Serious concern about America's nuclear forces
Barack Obama did almost nothing in the way of refurbishing or replacing America's nuclear arsenal during his time in office. But then George W. Bush and Bill Clinton didn't do much either, describes a new report in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.
Which leaves the nation facing a need of about $1.2 trillion for that work now, according to a new report from the Congressional Budget Office called "Approaches for Managing the Costs of U.S. Nuclear Forces, 2017-2046."
"Many of today's nuclear weapon systems were designed and built decades ago and are nearing the end of their service," the report explains. "According to DoD, if the United States wishes to continue to field nuclear forces, it will need to refurbish or replace essentially all elements of the forces that it decides to retain."
That's where the $1.2 trillion, that's $1,200,000,000,000.00, costs come, the report said.
Because new bombs would be needed, new jets, new or refurbished submarines, new technology for silo-based missiles, new production options and more.
Like new long-range stealthy bombers, new air-launched nuclear cruise missiles and a life-extension program for other components.
Obama, who repeatedly indicated he wanted the United States' defense options cut dramatically, even at one point suggested that the U.S. could get by with one-third fewer deployed weapons that the deal he cut with Russian, New START, allows.
The report explains, "The most recent official statement of U.S. nuclear policy, the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review Report, confirmed the United States' commitment to maintaining its nuclear deterrent 'for as long as nuclear weapons exist' but also set a long-term goal of a 'world without nuclear weapons,'" the report said.
"A more recent White House statement indicated that [ex-]President Obama had determined that the nuclear mission could be achieved with one-third fewer deployed strategic nuclear weapons than New START allows."
It continued, "In January 2017, the Trump administration announced that it would be undertaking a new Nuclear Posture Review. That review, which will consider whether changes to U.S. nuclear policy and forces are desirable, will take place at a watershed moment for U.S. nuclear forces: Essentially every piece of the nuclear arsenal is due for replacement or refurbishment, and there has been considerable debate about the direction that the rebuilding should take."
The report said, "Some strategists argue that all of the planned modernization efforts must be fully completed, which would essentially replicate the existing forces in modern form. They contend that reductions in the modernization programs that resulted in forces that were below the limits in New START would be unwise because new arms control agreements with Russia seem very unlikely given current tensions; furthermore, unilateral reductions below treaty limits would put the United States at a disadvantage if a conflict arose and could harm security relationships with its allies and partners.
"For many years, the United States has pursued a policy of extended deterrence, providing security assurances (backed by U.S. nuclear weapons) to its allies and partners. That policy has deterred potential aggressors and reassured allied nations that they do not need to develop their own nuclear arsenals. Reductions to U.S .nuclear forces, particularly in the current environment of North Korean nuclear and missile tests and Russian and Chinese efforts to change the territorial status quo in their regions, could embolden those countries and lead allies of the United States to question its commitment to extended deterrence and to take unwelcome steps in response."