The United States and Russia remain on track to meet our\u00a0New Start Treaty obligations so that by 2018 the number of deployed American and Russian nuclear warheads will be at their lowest levels since the 1950s. Even as the United States maintains a safe, secure and effective nuclear arsenal to deter any adversary and ensure the security of our allies, I\u2019ve reduced the number and role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy. I also have ruled out developing new nuclear warheads and narrowed the contingencies under which the United States would ever use or threaten to use nuclear weapons.<\/em><\/p>\n At best, this claim distorts the reality of nuclear weapons in our time and probably in our children\u2019s time. \u00a0The truth is that the US and other nuclear-weapon states have failed to reduce nuclear arsenals to a bare minimum, reach agreement to confine and reduce the roughly 2,000 pounds of fissile materials now held worldwide, or find meaningful common ground on nuclear security issues.\u00a0 There remain more than 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world, more than 14,000 of them under US and Russian control.\u00a0 Just when we thought otherwise, nuclear winter is back in the news. Two specialists who were among the first to identify the nuclear winter phenomenon recently pointed out<\/a> that if war were to break out between India and Pakistan, use of just 100 of their combined 250 nuclear bombs would have catastrophic effects on global temperatures, the global food supply, and the ozone layer.\u00a0 In other words, a US-Russia nuclear war is not needed to produce nuclear winter worldwide.<\/p>\n Instead of working toward nuclear abolition<\/u>, as these two writers propose, we have the United States investing (contrary to Obama\u2019s statement) in a new nuclear weapon, the B-61-12, that will, according to its supporters, result in less radiation and fewer lives lost than existing nuclear weapons.\u00a0 At nearly $29 million apiece, and $11.5 billion in total program spending, it\u2019s the most expensive weapon in the US arsenal\u2014part of a $19 billion modernization of nuclear weapons in Obama\u2019s 2017 defense budget that also includes funding of two more nuclear submarines.\u00a0 To the president, this is a matter of \u201cstriking the proper balance\u201d between arms reductions and a \u201csafe and reliable\u201d nuclear stockpile.\u00a0 Some balance!<\/p>\n The B-61 is being presented as a more responsible force for deterrence. \u00a0Where?\u00a0 In Europe<\/a>, of all places, where the B-61 would upgrade some 200 nuclear weapons still stationed in Germany and elsewhere.\u00a0 The weapons will be available to theater commanders for use \u201cas a last resort.\u201d\u00a0 Such thinking takes us all the way back to the Eisenhower years, when nuclear weapons were considered to represent \u201cmore bang for the buck\u201d and usable in warfare.\u00a0 I\u2019m also reminded of the rationale behind another \u201ceconomical\u201d weapon, the neutron bomb, which was supposed to leave buildings alone and merely \u201ctake out\u201d people.<\/p>\n The Obama administration has also missed opportunities<\/a> to reduce the proliferation danger presented by highly enriched uranium. \u00a0To be sure, since 2009 several countries have entirely given up their civilian<\/em> HEU, starting with Ukraine; and the nuclear deal with Iran is praiseworthy indeed.\u00a0 Moreover, the number of countries with bomb-capable nuclear fuel has dropped from 52<\/a> in 1991 to 25 in 2014.\u00a0 But even as some countries have upgraded their nuclear security, the possibility of theft by a terror group remains strong\u2014witness Belgium, which was praised in the above report for improving nuclear security, only to have a few nuclear plant workers defect to ISIS, raising the risk of vulnerability.<\/p>\n In keeping with the double standard that often appears in discussion of nuclear weapons, the US is reportedly disturbed about Pakistan\u2019s development of small nuclear weapons\u2014as though US weapons such as the B-61 are under perfect control.\u00a0 US safeguards are in fact suspect, as reports come in throughout the year of loose surveillance at power plants.\u00a0 A \u201c60 Minutes\u201d program that aired on July 13, 2014 found several deficiencies on nuclear safety following a reporter\u2019s visit to an underground missile site.\u00a0 Even the telephones don\u2019t work properly, the soldiers said; it\u2019s hard to hear commands.\u00a0 Alcoholism, cheating on tests, and psychological problems among military personnel have been uncovered at several US nuclear bases.\u00a0 The Associated Press documented these since 2013; the incidents, which probably represent only a portion of the actual number, have led to the removal of officers and men\u2014the most recent just last month<\/a> at a base in Wyoming where fourteen airmen came under investigation for drug abuse.<\/p>\n There are many dimensions of the nuclear danger: the possibility of accidents, the potential for miscalculation in \u201cthe fog of war,\u201d the reliance on hair-trigger alert status, the excessive numbers, and the ongoing refinements of the weapons to make them ever more accurate, reliable, and invulnerable.\u00a0 In July 1961, just several months into his presidency, John F. Kennedy received his first briefing on nuclear weapons.\u00a0 It described the likely consequences of a Soviet preemptive strike on the US, followed by a US retaliatory strike.\u00a0 Tens of millions of people would be killed instantly and then by radiation, Kennedy was told.\u00a0 He turned to his secretary of state, Dean Rusk, and said<\/a>: \u201cAnd we call ourselves the human race.\u201d<\/p>\n Every US president in the nuclear era has found, on assuming office, that a nuclear-weapon exchange would be inconceivably horrific. Yet all of them wound up adding to the weapon arsenal, if not in numbers then in refinements of targeting, weapons capabilities, and deployment.<\/p>\n Nothing quite explains as well as the concept of the military-industrial complex why presidents have been unable to reverse these trends.\u00a0 The B-61 has actually been around since the 1960s, and has survived by being constantly adapted to replace retired nuclear weapons.\u00a0 Since 2002 the Pentagon has argued the need for revitalizing the US nuclear weapons program, and now, as Joe Cirincione of the Ploughshares Fund reports<\/a>, \u201cThe Obama administration is planning to spend\u00a0over $1 trillion in the next 30 years on an entire new generation of nuclear bombs, bombers, missiles and submarines to replace those built during the Reagan years.\u201d\u00a0 Not only does this planning give new life to the B-61; it also provides for a new generation of strategic bombers, cruise missiles, and submarines, all armed with nuclear weapons.\u00a0 The Russians, of course, are not standing still either: among the new nuclear weapons in their plans is a hydrogen bomb torpedo!\u00a0 So much for the end of the Cold War.<\/p>\n The President spoke in 2009 of the country\u2019s \u201cmoral responsibility\u201d to work for a nuclear-free world, but evidently that is no match for the military-industrial complex\u2019s bureaucratic mission to keep developing new nuclear weapons, even if they meet no plausible strategic need.<\/p>\n By the number:<\/strong><\/p>\n RUSSIA\u00a07,300 |\u00a0Download report<\/a><\/p>\n USA\u00a06,970 |\u00a0Download report<\/a><\/p>\n FRANCE\u00a0300 |\u00a0Download report<\/a><\/p>\n CHINA\u00a0260 |\u00a0Download report<\/a><\/p>\n UK\u00a0215 |\u00a0Download report<\/a><\/p>\n PAKISTAN\u00a0130 |\u00a0Download report<\/a><\/p>\n INDIA\u00a0120 |\u00a0Download report<\/a><\/p>\n ISRAEL\u00a080 |\u00a0Download report<\/a><\/p>\n NORTH KOREA\u00a0< 15<\/p>\n RUSSIA\u00a07,300 |\u00a0Download report<\/a><\/p>\n USA\u00a06,970 |\u00a0Download report<\/a><\/p>\n FRANCE\u00a0300 |\u00a0Download report<\/a><\/p>\n CHINA\u00a0260 |\u00a0Download report<\/a><\/p>\n UK\u00a0215 |\u00a0Download report<\/a><\/p>\n PAKISTAN\u00a0130 |\u00a0Download report<\/a><\/p>\n INDIA\u00a0120 |\u00a0Download report<\/a><\/p>\n ISRAEL\u00a080 |\u00a0Download report<\/a><\/p>\n NORTH KOREA\u00a0< 15<\/p>\n _______________________________________________<\/p>\n Mel Gurtov, syndicated by <\/em>PeaceVoice<\/em><\/a>, is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Portland State University and blogs at <\/em>In the Human Interest<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Mel Gurtov has been a nuclear analyst since his early days for the RAND corporation when he and Daniel Ellsberg worked together. Dr. Gurtov’s expertise–and anyone who studies these issues in depth–was affronted by President Obama’s patently false claims in his recent op-ed message in the Washington Post.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[68],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-71837","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-weapons-of-mass-destruction"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71837","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=71837"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71837\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=71837"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=71837"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=71837"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}<\/a><\/p>\n