Putting an end to nukes?

Before our time, a global arms race between the United States and Soviet Union ensued. About the time most of the students on campus were born, the Cold War was coming to an end. While our campus can feel like our own separate world, nuclear weapons remain an important issue in international politics. Nations like the United States, Russia, France, and Israel stockpile nukes for defensive purposes. At the same time, the international community gives both foreign nations – such as North Korea and Iran – and terrorists much attention to prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the wrong hands. The potential destruction by these weapons calls for an end to their use.

The December 7, 2006 edition of Nature contains an editorial titled “Enough Warheads, Already,” that challenges a proposal to refurbish the United States’ aging nuclear arsenal with modern warheads. The proposed Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program would modernize the United States’ weapons without violating the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Instead of building new warheads, which would violate the treaty, the RRW will replace the aging plutonium triggers that have an expected life of 40-60 years. RRW supporters claim that many of the United States’ nukes are outdated, which could render them useless at their jobs.

The editorial board at Nature cites no strong reason for the United States to replace the warheads. While the proponents of the RRW program reported the 40-60 year lifespan on the triggers, the US National Nuclear Security Administration released reports stating that plutonium triggers last at least one century before losing their potency. In addition to that evidence, Nature reports that the White House showed no signs of support either, as President Bush, “like his predecessors, wishes to continue a voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing.”

It is evident that Nature does not support the use of nuclear weapons, clearly stated by “making the case for brand new nuclear weapons has, thankfully, been a tough sell,” and “its existing nuclear weapons stockpile…that with luck, will become obsolete before it needs to be replaced.” The strong stance does not come without warrant. The power of these weapons is devastating (see Hiroshima). However, the stance taken by Nature ignores the strategic defensive importance of nuclear weapons.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) provided a report, titled “Nuclear Weapons: The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program,” to Congress. The report analyzes the benefits of the RRW program. Proponents of the RRW state that warheads must be maintained over time because different components deteriorate at different rates, and allies and enemies of the United States must respect the ability of US military forces. Apparently, the United States has the wrong type of warheads for today’s warfare, which is another reason for replacement. The RRW reports that military commanders now want smaller yield (explosive power), but more accurate bombs. The current stockpile was built in the Cold War, mainly to combat the Soviet Union. The current warheads are high yield, meant to maximize damage to strategic targets such as bases or missile silos. Interestingly, the CRS Report disputed one of Nature’s claims. The voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing was actually imposed by Congress in October of 1992.

The United States keeps nuclear weapons for security purposes, rather than decommissioning them. But would the United States need all these nukes if other nations had nukes? However, the other nations are not the sole offenders. They are only protecting their interests. If the United States begins revamping all of its nuclear weapons, it would be arrogant to assume foreign nations will not feel threatened. There would be no reason to update the weapons unless you plan on using them.
The CRS Report relies heavily on factual evidence, but fails to appeal to readers’ emotions. The Nature article takes advantage of readers’ charged up attitudes towards nuclear weapons and the threat of mass-destruction. Nature goes as far as telling readers imposing their views on nuclear weapons, making the article heavy on emotional appeals.

It is important to realize the arguments made by both articles. While the editorial board from Nature expresses concerns over nuclear warfare, the strategic importance of the weapons to the United States deserves consideration. What the CRS Report overlooks is that nuclear weapons protect against other nuclear weapons. Instead of replacing the entire nuclear arsenal, the United States should concentrate its efforts towards worldwide nuclear disarmament. Nature had it right, “Enough warheads, already.”



The original text of “Enough Warheads, Already” can be found in:
“Enough Warheads, Already.” Nature 444 (December 7, 2006): 653