Print Print this article Email Email this article Link Trackback

The Obama disarmament paradox: A rebuttal

Kingston Reif | Feb 24, 2010 | there are 0 comments 0

In the wake of the release of the Obama administration's FY 2011 budget request, which includes a ten percent increase in funding to maintain our nuclear weapons stockpile and supporting infrastructure, Greg Mello took to the online pages of the Bulletin to posit and answer a question:

So how is the president's budget compatible with his disarmament vision?
The answer is simple: There is no evidence that Obama has, or ever had, any such vision.
Center head honchos John Isaacs and Lt. Gen. Robert Gard took issue with this characterization and penned a short rebuttal, which the Bulletin published today.  On the issue of whether there's a contradiction between espousing disarmament goals and maintaining our deterrent, John and Gen. Gard write:    
Mello sees Obama's requested increase in the fiscal year 2011 budget for stockpile stewardship and the construction of new facilities at the nuclear laboratories as a commitment to the production of new nuclear weapons. Yet the administration has made clear that there are no such plans underfoot; the 2011 budget request states unequivocally that "new weapons systems will not be built." As such, the president's requested increase in nuclear expenditures should be viewed in the context of seeking ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and further nuclear weapon reductions.
More largely, there is nothing inconsistent between a vision of a nuclear-weapon-free world and ensuring a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear deterrent in the interim, including refurbishment of aging systems, providing the labs with facilities to replace their deteriorating physical plants, and maintaining the essential expertise that the scientists at the labs provide. Nor does such a deterrent require "unending innovation," as Mello claims. Our current nuclear weapons inventory, validated by extensive testing, is more than adequate to deter the use of nuclear weapons against the United States, our troops abroad, and our allies, provided sufficient resources are dedicated to the Stockpile Stewardship Program. [emphasis mine].
You can read the full piece here.

tags Nukes on a Blog, FY 2011 Budget Request (all tags)


Display:

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account by clicking right here. It's quick and free.

About This Blog

Search This Blog

Center Analysis

New START: One year later
With the anniversary of New START's entry into force, it's time for an examination of the treaty's successes, future opportunities, and the hurdles nuclear arms reductions still face, writes Kingston Reif in a new article published in the Bulletin of the ...

US weapons for future include key relics of the past
The Associated Press' Robert Burns wrote an article entitled "US weapons for future include key relics of the past" that features the Center for Arms Control and Non Proliferation's Laicie Olson discussing the 2013 Defense Budget....

Pentagon Budget: Forced To Diet On Only $613 Billion
The Associated Press' Robert Burns wrote an article entitled "US weapons for future include key relics of the past" that features the Center for Arms Control and Non Proliferation's Laicie Olson discussing the 2013 Defense Budget....

Are ambitious Life Extension Programs on Hold?
The B61 life extension program has come under increasing scrutiny. And for good reason writes Nickolas Roth in this new analysis....

Missile Defense Intercepts in Space: A problem not solved
A recent report by the Defense Science Board concludes that U.S. missile defenses are still unable to discriminate between an incoming missile and decoys or countermeasures designed to confound the system, writes Lt. Gen. Robert Gard (USA, ret.) in this n...