians instead. By the time he left office, Bush, like his father, had cut the total stockpile by another 50 percent.

"I don't recall too many Republican complaining or fretting about those reductions, the latter of which took place during a period when we were fighting two wars, when North Korea conducted two nuclear tests, and when Iran expended its nuclear operations, " Stephen Schwartz of the Monterey Institute of International Studies told me.

Today, there is widespread consensus among policymakers and experts on both sides of the aisle on the need to refocus U.S. nuclear policy from the permanent maintenance of an immense nuclear arsenal with multiple missions to the reduction and eventual elimination of all nuclear weapons. It is based on a growing bipartisan consensus of former security and military officials. George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn are the leading proponents of this shift, embodied in their series of Wall Street Journal editorials calling for "a world without nuclear weapons."

Michael Smith/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS:
 

Joseph Cirincione is the president of the Ploughshares Fund and author of Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons.

STEVENSTARR

9:05 AM ET

February 18, 2012

Long-term environmental consequences of nuclear war

Another reason why 300 weapons are too many: a war in which hundreds of strategic nuclear weapons were detonated in cities would cause catastrophic disturbances of global climate, massive destruction of the ozone layer, and immense radioactive fallout, which would leave the Earth virtually uninhabitable.

Those who survived the immediate effects of nuclear detonations would ultimately starve to death when it growing seasons were eliminated for years by Ice Age weather conditions. Those living in nations far from the target zones would still perish from famine when food supplies ran out and no food could be grown.

Recent peer-reviewed studies predict that the firestorms from a nuclear war between India and Pakistan, in which half of their currently operational nuclear arsenals would be detonated in their mega-cities, would produce enough smoke to create a global stratospheric smoke layer lasting for ten years. The smoke would block 7-10% of sunlight from reaching Earth's surface, creating the coldest average surface temperatures experienced in the last 1000 years; the smoke would also heat the stratosphere enough to destroy up to 45% of the ozone above the US, Europe, Russia and China, doubling the amount of UV-B and raising UV Indices off the charts.

The 100 atomic bombs detonated in the hypothetical India-Pakistan conflict represent less than 1% of the explosive power now contained in the operational and deployed nuclear arsenals of the US and Russia.

The discussion of "a world without nuclear weapons" has failed to include the long-term environmental consequences of nuclear war. The launch-ready nuclear arsenals constitute a self-destruct mechanism for the human race. What political purpose would be served if deterrence fails and they are detonated in conflict?

Steven Starr
Senior Scientist, Physicians for Social Responsibility
www.nucleardarkness.org

 

BUBBLE BURSTER

3:22 PM ET

February 19, 2012

China info is wrong, and article avoids the main issue

Mr. Cirincione writes, "China has felt secure with a deterrent force of just dozens."

If that is so why has China been steadily increasing its arsenal even while the US, Russia, UK, and France have all been decreasing theirs? The trend-lines show China does not feel sufficiently secure with its existing arsenal. ICBM development also shows China is not status-quo regrading its nuclear status.

What this article fails to address is that for good or ill (well...always ill) nukes are not just tools with objective purposes, they are also markers in a psychological game that involves perception of decline or ascendance as well as resolve. Do these factors lead to stupid crises and illogical outcomes...sure. But to deny they exist hides much of the politics of nuclear weapons.

Finally the number game is irrelevant at lower levels. The risk posed in a well-maintained and managed arsenal of 900 varies in only miniscule ways from one of 300. Command and control in newer nuclear state of of course an issue, but in those countries 10 is a concern as much as 200. The point is that if we went to 300 Mr. Cirincione and others would push for 200, then a hundred.

Ultimately the real debate here is the utility of nuclear weapons. Does having some help preserve peace? If no then any number above 0 is problematic. If you yes, then the difference between the US having 500 versus 1000 is largely irrelevant.

 

STEPHANY CHICCA

2:27 AM ET

March 17, 2012

China will have more than American's

I think that, United State is a nation have strong and modern weapon. But i think that in the future. China will have more than American's. But i do not like wars,I hope that, all nations in the world live in peace. There are an estimated 20,500 nuclear weapons in the world. The United States and Russia hold over 95 percent of them, or about 19,500 weapons. (The United States has about 5,000 weapons in its active stockpile, with 1,790 counted under the New START treaty as deployed strategic weapons, plus about 3,500 weapons waiting to be dismantled.) The other seven nuclear-armed states together account for about 1,000 weapons, with only one -- France -- having more than 300. North Korea, a potential adversary, has fewer than 10. China, the only other conceivable adversary, has about 200, only 30 to 40 of which are on missiles capable of hitting the continental United States.