by Kingston Reif and Usha Sahay Outside of Congress, there is a strong consensus among security experts of both parties that the U.S. arsenal of approximately 5,000 nuclear weapons, deployed and in storage, greatly exceeds American security requirements. Inside of Congress, however, nuclear weapons have been subject to the same grinding partisanship as most important policy […]
Infographic Explaining Nuclear Deal with Iran
A graphic summary of the P5+1 deal with Iran
China’s Nuclear Weapons – Tempering Fears with a Dose of Reality
Several reports about China’s nuclear weapons program have come out in the past few weeks, and they are causing imaginations to run wild and some fears to grow beyond the realm of reality. The fact is that China has indeed been modernizing its arsenal, but it is important to put this modernization in perspective and to not overstate the Chinese nuclear threat.
The primary source of the panic is a map supposedly detailing Chinese nuclear attack plans in the event of conflict that would leave 5 to 12 million Americans dead. This “plan” and the map have made their rounds on many major news sites. Fortunately, a little detective work by the Federation of American Scientist’s Hans Kristensen has revealed that the map wasn’t even produced by the Chinese government. Instead, it seems to have been part of a slideshow posted on a military technology website unaffiliated with the Chinese government.
The map was released around the same time that the Chinese government unveiled details about their development of a small fleet of ballistic missile submarines. These details caused even more dramatic stories about how these submarines could attack U.S. cities with JL-2 submarine launched ballistic missiles. Aside from the fact that no Jin-class submarines have ever sailed on deterrent patrols, there are several major technical problems that prevent this from being reality.
First, according to Hans Kristensen and Robert Norris, the current fleet of three Jin-class subs is not currently armed with nuclear weapons because China’s Central Military Commission forbids the mounting of warheads on missiles unless they are about to be used (this doctrine has, so far, extended to submarine launched ballistic missiles as well). This means the submarines leave port with no ability to fulfill their purpose as a deterrent. Second, China’s submarine fleet is incredibly loud and easy to track. The Jin-class is reported to be louder than Soviet submarines that were built 30 years ago. Third, the JL-2 missile only has a range of about 7,200 km. If the missiles were actually armed with warheads; they would be able to threaten U.S. bases in the region but would be unable to reach any major U.S. cities. To even target Washington, D.C., the submarine would have to sail almost to Hawaii without detection. Navy Admiral Jonathan Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations, has summed up these shortcomings quite effectively: “For a submarine-launched ballistic missile to be effective it has to be accurate, and you have to be stealthy and survivable and I’ll leave it at that.”
China is also expanding its arsenal of land based ballistic missiles; however, some of this expansion is temporary as certain systems are being developed to replace older missiles like the DF-3A and DF-4 which were deployed in the 1970s and 80s, respectively. Even with the 2007 unveiling of the DF-31A, which has a range of 11,000 km and the under-development DF-41, which has a range of 13,000 km, China will only have around 50 (out of about 240-300 total) land based missiles capable of reaching the continental United States. The usefulness of these missiles, however, is limited because firing them at the U.S. would mean firing the missile over Russian territory, which could provoke a nuclear response from Russia.
The modernization of nuclear weapons by a foreign power is rightfully bound to cause some concern; however, much of the media reporting has painted the picture of a possible doomsday scenario that could happen today or tomorrow, and this is simply not the case. As Gregory Kulacki has noted, “under the counting rules of the New Start agreement between the United States and Russia, the size of China’s nuclear arsenal would officially be counted as zero. This is because the several hundred warheads China is believed to possess are not mated to the missiles that can deliver them, but are kept in storage, like the several thousand warheads the United States and Russia each hold in reserve in addition to the 1,550 each of the two nuclear superpowers are allowed to deploy under the treaty.”
It is also important to remember that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is more than enough to deter any actual attacks from China against the U.S. homeland, forward deployed U.S. troops, and U.S. allies. The United States has almost 2,000 warheads mounted on missiles that can reach China compared to the 45-50 warheads that can reach the United States, and this fact is well known by the Chinese government.
In other words, it is by no means time to bring back the nuclear attack drills taught in American schools during the Cold War, nor is it necessary to consider expanding our own nuclear program because of China.
Sen. Feinstein on nuclear strategy, the "3+2" strategy, B61 LEP, and more
On November 15, the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation and Women’s Actions for New Directions (WAND) hosted an event on Capitol Hill titled “The Next Steps in Nuclear Risk Reduction: U.S. Policy and Spending Options in an Age of Austerity”.
The event featured introductory remarks by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Congressman Mike Quigley (D- IL). Sen. Feinstein is Chair of the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee and Rep. Quigly is a member of the House Appropriations Committee. The event also featured an expert panel consisting of our Lt. Gen. Robert Gard (USA, ret), Steve Pifer of the Brookings Institution, and Amy Woolf of the Congressional Research Service.
You can read more about the event here. Sen. Feinstein’s opening remarks are pasted below. Some highlights include:
- “Let me begin by saying I agree with our nation’s military leaders—the U.S. has too many nuclear weapons and more can be done to reduce the size of our nuclear arsenal.”
- “Thousands of weapons remain part of the “hedge.” For every deployed weapon, there will soon be four in the hedge, which means if 1,000 warheads are deployed, 4,000 will be available in a reserve capacity.”
- “The promise of the 3+2 plan was to provide a smaller stockpile in exchange for a larger investment. However, when the plan is examined, there is no decrease in the number of warheads.”
- “My most immediate concern is with the life extension of the B61 gravity bomb. I am concerned the B61 life-extension program is unaffordable at $10 billion and a more narrow scope of work would safely extend its life while meeting military requirements.”
- “Finally, I would like to highlight a worrying trend. Modernizing the nuclear weapons stockpile has come at the expense of nonproliferation activities.”
- “Since nuclear forces are larger than needed for current military missions, it is time to think more creatively about how to maintain a much smaller nuclear deterrent at an affordable cost.”
Introductory Remarks, Nuclear Weapons Panel Discussion Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, November 13, 2013
Good morning. I would like to thank Lt. Gen. Robert Gard and Kingston Reif from the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation for inviting me to speak today.
I applaud your efforts in educating members of Congress, their staff, and the public about nuclear weapons issues.
I believe today’s panel discussion—led by Steve Pifer from Brookings and Amy Woolf from CRS—is an important part of an ongoing debate about the future of nuclear weapons policy.
Nuclear Weapons
Let me begin by saying I agree with our nation’s military leaders—the U.S. has too many nuclear weapons and more can be done to reduce the size of our nuclear arsenal.
America’s arsenal consists of about 5,000 nuclear weapons, and most are far more destructive than the one that destroyed Hiroshima.
What remains unclear is how these weapons will help solve 21st century national security threats such as terrorism, cyber attacks or global warming.
There have been some positive steps in the last few years. In December 2010, I voted for the New START Treaty, which limits actively deployed weapons to 1,550. I also support the president’s new nuclear employment strategy to further reduce the deployed strategic stockpile to about 1,000 weapons.
However, these efforts are not designed to reduce the total size of the stockpile.
Thousands of weapons remain part of the “hedge.” For every deployed weapon, there will soon be four in the hedge, which means if 1,000 warheads are deployed, 4,000 will be available in a reserve capacity.
In order to determine if such a large hedge is necessary, we direct the JASON group of scientific advisers in the FY2014 Energy and Water bill to assess the need for such a large hedge.
The question we asked the JASON group is whether NNSA is holding onto more weapons than is really necessary. The result should clarify this debate once and for all.
This year, NNSA rolled out an ambitious new plan, known as “3+2,” a 25-year plan to reduce warhead types from seven to five.
While I support reductions to the stockpile and the savings that come with it, the 3+2 plan requires spending tens of billions of dollars more on life extension programs as well as increasing technical risks such as design changes. These costs all come with little benefit.
The promise of the 3+2 plan was to provide a smaller stockpile in exchange for a larger investment. However, when the plan is examined, there is no decrease in the number of warheads.
In addition, sequestration, shrinking budgets and NNSA’s long history of cost overruns and schedule delays raise serious concerns about NNSA’s ability to execute this mission.
For example, the current plan shows 5 out of 7 weapon systems, or 70% of the stockpile, undergoing a life-extension program or major repair, all at the same time. Each of these life extension programs will cost billions of dollars.
Even more worrisome is that NNSA has not executed even one life extension program on time and on budget. There is no reason to believe it can handle five at once.
Bottom line: Work on life extension programs could crowd out all other investments needed to assess the safety, security and reliability of the current stockpile and address aging infrastructure.
B61
My most immediate concern is with the life extension of the B61 gravity bomb. I am concerned the B61 life-extension program is unaffordable at $10 billion and a more narrow scope of work would safely extend its life while meeting military requirements.
The administration has said it is serious about making “bold reductions” to our tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. That would mean reductions of the B61, since it is the only tactical nuclear weapon in Europe. There is a serious question as to whether the B61 is needed in Europe at all.
Further, one of the main justifications for consolidating the different variants of the B61 is to retire the B83—a megaton weapon. However, we have not seen an official document from the Nuclear Weapons Council that commits to retiring and dismantling the B83 in exchange for the refurbished B61. I’ll believe that when I see it.
Nonproliferation
Finally, I would like to highlight a worrying trend. Modernizing the nuclear weapons stockpile has come at the expense of nonproliferation activities.
Last week, NNSA removed the last remaining weapons-usable, highly enriched uranium from Hungary. Hungary is 12th country to have its highly enriched uranium removed since the president’s April 2009 Prague speech, which set a 4 year goal to remove the most vulnerable nuclear materials from around the world.
The cost of cleaning out these 12 countries was $320 million. That is less than funding a single year of the B61 life-extension program, but with far greater national security benefits and far greater cost-benefit.
The success of the program helped bring attention to the dangers of loose nuclear materials around the world and accelerated efforts to secure the material. The world is more secure because another 1,500 kilograms of fissile material no longer poses a threat.
However, more work remains.
More than 2,700 kilograms of highly enriched uranium is sitting in a handful of countries. 400 kilograms of plutonium, or about 50 weapons worth, remains at risk. And more than 100 reactors still need to be converted to low-enriched uranium.
Further, thousands of unused radiological sources in the United States are not secured and could be used for dirty bombs. Consider the tragedy at the Boston Marathon. What if the explosive devices had contained radioactive material stolen from a hospital?
I am very disappointed in the administration’s budget request. Rather than accelerate efforts to secure and remove these materials, the fiscal year 2014 budget request made significant cuts to nuclear and radiological non-proliferation programs, including $13 million in cuts to domestic radiological programs.
And, the budget request abandons the goal of securing 8,500 storage sites by 2025. Instead, it delays completion of these activities until 2044.
Given the low cost and high risks to national security, our committee restored this funding in the fiscal year 2014 budget.
Conclusion
In conclusion, let me say this: The Cold War is over and the superiority of U.S. conventional weapons is unquestioned. The risks of maintaining a large nuclear arsenal far outweigh the national security benefits. Large quantities of nuclear material continue to pose a proliferation risk as nonstate actors are still determined to acquire these materials for nuclear devices.
Since nuclear forces are larger than needed for current military missions, it is time to think more creatively about how to maintain a much smaller nuclear deterrent at an affordable cost.
I hope the panel today will help further that creative thinking.
What is Scarier Than Ghost, Goblins & Witches? Nukes!
Witches, ghosts and goblins haunt the stories and movies that we watch this time of week. However, if you truly want to be afraid, it’s worth remembering that terrifying weapons with the power to destroy our planet haunt humankind every day.
Today, there are an estimated 17,000+ nuclear weapons in the world, each of which is larger than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in seconds. Pakistan and India continue to develop and grow their nuclear arsenals, while North Korea may be preparing a new nuclear explosive test.
Meanwhile, some in Congress are failing to allow breathing room for diplomacy with Iran, which is our best hope to prevent a war that would make Iraq seem like a skirmish – a truly horrifying outcome. Recent research by the Center found the current sanctions regime to be effective and a need for Congressional patience in allowing their leverage to take hold.
But like all great Halloween stories, there is some hope to be had. In 2009, the number of nuclear weapons that could instantly be targeted at a U.S. or Russian city was reduced by the thousands. “The Center continues to educate Congress and the general public about opportunities to ensure national security while eliminating overly dangerous, extremely expensive and outdated weapons systems,” said executive director, John Isaacs. Yet the number that could be instantly targeted at the U.S. remains at 1,550 which is more haunting than The Conjuring.
In our modern time, it is not only countries with nuclear weapons that should be concerning but also the potential for a terrorist organization to gain access to these weapons and materials.
As in any great horror movie, the hero must act to prevent terrible things from happening. To do that, the U.S. in 2004 launched the Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI), which has successfully rid ten countries of their dangerous nuclear materials. However, like Death’s scythe, budget cuts have come to target the program, slashing millions from one of the most effective nuclear non-proliferation programs in decades.
While effective programs come under the pendulum in Edgar Allen Poe’s imaginary pit, billions are wasted every year on defense programs that do not enhance national security.
As Center chairman and former president of National Defense University, Lt. General (USA ret.) Robert Gard argues in an OpEd for The Hill, “Many years of pouring money from federal coffers into unnecessary defense programs has not increased security. It has, rather, contributed significantly to our federal deficit and retarded the current economic recovery; and we must not permit the military-industrial-Congressional complex to continue pushing us down this path.”
So, tonight as you watch Dracula, Frankenstein or Jason, it is important to remember that some scary things cannot be packed up and put in the attic until next year.
