The wages of austerity are coming due for America’s military. On Monday, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced a major downsizing of the U.S. Army. He wants to retire the A-10 Warthog fleet of ground-support aircraft and the venerable U-2 manned spy planes. And he’s cutting the operations of the Navy’s cruiser fleet in half.
So far, Hagel has been silent about reductions in nuclear forces, promising to preserve all three legs of the so-called triad – missiles, bombers and submarines – while making “important investments to preserve a safe, secure, reliable and effective nuclear force.” But reductions in nuclear forces are coming: It’s not a question of whether, but when – and how deep.
The United States still has more than 5,000 nuclear weapons, all supported by a complex of bases, production facilities and nuclear laboratories likely to cost American taxpayers in excess of $20 billion per year this decade. But nuclear weapons seem anachronistic in the post-Cold War world. They have less military utility than conventional forces, their numbers are far larger than conceivable war plans and their replacement costs are extremely high.
To read the full op-ed, click here.
_______________________________
This op-ed appeared in Politico on February 25, 2014.
Photo by Ted Lipien via Flickr
Conventional Arms
The wages of austerity are coming due for America’s military. On Monday, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced a major downsizing of the U.S. Army. He wants to retire the A-10 Warthog fleet of ground-support aircraft and the venerable U-2 manned spy planes. And he’s cutting the operations of the Navy’s cruiser fleet in half.
So far, Hagel has been silent about reductions in nuclear forces, promising to preserve all three legs of the so-called triad – missiles, bombers and submarines – while making “important investments to preserve a safe, secure, reliable and effective nuclear force.” But reductions in nuclear forces are coming: It’s not a question of whether, but when – and how deep.
The United States still has more than 5,000 nuclear weapons, all supported by a complex of bases, production facilities and nuclear laboratories likely to cost American taxpayers in excess of $20 billion per year this decade. But nuclear weapons seem anachronistic in the post-Cold War world. They have less military utility than conventional forces, their numbers are far larger than conceivable war plans and their replacement costs are extremely high.
To read the full op-ed, click here.
_______________________________
This op-ed appeared in Politico on February 25, 2014.
Photo by Ted Lipien via Flickr
Recent & Related
Intergenerational Solidarity and Learning in an Era of Declining Trust
The UN Annually Votes on Ending the US Embargo on Cuba. What Does it Mean for Unilateral Sanctions and Their Impact on Human Rights?
Experts React: The Midterms and America’s Place in the World
The Lame-Duck Period is Full of Peril in the War on Iran
Is Reforming the UNSC Realistic? Article 27(3) of the UN Charter Offers a Starting Point.
Beyond the Populist Zeitgeist
A New Transatlantic Equilibrium
Forging a European Foreign Policy
A Superpower in Decline
What Is Going on in Cybersecurity?
The Implications of Ukraine’s Starshield Access for the US Military
Egypt’s Parallel Inc. & the Myth of Sovereign Efficiency
Find an Expert
Home to more than 100 scholars and global affiliates, the Stimson Center is proud to be a magnet for the world’s leading experts on the most pressing foreign policy and national security issues of our time. Explore our experts and their work.