debunking six big myths about nuclear weapons

Upload: gordon-duff

Post on 02-Jun-2018

215 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/10/2019 Debunking Six Big Myths About Nuclear Weapons

    1/10

  • 8/10/2019 Debunking Six Big Myths About Nuclear Weapons

    2/10

    23National Security Science December 2014

    For over 20 yearsbeginning in 1991 with the fall of the Soviet Union and

    the end of the Cold Warthe importance of the nations nuclear deterrenthas been fading from the publics mind.

    Out of Sight, Out of Mind

    Two generations, that is, millions of Americans, have been born and raised and never felt thethreat of a nuclear war as did those generations living during the Cold War. ey have neverpondered the act that today hundreds o Russian thermonuclear-armed missiles could reachU.S. cities in less time than it takes to have a pizza delivered to their doorstep.

    Because they have not felt threatened in decades, many Americans have, understandably, notfelt the need for maintaining the U.S. nuclear deterrent, much as healthy people in a waning

    epidemic might believe there is no longer a need or vaccination. But an epidemic can waxagain, and the same is true for nuclear threats from abroad. Letting down ones guard can be adangerous proposition.

    They Got It

    Between the end of World War II and the fall of the Soviet Union, the American publicunderstood nuclear deterrence. Tey got it.e Soviet Union was aggressively trying to expandaround the world, and back then it had 10s o thousands o nuclear weapons aimed at theUnited States. So the United States needed to have its own, and better, weapons to keep theSoviets at bay.

    It worked. Because of the U.S. nuclear deterrent, the Soviet expansion was stopped at the

    Iron Curtain.Nuclear deterrence is also about preventing not just nuclear wars but also majorconventionalwars, in part because a major conventional war is the most likely road to nuclear war. Over thelast several centuriesand with ever-increasing frequencythe worlds major military powershave waged major conventional wars against each other. But due to nuclear deterrence, that hasnot happened since 1945.

    Taking an Intellectual Holiday

    e role nuclear deterrence has played since 1945 in preventing a major war is not widelyappreciated, so the importance that nuclear deterrence plays in todays national security is

    DEBUNKING SIX BIG MYTHSABOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS

    Nuclear test Truckee, conducted June 9, 1962, south of Christmas Island as part of Operation Dominic.(Photo: Open Source)

  • 8/10/2019 Debunking Six Big Myths About Nuclear Weapons

    3/10

    24 Los Alamos National Laboratory

    not widely recognized. e public has, as a consequence,lost sight o the continued need or the nuclear enterprisethe weapons; their delivery systems; and the scientific,technological, and manuacturing capabilities, along with theskilledpeoplewho create and support these. Nor is the publicaware that the entire U.S. nuclear enterprise is aging or thatthere are severe negative consequences that arise fromthat aging.

    Tus, when it comes to the nuclear deterrent, the nation hastaken a procurement holiday and, just as important,

    an intellectual holiday.It ofen seems clear that, even within the upper ranks o themilitary, there are people who dont get it.

    Today there are plenty of ocers and civilians in theDepartment o Deense who are well versed in conventionalwarare or in counterinsurgency but who have neverstudiedthe relevance of the U.S. strategic nuclear deterrent. Yet thesesame people may be helping to ormulate national securitystrategies wherein nuclear deterrence is thefoundationonational security.

    Taking a Procurement Holiday

    Te procurement holiday affecting the nuclear deterrentis a piece o the peace dividend, the economic shif awayfrom defense spending following the end of the Cold War.But afer two decades, isnt it time to begin reinvesting inthe deterrent?

    For example, the Air Force is in need of a new long-rangebomber. Why? e youngest bomber, the B-2 Spirit Stealth,is now over 20 years old. e oldest bomber, the B-52, is over50 years old. World War I biplanes would have been younger

    than that i they had been used in World War II.

    As the Air Forces Major General Garrett Harencak puts it,e fact is my son, whos a lieutenant at Minot Air ForceBase, flies the same airplane I flew as a young 20-somethingpilot in 1984. I dont mean the same type o airplane. I meanits the sameairplane! Its the same B-52 with the sametail number that I ew as a 23-year-old B-52 pilot out ofBlytheville Air Force Base in Arkansas. Hes ying thatsame airplane.

    The Air Forces B-52 Stratofortress has been in active ser vice since 1955.(Photo: Open Source.)

  • 8/10/2019 Debunking Six Big Myths About Nuclear Weapons

    4/10

    25National Security Science December 2014

    He goes on, It doesnt stop there. Te way things are goinghis childwho could graduate from the Air Force Academyin 2036could also y that same B-52. Wrap your headaround that! So mygrandchildmay someday have to take intocombat that very same old airplane that I once flew.

    Of course, the generals grandson willtake it into combat i

    that is what is required. at is what the nations warghtersdo, every day. Tey dont say, Hey, wait a minute, I dontwant to y a B-52 thats over 70 years old! ey dont say,Wait, I havent flown enough hours yet due to deensebudget sequestration! No, when asked to defend theircountry they will go, and go with what theyve got.

    I the procurement holiday continues, it looks like the nationis going to ask its sons, granddaughters, nephews, nieces, andriends to go into combat with bombers that old.

    Here is another example. e B61 thermonuclear bombwas, like the B-52 bomber, rst built in the 1960s usingradio-tube-era technology. Production of the B61 ended

    about 1989. e B61 was designed to have a life expectancyof about 10 years. To remain a credible part of our nucleardeterrent, the B61 needs to be brought into the 21st century.It needs its key components rebuilt, reurbished, or replaced.(is refurbishment, undertaken by Los Alamos and Sandia

    National Laboratories in partnership with the Air Force,is underway.)

    In contrast, the Russians and the Chinese are modernizingtheir nuclear orces by designing and building brand-newweapons and delivery systems. Shouldnt the United Statesbe modernizing and recapitalizing its nuclear deterrent, too?

    Granted, doing that is not going to be easy. e nation is inthe tough position o needing to upgrade its nuclear weaponssystems, and the inrastructure that supports them, in a timeof large scal diculties.

    How will the nation prioritize unding its needs?

    Bombs before Butter?

    e Congressional representatives who were around duringWorld War II and the Cold War and who understood theneed or nuclear deterrence are mostly gone. Tey realizedCongress would have to set aside funding to maintain the

    nuclear deterrent or the security o the nation and its allies.

    Today, many members of Congress do not support fundingour nuclear deterrent. Like the public that elected them,many o them dont get it. Tey believe that nuclear weaponsare now irrelevant to national security. Tey believe the

    Chinas new H-6K strategic bomber, armed with long-range nuclear cruise missiles, can now attack U.S. military bases in South Korea, the Philippines,

    Guam (all were previously out of reach), and the Japanese mainland without leaving Chinese airspace. The newly built H-6K bombers are capable of

    launching CJ-10K cruise missiles with an estimated range of up to 1,200 miles . (Illustration: Open Source.)

  • 8/10/2019 Debunking Six Big Myths About Nuclear Weapons

    5/10

    deterrent is too expensive. Tese and other myths aboutnuclear deterrence have arisen since the end of the Cold War.

    And unchallenged, myths like these make it hard to criticallythink about the value o the nations nuclear deterrent.

    So lets debunk six of the biggest myths surrounding thenuclear deterrent.

    We dont use nuclear weapons.

    A myth similar to this one is, Nuclearweapons will never be used again.

    Actually, we douse nuclear weapons. We usethem everysingle day. Tey do not have to be used in combatto be doing their job.

    General Harencak, a career bomber pilot who has own allthree of the nations nuclear bombers (B-52, B-1, and B-2),likes to point out that, there is nevera day where thereisnt continuous nuclear deterrence in effect. Tere is nevera day when there arent nuclear-armed submarines at seaand intercontinental ballistic missiles [ICBMs] manned

    and ready in their silos. Every day there are nuclear-capablebombers and fighters ueled up and ready to fly. Every daythese nuclear orces provide the nation and its allies with thenuclear deterrence they need.

    When U.S. nuclear weapons are deployed and ready toengage, they make a credible deterrent. Weapons that arenot deployed and ready are not credible.

    Clearly, there is nevera day when the nation is not using itsnuclear weapons as a credible deterrent. Given the worldscurrent political configuration, nuclear weapons will continueto be of the utmost relevance to U.S. national security into thefuture. As long as other nations have nuclear weapons, the

    United States will continue to use its nuclear weapons asa deterrent, every day.

    We cant afford nuclear weapons.

    Tis myth seemscrediblecertainly nuclearweapons must be very, very expensive. Butcosts and benefits are relative things.

    Consider this. According to General Harencak, the AirForces two legs of the nuclear triad, the ICBMs and nuclear-capable aircra, cost approximately $5 billion a year to

    The AGM-86B is an air-launched cruise missile that can be launched from a B-52 Stratofortress and can be armed with a nuclear warhead. The AGM-86B wasfirst built in 1977 with a life-expectancy to 2020 but the Air Force plans to extend its service life to 2030 or later. (Photo: U.S. Air Force)

    Los Alamos National Laboratory26

    A pod of cruise missiles being loaded onto a B-52. The B-52 can carry up to20 nuclear-armed cruise missiles. (Photo: U.S. Air Force)

  • 8/10/2019 Debunking Six Big Myths About Nuclear Weapons

    6/10

    27National Security Science December 2014

    maintain. Let us put that cost into perspective. Congress has

    mandated (in the Postal Accountability and EnhancementAct of 2006) that the government put about $5.5 billion ayear into the U.S. Postal Service employees retirement healthand pension benefits. Tat money is meant to ensure thesecurity of the postal retirees lives. General Harencak pointsthat, for about $5 billion, what amounts to only 5 percent ofthe Air Forces entire budget, the Air Force can maintain itsportion of the U.S. nuclear deterrent, which helps to ensurethe security o the entire nationand its allies. From thatperspective, $5 billion is a bargain.

    Were stuck in a Cold War mindset.

    I by mindset one means militarystrategies, then nothing could be urtherfrom the truth. e primary Cold War

    strategy was for the United States to build and deploy enoughnuclear weapons to ensure the obliteration of the SovietUnion and its Warsaw Pact allies. e Soviets had the sameCold War strategy regarding the United States and itsNATO allies.

    us at the height of the Cold War, the United States and theSoviet Union each had 10s of thousands of weapons. In 1967

    the United States reached its peak in the numbers of weapons

    in its stockpile: over 31,000. e Soviet Union had thousandsmore than the United States did: at their peak in 1986, theSoviets had over 45,000.

    e Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact are gone. Russia is theonly nation lef o that cabal that still has nuclear weapons.So the U.S. Cold Warera strategic plans have changed. eplan now is to negotiate ways o staying numerically matchedwith Russia but at agreed-uponlower numbers. Today, theUnited States has about 2,200 weapons, and it is reducing thatnumber even urther.

    But considering that there are more nuclear nations todaythan during the Cold War, a new U.S. strategic plan cannot be

    to eliminate all its nuclear weapons. Te nation cannot saelylet its numbers all too low even while the nation reduces itsstockpile in tandem with Russia. In todays postCold Wargeopolitical environment, these new nuclear-armed countriesthreaten each other, they threaten this nation, and they makethe world vastly more complex and dangerous than it wasduring the Cold War. is new, postCold War geopoliticalenvironment is so different that it creates, essentially, aSecond Nuclear Age, one that requires a dierent mindsetand new strategic plans.

    The Air Forces FA-18 Hornet is designed to be both a fighter plane and a ground attack aircraft. Its versatility allows it to operate from aircraft carriers or landbases. The Hornet is capable of carrying the B61 thermonuclear bomb. The upgraded Super Hornet, which is bigger, can carry more munitions, and can fly muchfarther is shown here. (Photo: Open Source)

  • 8/10/2019 Debunking Six Big Myths About Nuclear Weapons

    7/10

    28 Los Alamos National Laboratory

    that do not have them and a measure ocompetitive equality with those who do havethem. Natures law of natural selection andthe survival o the fittest suggests that mostnuclear nations in conflict will not put theirnuclear genie back into the lamp. Te laws o

    nature predict that the nations who do thiswill not survive.

    Sure enough, instead of reducing theirstockpiles, other nuclear nations are busyincreasingtheir stockpile numbers anddesigning and building newer, more-modernweapons and weapon delivery systems.

    At the same time, some nonnuclear nations,such as Poland, Turkey, and Ukraine aredebating whether to become nuclearweapons states and doing so openly. Othernonnuclear nations may be having that

    debate in secret or may already be secretlyrubbing the nuclear genies lamp.

    As long as nuclear weapons exist anywherein the world, as long as state and nonstateactors have nuclear weapons or seek toacquire them, this nation must retain itsnuclear deterrent to counter them. Te

    United States is reducing the numbers in its stockpile, butthe president has also committed the nation to maintaining anuclear deterrent that is sae, secure, and effective or as longas other nations possess nuclear weapons.

    How long will that be? As long as they are struggling with

    one another or survival, nations that possess weapons willcontinue to have them and will continue to improve theirstockpiles, and other nations will seek out their own.

    Given these realities, nuclear weapons are not going away.

    We can do it all with submarines.

    Many people believe the nation can provideitsel all the deterrence it needs by relying onits nuclear-armed Trident submarines. With

    budgets constrained and with the belie that nuclear weaponswill eventually go away, this is an attractive myth.

    However, as nuclear weapons are not going away considerthis: the nuclear triad, composed of nuclear-capableaircra, ICBMs, and submarines, is still the most eectiveway to provide the national security the president promises.e strategic logic behind the nuclear triad is this: havingthree very different nuclear systems, each with hundredso weapons, eliminates any likelihood that an adversarialnation could destroy the entire deterrent in a rst strike. Norst strike could destroy all U.S. ICBMs, nuclear bombers,and submarines. Currently, only the Russians have enough

    e Cold War mindset and the comparatively simplenational security strategies it evoked will not work in todaysgeopolitical environment, so the U.S. militarys strategicplanners no longer rely upon them.

    Nuclear weapons are going away,anyway.

    Te people who believe this myth tend to doso because they also believe the myth that

    nuclear weapons are useless and obsolete (see myth #1).

    In this nuclear weapons are going away myth, the believerpredicts that in the near uture the worlds leadersincludingthe Putins and Kim Jong Uns of this worldwill come totheir senses, meet together in an atmosphere o mutualadmiration and respect, resolve their nations differencesrationally and peaceully, and swear off nuclear weapons(and other weapons of mass destruction) for the good of

    all people.

    Unortunately, nuclear weapons are not going away any timesoon. As long as the worlds population continues to growexponentially, as long as the worlds climate continues tochange and make less o the planet hospitable, and as longas the worlds supplies o water and other natural resourcescontinue to plummet, then nations, tribes, and religions willcompete and conict with each other. Possessing nuclearweapons provides a survival advantage over those nations

    Major General Harencak is the Assistant Chief of Staff for Strategic Deterrence and NuclearIntegration at U. S. Air Force Headquarters. (Photo: U.S. Air Force)

  • 8/10/2019 Debunking Six Big Myths About Nuclear Weapons

    8/10

  • 8/10/2019 Debunking Six Big Myths About Nuclear Weapons

    9/10

    30 Los Alamos National Laboratory

    satellites, meaning the president can send a powerul messageto those adversaries to stand down.

    What about those adversaries without satellites? FollowingNorth Koreas nuclear test in 2013, the president ordereda couple of B-2 Stealth bombers to y all the way fromMissouri to South Koreaover 6,500 miles. e world press

    described these bombers not as the bat-winged B-2 or asB-2 Stealth, but as B-2 nuclear-capableStealth bombers.Making that point matters.

    Again, in June 2014, following Russias occupation of Crimeaand the shooting down o a Malaysian passenger jet over theUkraine, the president ordered B-2 andB-52 bombers, againdescribed in the press as nuclear-capable bombers, to fly tothe United Kingdom for training and exercises with NATOforces. ese kinds of U.S. nuclear bomber ights have notoccurred in over a decade. Tey were designed to send thefollowing powerful message of support to the NATO allies:the United States is committed to protecting NATO with its

    nuclear capabilities.Te president could not have made such blatant, in-your-face shows of force by opening up an ICBM silo in aMontana wheat field or suracing a submarine and openingup a missile tube to show the news media. Nuclear-capablebombers make strategic statements and show U.S. resolvein ways that submarines and ICBMs cannot. Bombers canprovide a clear and immediate show o orce to adversariesof the United States and its allies. ey give the president a

    quick way to demonstrate overwhelming strength in responseto escalating conrontations.

    Rather than reduce the triad, the Air Force is hoping to builda modern, long-range-strike bomber that would increasethe current bombers range without the expense and risk oreueling. Te new bomber would also have a host o other

    advanced attributeslike improved payload capabilities andsurvivabilityand would eventually be nuclear capable. Allthese qualities would give the president more exibility andmore options or avoiding a war, or winning the war shouldwar become necessary.

    Are the nations nuclear submarines ready to become thenations primary or even sole source o its nuclear deterrence?U. S. Ohio-class submarines are getting old and approachingthe end o their lie expectancy; they were first commissionedin 1981. To maintain this boats role as one part of the triad,much less giving it a more prominent role, the nation needsto build a replacement for the Ohio-class submarine.

    Each leg of the triad has its own unique strengths. Bombersand ICBMs are not, as some folks believe, irrelevant todeterrence. Submarines do not make them redundant.Having all three systems in a triad provides the balanceneeded or the president to make a clear show o orce andhave a variety of military response options. Only the triadprovides the kind o variety in weapons and delivery systemsthat guarantees to the nation, its allies, and its adversariesthat there can and will be a second strike.

    The North Koreans continue to develop their nuclear weapons program and threaten to use their weapons on South Korea and Japan. If the United States

    continues to reduce the size of its nuclear deterrent, will South Korea and Japan feel unprotected and begin building their own nuclear weapons programs?

    Kim Jong Un (center) is shown here visiting a military flight exercise in Pyongyang, North Korea, in March 2014. (Photo: Open Source)

  • 8/10/2019 Debunking Six Big Myths About Nuclear Weapons

    10/10

    31National Security Science December 2014

    Te triad has worked well to help maintain world stability.Together, the legs of the triad ensure the nation has apowerful, survivable nuclear deterrent. And the diversityo the triad becomes all the more strategically important asthe nation works toward urther lowering the numbers oweapons in the stockpile.

    To believe that the nation can count on submarines alonebelies the triads strategic logic. Submarines, in conjunctionwith the other legs o the triad, help guarantee the nationalways has that second-strike capability.

    So, no, subs alone cannot do it all.

    The fewer nuclear weapons there are,the safer the world becomes.

    Tis is a very important myth to debunk,particularly or those who push or deeper

    and deeper arms reductions. Because when it comes to

    making a causal relationship between the numbers o nuclearweapons and world instability, maybe less is not lessmaybeless is more. In other words, ewer nukes may actuallyincreaseworld instability and the risk o nuclear war.

    Counterintuitive? Well, loweringthe U.S. stockpile numbersmakes it attractive or other nuclear nations to build moreotheir own weapons. Parity in the number of nuclear weaponsis a strategic goal or nations with ewer weapons when theyare in competition with nations possessing more. As nationswith bigger stockpiles reduce their stockpile numbers, nationswith smaller stockpiles realize that parity may suddenly bewithin their reach.

    For example, if the United States reduces its stockpile to a fewhundred weapons, nations like China, India, and Pakistan,who currently possess weapons numbering in the lowhundreds but have the capacity to make many more, may beenticed to match the U.S. stockpile numberor even surpassit. How would their building more nuclear weapons make theworld more stable? How would having an expansionist Chinabeing on nuclear par with the United States improve worldstability?

    Additionally, will lower stockpile numbers aect the nationsability to reassure its allies that it still has the will and themeansto protect them? Will lower numbers give them acontinued feeling of security? Or will our allies wonder if theUnited States can still defend them? Maybe U.S. allies will feelthe need to start their ownnuclear weapons programs.

    In some cases, this might be very easy for them to do. Somehave even tried. For example, when in 1970 the UnitedStates planned to withdraw troops from South Korea, theSouth Koreans, fearing North Korea, began a secret nuclearweapons research program. Once discovered, under U.S.pressure, South Korea ended the program. en in 2004 the

    International Atomic Energy Agency revealed that SouthKorea had had another secret nuclear program underwaysince the 1980s. e South Koreans were forced to stop thisprogram, too.

    In a 2013 poll, following North Koreas third nuclear test,two-thirds of surveyed South Koreans supported the idea

    of South Koreas building its own nuclear weapons. IfSouth Koreas fears of North Korea become compoundedby the United States announcing its intentions to makeurther, significant reductions in its nuclear stockpilesthereby, in South Koreas view, shrinking the U.S. nuclearumbrella over South Koreawill even moreSouth Koreanssupport their nations joining the nuclear-weapons club?Would a nuclear-armed North Korea andSouth Korea makethe world more secure?

    Te causal relationship between the numbers o nuclearweapons and world instability is neither a simple nor anintuitive one. Nor is it a positive correlation. is is why,

    when it comes to the relationship between the numbers onuclear weapons and world instability, less is not necessarilylessless may be more.

    Congress, College, and the Kiwanis Club

    It has been more than 70 years since the worlds major powerstangled in a huge, hot war and more than 20 years since theend of the Cold War. e threat of a major conventionalwar or a nuclear war has slipped rom the daily thoughts oU.S. baby boomers. ese threats have neverdarkened thehopes or dreams of Generation X or the Millennials. eimportance o the nations nuclear deterrent is, today, ar

    rom the publics mind. Ironically, the very success o theU.S. nuclear deterrent largely explains why so many peopletoday give it neither attention nor respect.

    Myths arise around things thatlike the U.S. nucleardeterrentare misunderstood, little known, and greatlyfeared. Myths surrounding the U.S. nuclear deterrents role innational security, its cost, its content, and its current healthare not then unexpected.

    For the sake of U.S. national security and world stability,these myths must be debunked in Congress, in colleges, andeven in the Kiwanis Club down the street.

    ~ Clay Dillingham