CCDS FORUM & DISCUSSION BOARD

NAME: Mort Frank
EMAIL: lmfrank1@verizon.net
DATE: 01/15/2007

TITLE: Expensive and Lethal:
The Coming Reset of the Military Establishment

Mort Frank, Philadelphia

The Wall Street Journal of January 4th has carried a stunning article in which former high leaders of the cold war now call for the full elimination of nuclear weapons (1). Theirs is undoubtedly a minority view within the Establishment, but coming against the background of a recent unfortunate proposal by the Department of Energy for a major new nuclear weapons upgrade, their statement has a special significance. Called into question is "Complex 2030," the nuclear upgrade expected to cost up to $150 billion and engage the facilities of the nuclear weapons complex for decades. If Complex 2030 does get accomplished, the U.S. will acquire thousands of new, so-called Reliable Replacement Warheads (2).

Citing the nuclear programs of North Korea and Iran, the cold war graduates writing in the Wall Street Journal express concern that "the world is now on the precipice of a new and dangerous nuclear era." "Most alarmingly," they continue, "the likelihood that non-state terrorists will get their hands on nuclear weaponry is increasing." The authors continue with more reasons, reasons which have been valid for a very long time.

But why now? The former cold war leaders who sign the article include Henry Kissinger and several Hoover Institution fellows. Quite possibly, their call fits into a larger whole in which the president and new defense secretary, with bipartisan Congressional support, are calling for a cutback of cold war era weapons in order to finance a larger military that would be better capable of fighting insurgencies all over the world.

President Bush gave the order in mid-December, and Secretary Gates has already come up with a plan (3). It took him less than a month. The Army is to be permanently increased by 65,000 soldiers and the Marines by 27,000. They are to be armed with advanced conventional weapons intended for counterinsurgency (unmanned aerial vehicles, high speed sealift and the Future Combat Systems (4). As the New York Times has explained, the plan is to be financed at the expense of production and deployment of weapons of the cold war era (5).

Ever since the cold war ended, U.S. armed forces have been weighed down by weapons that the military finds inappropriate for the new period. (Though nuclear weapons had lost military utility, they were still considered useful for intimidation.)

Earlier efforts by presidents to discontinue the weapons of the cold war era have failed. During the half century in which the military-industrial-Congressional complex took shape, it sank deep roots into our economy. Thousands of corporations, hundreds of representatives in Congress and millions of their constituents have come to depend on it.

In 1990, in order to reduce a severe budget deficit, the older President Bush attempted to scale back cold war arms. The compromise he eventually reached with Congress, which proved to be short lived, provided for an annual cut of $170 billion from the military and $120 billion from benefit programs (6). As the effects of the budget agreement were felt, supporters of different weapons systems publicly battled one another in Congress (7).

When the younger President Bush came into office, he did even less well than his father. He gave his first major speech on military affairs in Norfolk, Virginia on Feb. 13, 2001, near the construction site of a huge aircraft carrier (8). The new president declared to assembled NATO diplomats, "we must prepare our nations against the dangers of a new era.... We're witnessing a revolution in the technology of war, powers increasingly defined ... by mobility and swiftness" and so on. Later on, the White House made it known that that huge carrier was in line for cancellation, prompting a roar of protest from a Republican Senator whose patronage was involved (9). The carrier was saved and Bush's plans were already on the skids.

With deep cuts in spending for cold war style weapons being unlikely, the country will be unable to sustain the new and expensive changes proposed by Bush and his new defense secretary unless there is a substantial increase in military spending.

Sooner or later these issues will come before Congress. Judging from conversations with individuals and a search of internet sites, it does not yet appear that left/liberal organizations, even peace organizations, are aware of the approaching problem. The time to develop a response is now.

---

Sources:

1. George P. Schultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn. "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons." The Wall Street Journal, Jan. 4, 2007, p. A15.



2. "Complex 2030: DOE's Misguided plan to Rebuild the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex." Union of Concerned Scientists, undated. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/complex-2030-does-misguided.html.



3. Ann Scott Tyson and Josh White. "Gates Urges Increase in Army, Marines." The Washington Post, Jan. 12, 2007, p. A14.



4. Kori Schake, "Jurassic Pork." The New York Times, Feb. 6, 2006, p. A27. High speed sealift in Schake's paper refers to the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (AAAV). See http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/aaav.htm for the AAAV. For the Future Combat Systems, see http://www.army.mil/fcs/articles/index.html.



5. "A Real-World Army" (editorial). The New York Times, Dec. 24, 2006, Week in Review, p. 7.



6. Susan Rasky. "ACCORD TO REDUCE SPENDING AND RAISE TAXES IS REACHED; MANY IN CONGRESS CRITICAL/Deadline Extended/New Estimate Increases the Deficit for 1991 by Over $60 Billion." The New York Times, Oct. 1, 1990, p. A1.



7. Clifford Krauss. "Political Rarity: 2 Lawmakers Bask in Thanks, Submarine Workers Cheer Dodd and Gejdenson's Efforts for the Seawolf." The New York Times, May 9, 1992, p. 29.



8. Remarks by the President to the Troops and Personnel, Norfolk Naval Air Station, Norfolk, Virginia on February 13, 2001. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/print20010213-1.html.



9. James Dao. "Bush Giving New Life to Old Ideas About Possible Changes at the Pentagon." The New York Times, March 25, 2001, p. 20.

If you would like to respond to this article click here: Discussion Board

HOME ABOUT DONATE JOIN CONTACT US PUBLICATIONS CCDS STATEMENTS EMAIL US