[[link removed]]

A JUST-RELEASED WATCHDOG REPORT MAKES THE CASE FOR ELIMINATING
LAND-BASED NUCLEAR MISSILES  
[[link removed]]


 

William D. Hartung
June 4, 2024
The Nation
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Land-based missiles are redundant and dangerous. _

A protester holds a sign at a vigil outside the United States Mission
to the United Nations in New York City on November 30, 2023, calling
on the US to be the first nuclear-armed state to sign the Nuclear
Weapons Ban Treaty., Erik McGregor / LightRocket via Getty Images

 

Nuclear weapons are back in style in official Washington. The Pentagon
is in the midst of a $2 trillion
[[link removed]],
three-decade-long effort to build a new generation of nuclear-armed
bombers, missiles, and submarines, and the weapons lobby and its
allies in Congress are pressing to spend even more.

Thankfully, a new report 
[[link removed]]from
the government watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS) offers
a refreshing counterpoint to this rush towards a new nuclear arms
race, explaining in persuasive detail why the centerpiece of the
Pentagon’s new buildup, the Sentinel ICBM, is dangerous,
unaffordable, and unnecessary. The late Daniel Ellsberg and Norman
Solomon made this point forcefully in an October 2021 piece in _The
Nation_
[[link removed]],
noting that eliminating ICBMs was the easiest and fastest way to
reduce “the overall danger of nuclear war.”

Being the good taxpayer protection group that it is, TCS starts by
pointing out the immense cost of the Sentinel program, which is now
estimated to be at least $315 billion
[[link removed]] over
the lifetime of the system, including an astonishing 37 percent
increase
[[link removed]] in
projected acquisition costs over just the past two years. The cost
overrun is so large that it has triggered a reevaluation of the
program under the Nunn-McCurdy Act
[[link removed]], which serves
as a sort of early warning system regarding runaway weapons costs. A
Pentagon report on the issue is due early next month. This is a
perfect moment to think twice about whether to build a new ICBM, or
whether ICBMs are needed at all. The TCS report does just that.

The bottom line of the new analysis is that nuclear warheads deployed
on bombers and submarine-based ballistic missiles are more than
sufficient to deter any nation from attacking the United States. Steve
Ellis, the president of TCS, underscored
[[link removed]] this
point upon the release of the organization’s new report: “We have
over 1,300 nuclear warheads deployed on ballistic missile submarines,
bombers, and fighters, many of which are more powerful than the
warheads planned for deployment on the Sentinel. At a projected cost
of $315 billion over its lifecycle, the Sentinel is a redundancy we
don’t need at a price we can’t afford.”

Not only are land-based missiles redundant but, as former secretary of
defense William Perry has noted
[[link removed]],
they are “among the most dangerous weapons we have,” because a
president would have only a matter of minutes to decide whether to
launch them upon warning of attack, greatly increasing the risk of an
accidental nuclear conflict based on a false alarm.

Eliminating ICBMs makes good sense in terms of the future security of
the planet, but it faces a tough political environment in Washington.
As I have written elsewhere, the ICBM lobby
[[link removed]]—spearheaded
by contractors like Northrop Grumman working with senators from states
like North Dakota, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming that have major ICBM
bases or substantial work on the Sentinel program—has been a
powerful force for decades in shielding land-based missiles from
reductions in numbers or funding. Given the serious security
challenges facing the United States in the decades to come, many of
which do not have military solutions, the time to break the
stranglehold of special interests over our nuclear weapons policy is
now. Canceling the Sentinel program would be an excellent place to
start.

Some arms control advocates, while acknowledging the costs and risks
associated with maintaining an ICBM force, have limited their demands,
for the moment, to a call for canceling the Sentinel while extending
the service lives of existing ICBMs. While this would certainly save
many billions of dollars, it would not address the destabilizing
effects of ICBMs themselves. By contrast, if the new ICBM is canceled
but the old ones remain in place, the risk of an accidental launch
would remain, and any possible timeline for substantial reductions in
the US arsenal—with the ultimate goal of eliminating nuclear weapons
altogether in line with global norms established by the Treaty on the
Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
[[link removed].]—would
recede far, far into the future.

The question is whether it is possible to generate a potent enough
political counterforce to defeat the ICBM lobby and overcome the
mythology that holds that a “nuclear triad” of land-, sea-, and
air-based nuclear weapons is an essential pillar of US defenses.
Although many residents of states that host ICBM bases, like North
Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming, welcome the economic benefits they
bring, there is a history of opposition to ICBMs going back to the
1980s campaign
[[link removed]] against the
MX missile (officially and ironically named “The Peacekeeper”)
that was supported by everyone from conservative ranchers to the
Mormon Church. The MX was ultimately deployed for almost two decades
until it was deactivated
[[link removed]] under
the administration of George W. Bush, but the opposition to it was
part of a larger surge in favor of nuclear arms reductions that led to
a sharp scaling back
[[link removed]] of
the US Cold War arsenal. Huge cost growth on the new ICBM, noted
above, has brought increased scrutiny in Congress and energized
efforts by a wide array of local and national arms control and
disarmament organizations to cancel the system
[[link removed]] and reconsider whether to
retain ICBMS at all.

At a time when the country and the Congress are deeply divided about
everything from the future of democracy to the appropriate approach to
current wars in Ukraine and the Middle East and a possible future
conflict with China, coming to consensus around a major shift in US
nuclear policy and spending will be no small challenge. But the
alternative—a nuclear arms race on autopilot, with a rising risk of
a nuclear confrontation—is too dangerous to ignore.

Past changes in US nuclear policy, from the end of atmospheric nuclear
testing to the sharp reductions in the size of the US arsenal since
the end of the Cold War, have had their roots in citizen activism
[[link removed]],
from the ban-the-bomb movement of the 1950s to the Nuclear Freeze
campaign of the 1980s. We are far from a 1980s-level of concern about
nuclear weapons at the moment, but the debate over the issue has grown
in line with developments like the success of the
biopic _Oppenheimer_, stepped-up activity to compensate 
[[link removed]]the
victims of radiation from past nuclear testing, and continued efforts
to sound the alarm about the nuclear danger through vehicles like
the _Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists_’ Doomsday Clock, which now
stands at a frightening 90 seconds to midnight. The _Bulletin_’s
most recent statement
[[link removed]] about the
risks we face could not be more clear:

Ominous trends continue to point the world toward global catastrophe.
The war in Ukraine and the widespread and growing reliance on nuclear
weapons increase the risk of nuclear escalation. China, Russia, and
the United States are all spending huge sums to expand or modernize
their nuclear arsenals, adding to the ever-present danger of nuclear
war through mistake or miscalculation.

Bold action is required if we are to avert the worst-case scenario
outlined by the _Bulletin_. Canceling the Sentinel program would be a
major step in the right direction—a forceful note of sanity in the
midst of a nuclear policy debate in Washington that has been far too
skewed toward promoting Cold War–style nuclear buildups instead of
implementing measures aimed at reducing the risk of a nuclear
conflict. Shifting course will require us to go well beyond business
as usual in Washington, but given the stakes, it is well worth the
effort, and time is of the essence.

_William D. Hartung is a senior research fellow at the Quincy
Institute for Responsible Statecraft._

_Copyright c 2024 THE NATION. Reprinted with permission. May not be
reprinted without permission
[[link removed]].
Distributed by PARS International Corp
[[link removed]]. _

_Founded by abolitionists in 1865, The Nation has chronicled the
breadth and depth of political and cultural life, from the debut of
the telegraph to the rise of Twitter, serving as a critical,
independent, and progressive voice in American journalism._

_Please support progressive journalism. Get a digital subscription
[[link removed]] to
The Nation for just $24.95!_

_Thank you for reading The Nation! _

_We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many
examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we
publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues,
uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and
perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160
years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on
issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug._

_In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity,
independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to
do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking
readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support
The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors
Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team
of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to
report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take
weeks or months to report, and much more._

_There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the
presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for
bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is
only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate
today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just
the price of a cup of coffee._

_The Nation does now bow to the interests of a corporate owner or
advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work
possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue
to hold the powerful accountable._

_Thank you for your generosity._

_Donate $10 monthly to The Nation.
[[link removed]]_

* nuclear weapons
[[link removed]]
* land based missiles
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]