An overhaul of the US nuclear enterprise

Published: December 1, 2014
Email
The writer has a master’s degree in conflict-resolution from the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California and blogs at http://coffeeshopdiplomat.wordpress.com

The writer has a master’s degree in conflict-resolution from the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California and blogs at http://coffeeshopdiplomat.wordpress.com

The former US Defence Secretary, Chuck Hagel, ordered an overhaul of the American nuclear weapons programme, referred to as the US Nuclear Enterprise by the Pentagon. A review of the nuclear force revealed numerous glaring issues with mismanagement and security breaches which kicked off a string of firings, demotions, and other disciplinary actions within the air force.

This all may sound familiar since, earlier this year, the US Navy was hit with similar charges. The navy operates the nuclear-armed submarine fleet and it was found to have carried on a nuclear reactor exam cheating ring, which spanned a period of seven years. In a press conference Hagel stated, “We’ve taken our eye off the ball”. Some of the evidence presented in the review included the sharing of a wrench between all three intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) bases in North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming. Maintenance crews at these bases had access to only one tool set and shared it via the mail. Even though this tool was originally used for the now-defunct peacekeeper missile, it was required recently during the upgrade of the Minuteman III’s weapon system. Hagel reported that each base now has a tool set of its own and will have two in the future.

Secretary Hagel stated that micro-management and over-inspection were some of the main culprits, along with lack of communication and accountability up the chain of command in the nuclear force. The micro-management and over-inspection mainly occurred due to perhaps the worst nuclear scandal in recent history. In 2007, half a dozen nuclear missiles were lost track of for more than a day after being mistakenly loaded onto a plane at Minot Air Force Base and subsequently flown across the country.

The ensuing review concluded that the structure of the US nuclear forces is incoherent and overburdened by the administrative process. It also stated that the programme faces numerous challenges as a result of understaffing and lack of resources. Some of the key steps taken by Hagel to address these issues include posting a four-star general in charge of the nuclear forces, a position currently held by a three-star general. Hagel had mentioned the need for the Pentagon to increase the budget of the nuclear forces by 10 per cent over the next five years from $15 billion to $16 billion. It is unclear how Hagel’s departure will affect this request, especially at a time when the current administration is planning on modernising strategic weapons over the next decade, which is estimated to cost around $355 billion.

While a review was welcomed by some, as it brought fresh attention to the nuclear forces, others were critical of the decision. The biggest concern was with spending more money on Cold War-era atomic weapons. Hans Kristensen, a nuclear expert with the Federation of American Scientists, stated that “throwing money after problems may fix some technical issues but it is unlikely to resolve the dissolution that must come from sitting in a silo hole in the Midwest with missiles on high alert to respond to a nuclear attack that is unlikely to ever come”. This quote sums up the consensus amongst experts that no amount of money will solve the US ICBM’s main problem of being a thing of the past. The sense is that these weapons will never be used and the unlikely scenario in which they are used is even more discouraging to those charged with the programme’s upkeep.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 1st, 2014.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

 

Facebook Conversations

Reader Comments (12)

  • Shouvik Mukherjee
    Dec 1, 2014 - 12:49AM

    Surely Ms Khan, Does Pakistan have nothing more important to worry about than the US nuclear assets post Chuck Hagel?

    Recommend

  • MSS
    Dec 1, 2014 - 3:45AM

    What exactly is the relevance of this information for Pakistan may one ask?

    Recommend

  • Sexton Blake
    Dec 1, 2014 - 4:59AM

    @Shouvik Mukherjee:
    Yes, Pakistan has a lot to worry about. I could explain it, but then ET may not print it. They do not like putdowns of the US/Pakistan military duo.

    Recommend

  • David Salmon
    Dec 1, 2014 - 6:18AM

    Nuclear war may be unthinkable between two foes armed with nuclear weapons, but without them security would reside in the number of tanks or troops each country has. The possession of nuclear weapons is a great equalizer. The number needed to produce unthinkability in a foe is guesswork. The US used to maintain two nuclear weapons for every one possessed by others, but has gradually reduced that ratio in nuclear weapon reduction agreements with Russia. Unfortunately, Russia has not agreed to a further reduction.

    Recommend

  • numbersnumbers
    Dec 1, 2014 - 6:33AM

    Curious that nowhere in this article does the author consider Pakistan’s desire for another hundred or so nuclear weapons, along with delivery vehicles, to also be folly since “they can never be used”!!!!

    Recommend

  • ObserverUSA
    Dec 1, 2014 - 7:44AM

    @Shouvik Mukherjee:
    What goes on in the defense establishment of the US directly or indirectly affects the World, including India and Pakistan. If Uncle Sam sneezes, the whole world shakes. Get yourself a better perspective how ostensibly small developments in US politics and defense affairs affects other nations.

    Recommend

  • Milind
    Dec 1, 2014 - 1:06PM

    “In 2007, half a dozen nuclear missiles were lost track of for more than a day after being mistakenly loaded onto a plane at Minot Air Force Base and subsequently flown across the country.”

    I know that’s frightful… You can now imagine, how the world is scared of Pakistan’s nukes falling in the hands of its strategic assets… Its better if U.S. (or India) takes control of Pakistan’s nukes for safety of the region…

    Recommend

  • vinsin
    Dec 1, 2014 - 1:20PM

    @ObserverUSA:
    Agree but not the issue of nuclear weapons. If you think so then please let us know how this news affects India and Pakistan.

    @David Salmon:
    Not true, even at its peck US had less nuclear weapons that USSR. Even though 90% of Nuclear arsenal are destroyed, Russia is reluctant to make it 98%.

    Recommend

  • M Ali Khan
    Dec 1, 2014 - 9:46PM

    @Milind:
    US and India have enough trouble maintaining security of their own nuclear facilities and weapons, and you talk of Pakistan handing its arsenal to them? Get real, mate!

    Recommend

  • Dec 2, 2014 - 1:06AM

    @Milind:
    Something is very wrong with you.
    You should see a psychiatrist. Maybe
    it might help. You are bi-polar, medications
    will help. Must include psychotherapy. All
    very expensive.

    Recommend

  • shouvik mukherjee
    Dec 2, 2014 - 2:23AM

    @ObserverUSA:
    So why don’t enlighten me (and a few others as well) as to how Pakistan would be effected by “An overhaul of the US nuclear enterprise” ?

    Recommend

  • Asim
    Dec 26, 2014 - 1:35PM

    @Milind Mr. funny you want the nukes. Ok we will give them to you. Just tell us where you want them delivered to your country.

    Recommend

More in Opinion