By Frank Gaffney Jr. ——Bio and Archives--January 25, 2010
American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
"... As we work to reduce nuclear weaponry and to realize the vision of a world without nuclear weapons, we recognize the necessity to maintain the safety, security and reliability of our own weapons. They need to be safe so they do not detonate unintentionally; secure so they cannot be used by an unauthorized party; and reliable so they can continue to provide the deterrent we need so long as other countries have these weapons. This is a solemn responsibility, given the extreme consequences of potential failure on any one of these counts."Bill Perry and his friends go on to warn that, "There are potential problems ahead, as identified by the Strategic Posture Commission led by former Defense Secretaries Perry and James R. Schlesinger." They then declare that, "This commission, which submitted its report to Congress last year, calls for significant investments in a repaired and modernized nuclear weapons infrastructure and added resources for the three national laboratories." Commendable as these cautionary notes are - especially coming as they do from erstwhile cheerleaders for denuclearization, the Gang of Four chose (presumably deliberately) to neglect the fact that the deterrent's looming problems are not just with the nuclear "infrastructure" and national weapons laboratories. The arsenal that the weapons complex and laboratories support is comprised of increasingly obsolescent arms and their delivery platforms. They were tailored to meet the strategic requirements of a very different environment (namely, the Cold War-era Soviet threat). They have long since outlived their design life and for at least 18 years none of them has been tested in an operationally realistic way (that is, with an underground nuclear detonation). A failure urgently to redress these deficiencies would translate into unilateral nuclear disarmament, something not favored by either the Strategic Posture Commission or, for that matter, Ronald Reagan. Indeed, the Perry-Schlesinger panel noted that such "modernization is essential to the nonproliferation benefits derived from the extended deterrent." In other words, if we want to discourage allies from developing their own nuclear arsenals, we must reassure them that we are taking care of ours. That will require not just technologically problematic "service life-extension" programs for aging weapons. It will require new warheads and bombs that are as safe, reliable and effective as we can make them. This happens also to be the stated view of forty-one United States Senators who warned President Obama in writing last month not to bring forward his START follow-on treaty without such a comprehensive - and funded - modernization program. Presumably, that view is also shared by Massachusetts' just-elected Senator, Scott Brown, as well. Without the votes of at least eight of these legislators, the new accord with Russia will be dead on arrival. Will Mr. Obama risk that outcome, and worse?
View Comments
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is the President of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for the Washington Times.