nuclear “modernization”

What is the plan to modernize nuclear weapons? Despite decreases in the overall number of nuclear weapons during the administrations of every president since President Johnson, new nuclear weapons continue to be created. The U.S. has recently begun a massive effort to “modernize” nuclear weapons, the facilities that create them, and the bombers, submarines, and silos that deliver them. For many of these systems, modernization means creating entirely new weapons to replace the aging ones.

In addition to upgrading all existing weapon systems, the Trump administration is planning to introduce two NEW weapon systems: a nuclear cruise missiles; and a “low-yield” warhead to be deployed on submarine-based
missiles. New facilities include renovations to a plutonium processing plant in New Mexico, building a high-explosives pressing facility in Texas, and constructing a highly enriched uranium processing plant in Tennessee. New delivery mechanisms include 12 submarines, up to 100 bombers, and 400 land-based missiles.

What’s wrong with modernization? First, the cost is extremely high. The plan described above is
projected to cost well over $1 trillion over the next thirty years. Cost overruns and delays could cause that figure to rise. It is unlikely that the current level of funding for the Pentagon will be sufficient to cover the cost.

Second, new weapons short circuit deterrence by increasing the likelihood of use in combat. The increased precision and decreased payloads of these weapons make a decision to deploy them in combat thinkable. Nuclear
cruise missiles are particularly pernicious. Today, only the U.S., France, and Russia have them in their arsenals. The U.S. plan to create 1,000 of these missiles shuts the door on the possibility of a global ban.

Third, modernization sends the wrong message to other nations. Russia and China have announced plans to expand their nuclear arsenals in response to U.S. modernization plans. Rather than doubling down on a nuclear
future, the United States should constructively engage other nations and seek mutual disarmament.

What’s the alternative to modernization? Rather than spending billions of dollars on new weapons,
facilities, and vehicles, all three could be gradually decommissioned to reduce the total size of the nuclear force. Money could be redirected to reducing recent increases in housing costs for active duty military personnel or
improving healthcare for America’s veterans.