As they prepare to leave office, presidents often seek to do something about nuclear weapons.
President Bill Clinton tried to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, only to be blocked by a Republican Congress.
President Ronald Reagan negotiated a treaty with the Soviet Union banning intermediate-range nuclear forces, and dreamed of doing away with nuclear weapons altogether.
President Barack Obama entered office concerned about the dangers posed by nuclear weapons. In his April 2009 Prague speech, Obama pledged “to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” His initial efforts produced a stabilizing arms-control treaty with Russia and a series of international summits that made modest progress in securing nuclear material. Since then, however, the effort to control the world’s most dangerous weapons has stagnated.
Without progress this year, Obama could leave his successor an ambiguous and unsustainable nuclear policy. Lack of progress also makes it far more difficult for Washington to provide effective leadership at the president’s fourth Nuclear Security Summit in Washington on Thursday and Friday.
In the past few years, the United States has begun a vast effort to modernize its nuclear arsenal. Nearly every piece of the nuclear triad – submarines, aircraft and land-based missiles – is reaching the end of its service life and must be retired, replaced or refurbished. The military services, bound by the president’s nuclear guidance, are planning to rebuild the triad piece by piece, an effort that could raise the cost of nuclear deterrence to as much as $1 trillion over the next 30 years.
Many consider that figure untenable.
Rather than tackle the problem, the president’s last budget, released in February, stays the course by adding more than $1.5 billion in new funding for major nuclear acquisitions programs.
The Pentagon is “wondering how the heck we’re going to pay for” the rebuilding program, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Brian McKeon recently told a reporter, “and probably thanking our stars we won’t be here to have to answer the question.” Yet, Congress has placed limits on defense spending, even as the Pentagon is starting other large programs to acquire conventional weapons that the services say they need. Every dollar spent on nuclear weapons endangers one that could be invested in more useful military capabilities or in vital domestic spending priorities. Because Congress is unlikely to provide full funding, the nation’s next nuclear arsenal could be shaped by partisan infighting rather than by prudent strategy.
In any case, pressing ahead with the current nuclear modernization plans is unnecessary and unsustainable. Only the president can ensure that the next nuclear arsenal is strategically rational and fiscally prudent.
Obama can still take steps to ensure that his Prague agenda endures and that the next president has the flexibility and data necessary to make the hard choices of paring back the modernization plans.
First, Obama should have the Pentagon conduct a comprehensive study on the expected costs of nuclear modernization that could be ready for the next president on day one.
Second, he should alter guidance that forces the military to replicate the current arsenal piece for piece.
Third, before leaving office, Obama should cancel – or at least pause – programs that are getting to the point where it will be difficult to call them off because of too much money spent and too many contracts signed. The new air-launched cruise missile, for example, is a slower and riskier way of threatening targets that can be struck by ballistic missiles. The Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile does not need to be replaced with a new equivalent missile.
In addition, cancelling a program to refurbish 180 tactical nuclear bombs stationed in Europe could save $28.8 billion – too much money for too little deterrence.
Instead of varying the number of ballistic-missile submarines from 14 to 12 to 10 and back up to 12, as planned, the next administration should order that the submarine fleet be immediately reduced to 10 – and kept there. It should also vigorously pursue a new arms-control agreement with Russia to limit the most dangerous elements of their modernization plans.
Each of these steps could save between $20 billion to $30 billion over the next 25 years. The savings could be used to fund more useful military capabilities. Cutting just one of these systems, for example, could cover the recently quadrupled program to fortify deterrence in Europe against an aggressive Russia for the better part of a decade. Alternatively, it could provide major funding for education, poverty relief or scientific research here at home.
Obama’s last chance to reduce the role of nuclear weapons – and provide the necessary leadership for encouraging nuclear security around the globe – is likely also his best. He could ensure that the country remains on the long path to a world without nuclear weapons rather than sliding headlong into a new arms race.
