Putting Numbers to Words – US Announces Nuclear Reduction
First the official press release:
President Bush Approves Significant Reduction in Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
President has approved a significant reduction in the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile to take effect by the end of 2007. The President’s decision, made on the recommendation of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman with the full support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Commander, United States Strategic Command, follows a major reduction previously announced in 2004. As a result, the U.S. nuclear stockpile will be less than one-quarter its size at the end of the Cold War.
The President’s decision further advances policies that he has advocated since assuming office. We are reducing our nuclear weapons stockpile to the lowest level consistent with America’s national security and our commitments to friends and allies. A credible deterrent remains an essential part of U.S. national security, and nuclear forces remain key to meeting emerging security challenges. The reduction is part of the President’s overall strategy to transform the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and its supporting infrastructure to better meet the security needs of the 21st Century. It is a comprehensive effort to reduce U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons and streamline and modernize our nuclear infrastructure.
How much is "significant"? Especially one on the heels of another "significant" one in 2004? When in doubt, check out Jeffrey Lewis at ArmsControlWonk and you won’t be disappointed:
So how do we come by these reductions? As he points out — mostly by attrition in two major programs – cancellation of the ACM (Advanced Cruise Missile) and of the Life Extension Program, or LEP, for the W80, both of which would potentially serve to remove about 2095 W80 and W80-1 warheads by alone 2012 (see below):
Naturally that is just speculation and is sure to engender the question or concern about further dismantlement of the nuclear arsenal. A counter question would be to what end is the purpose of keeping an overly large inventory of aging weapons whose upkeep costs escalate considerably in their later years? What is the military utility of weapons whose effects are increasingly matched or bettered by conventional kinetic and non-kinetic weapons? Look at the value gained aboard carriers by utilization of the spaces previously devoted to nuclear weapons for a variety of other purposes who find more regular employment. And speaking of employment – it is increasingly questionable just when nuclear weapons would be utilized short of the prototypical Götterdämmerung envisioned for the employment of strategic nukes.
So yes, there is some minimal deterrent number to keep the Russians at bay and set above where an emergent peer (read:China) wouldn’t be tempted to make a quick break-through. With this latest round of proposed cuts taking us to an estimated level of around 6300 or so nukes, we are closer to that number. We aren’t necessarily sure that it’s the 1,200 figure cited by ACW (stockpile figure pre-Eisenhower) but we are definitely sure it lies somewhere along the path between the present and that number.
