In reference to the cuts, former Senator Dorgan said: “Terrorist groups are working overtime to acquire nuclear weapons with which to terrorize the world. Our country needs to show leadership in preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons. Cutting federal spending now on the nuclear non-proliferation programs would be a very dangerous mistake.”
Misplaced Priorities: Nuclear Weapons Funded on the Back of Key Non-Proliferation Programs
“Threat reduction should not be the bill payer for weapons modernization. This request craters non-proliferation programs that keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists,” said John Isaacs, executive director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. “We should prioritize such programs that actively enhance national security instead of over budget, unrealistic and behind schedule nuclear weapons programs.”
Military Experts Respond to Sec. Hagel’s FY15 Budget Preview
“Dollars spent is not the measure of merit for our security any more than it is for our health care system,” said Col. (USAF ret.) Richard Klass. “The measure of merit is whether our spending matches our strategy and the current and future threats. Clearly there are reductions, such as outmoded nuclear systems and unneeded bases, whose reduction would increase our security by strengthening our fiscal integrity.”
Center Releases In-Depth Study of the Conference Version of the FY2013 NDAA
“While the NDAA covers a broad spectrum of national security issues, the House version raised some serious concern for the future of nuclear weapons and non-proliferation programs,” said John Isaacs, Executive Director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. “Fortunately, the conferees watered down or eliminated many of the objectionable nuclear provisions including limitations on the implementation of the New START treaty.”
Strategy, Not Cold War Ideology, Should Guide Conferees on Defense Bill
“The Republican leadership seems stuck in the Cold War, authorizing hundreds of million on nuclear weapons and missile defense programs that military leaders did not request,” said Reif. “Pentagon spending should be driven by strategic need and affordability.”
