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
Made in the Gulf, Designed in America: How the Iran War Has Incentivized Drone Production in the GCC
The Orphan of the Summit of the Future: The Declaration on Future Generations
Experts React: Takeaways from the Trump-Xi Summit
Kabuki Diplomacy Between US and Iran at UNGA
Is the Iran War Worth It? Six Months Later, Still No
Why Iran-Backed Iraqi Armed Groups Are Hedging on Disarmament
9 Issues to Watch at UNGA 81
Why the Houthi Capture of Mocha Matters Far Beyond Yemen
Nuclear Disruption: The US-Saudi 123 Agreement and the Future of Nuclear Cooperation in the Middle East
The Nation Is Not Alone. We Need Reflexive Multilateralism
“No, History Begins Today”: Why Washington Could Not Reshape Pakistan’s Interests After 9/11
What if the US Had Made Peace With Iran After 9/11?
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.