Pentagon Studies Offer Opportunity for Policy Overhaul
Defense News - 12 March 2001
By Jerome Grossman, Chairman of Council for a Livable World
U.S. President Bush has ordered a series of Pentagon studies on nuclear strategy, conventional weapons and the quality of life in the military. If used correctly, these studies would provide an opportunity to institute long overdue changes in American security policies and Pentagon practices.
The President’s objective is to complete a top-to-bottom analysis of military strategies before determining an appropriate level of military spending, an orderly and sensible approach provided fundamental issues are addressed.
For example, the nuclear review must address overall U.S. nuclear strategy, target selection, and stockpile size. Then it should consider these matters within the goal of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. The results will provide the basis for a full “nuclear posture review” due in December as mandated by the 2001 Defense Authorization Act.
During the presidential campaign, Bush suggested making unilateral cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. He also discussed taking nuclear weapons off high alert. Such changes in the U.S. nuclear posture would clearly enhance U.S. security and pave the way for:
- Deep cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal to no more than 1,000 nuclear weapons: The U.S. currently maintains 7,206 nuclear weapons on intercontinental ballistic missiles, ballistic missile submarines, and strategic bombers. The Stategic Arms Reductions Talks (START II) treaty that has yet to enter into force requires the United States to reduce this number to between 3,000 and 3,500 warheads. In a May 23, 2000 news conference, Bush called for significant reductions below START II levels, vowing that he would “pursue the lowest possible number consistent with our national security.”
- De-alerting of all nuclear forces: The United States keeps more than 2,000 nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert status, ready to launch at a moment’s notice. In Bush’s words, “keeping so many weapons on high alert may create unacceptable risks of accidental or unauthorized launch.”
- Reject National Missile Defense (NMD): Although Bush and his national security team view anti-ballistic missile systems as a complement to nuclear reductions, NMD may make such reductions impossible. Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed the Russian Duma April 15, 2000. Putin stated that if the U.S. abrogates the ABM treaty and proceeds with NMD deployment, “we will withdraw not only from the START II treaty, but from the whole system of treaties on the limitation and control of strategic and conventional weapons.”
A CIA intelligence estimate predicts that China’s strategic nuclear arsenal could increase from 20 to 200 warheads in response to NMD.
- Abandoning plans to build new nuclear weapons designed to destroy hardened and buried targets. Such weapons would require the U.S. to break its current moratorium on nuclear testing, a moratorium which President Bush has endorsed.
While the Pentagon is expected to complete its comprehensive Quadrennial Defense Review later this year, Bush has ordered that a study of Pentagon programs be conducted immediately. At the same time, President Bush has “limited” the 2002 defense budget request to about $324 billion, the same total proposed by former President Clinton.
Although the request represents a $14 billion increase beyond 2001 funding, it falls short of the expectations of many defense officials and some members of Congress. The Administration has insisted that any further increases should wait until a thorough review of Pentagon plans and needs is conducted.
One study, to be completed prior to the submission of President Bush’s 2002 defense budget, is being conducted by Andrew Marshall, the renowned Pentagon futurist who has been critical of many Cold War-era weapons systems including aircraft carriers, tanks, and tactical aircraft.
While candidate Bush made strengthening national defense a focal point of his campaign, he never promised to add billions in new military spending. In his 1999 speech at the Citadel, Bush said that improving defense will not simply require “spending more,” but also “spending more wisely.”
He also spoke about the need to “skip a generation of technology” and invest in weapons systems that will “propel America generations ahead in military technology.”
However, without significant changes to previous Clinton military budgets, the proposed Bush military budget will be full of programs that waste dollars and support political boondoggles. Bush should take a serious look at the following weapons designed to fight the disbanded Soviet Union:
- V-22 Osprey: The $80 million tilt-rotor troop transporter is on the verge of production despite allegations of fraud and Pentagon reports detailing a host of problems. Meanwhile, the Marines, for whom the aircraft was developed, have not been engaged in an amphibious assault since the Korean War in the 1950’s.
- F-22: This fighter jet, costing $180 million per plane, was designed to fight next-generation Soviet planes that never were built. Its limited range requires forward basing, which Pentagon policy is trying to avoid.
- UAV. Furthermore, a stated Bush priority is the development of unmanned aerial vehicles that will eventually replace pilot controlled aircraft.
- Crusader Mobile Howitzer: Weighing 90 tons, the Crusader simply does not fit into Army plans for a rapidly deployable force. By the time the Crusader is ready for use in 2008, artillery power may be obsolete.
- Aircraft Carriers: At $5 billion each, not including costs for the protective fleet, carriers are an expensive means to promote forward presence. Improvements in long range aircraft and missile capabilities will reduce the need for forward positioning by carrier.
- Nuclear Attack Submarines: With 56 modern attack submarines already in its arsenal, the Navy has more than enough firepower to conduct its missions. It does not need new $2 billion Virginia-class subs specially designed to hunt down Russian subs, which rarely leave their bases.
Perhaps the most outdated Pentagon program is its preparation for what the congressionally appointed National Defense Panel called “the unlikely contingency that two major wars will break out at once.” The cost of the artificial requirements needed to meet this obsolete strategy diverts resources from readiness problems and budget shortfalls.
Moreover, these requirements prevent the Pentagon from adequately preparing for the more likely contingencies of small scale regional conflicts, urban warfare, and peacekeeping activities.
As Bush said on the campaign trail, our relative peace grants us a window of opportunity for real change in the Pentagon. The Bush Administration should take a hard look at antiquated weapons and strategies to bring them in line with U.S. military requirements for the foreseeable future.
Jerome Grossman is the Chairman of Council for a Livable World.
RSS Feed