Dear Editor,
The
Laboratory, a facility leading the development of the so-called Reliable
Replacement Warhead or RRW, the first new hydrogen bomb designed by the
in 20 years.
Students and faculty at the university therefore have a
unique role to play in actively questioning this misguided U.S. nuclear weapons
policy and UC system’s involvement in its implementation.
The Cold War is over and the threat of an all-out nuclear
war with Russia has greatly diminished. Despite the fact that the United States
still has nearly 10,000 nuclear warheads, the Bush administration argues that
new nuclear weapons are needed to ensure “long-term confidence in the future
stockpile.” The administration’s original argument was that plutonium pits, the
cores of existing nuclear weapons, were aging and becoming “unreliable” — thus
explaining the catchy nickname.
This argument is misleading, and ignores recent scientific
findings. A 2006 JASON report, a pre-eminent nuclear advisory group established
by members of the World War II-era Manhattan Project, found that plutonium pits
safely and reliably function for at least 90 years — over twice what had been
estimated previously. Given the age of the oldest existing nuclear weapons in
our stockpile, the U.S. nuclear deterrent is therefore guaranteed for at least
another 50 years.
Other factors negate the need for new nuclear weapons. The
safety and reliability of existing nuclear weapons is certified annually and
closely monitored under life-extension programs using computer-generated
models. The weapons’ reliability is also based on more than 1,000 tests.
A resumption of nuclear testing would violate the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, a mainstay of the nonproliferation regime, which
the United States already signed. Developing new nuclear weapons would signal
to the world that the United States, despite its overwhelming conventional
military superiority, believes it necessary to upgrade its nuclear arsenal.
A recent study prepared for the Department of Defense
observed, “The world sees us as shifting from nuclear weapons for deterrence
and as a weapon of last resort to nuclear weapons for war fighting and first
use.” This perception gives emerging world powers like China another reason to
feel threatened by the United States and may embolden aspiring powers to seek
their own homegrown nuclear weapons.
Developing new nuclear weapons undermines our diplomatic
leadership in stemming the spread of nuclear weapons by undermining our Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty commitments. Many states that gave up the right to
acquire these weapons have expressed concern that the United States is not
living up to its end of the bargain under the NPT to work toward the eventual
elimination of nuclear weapons.
Building new nuclear weapons will not make us safer. It will
do nothing to deter terrorists, and it will not improve our strategic
relationships with other countries. It will only undermine efforts to prevent
the spread of nuclear weapons, extend outdated Cold War-era thinking, shirk our
international commitments, waste a lot of money and threaten our long-term
security.
— Lt. Gen. Robert Gard
UCSD Lecturer and Senior Military Fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
Leonor Tomero
Director of Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Achraf Farraj
Warren College Student
