Navy using Sleight of Hand to Pay for New Trident

Some US lawmakers are calling for for the Navy's OHIO Class ballistic missile submarine replacement program, a nearly $100 billion program, to be funded outside of the service's shipbuilding budget because "the vessels are a national strategic asset." One of them, U.S. Representative Joe Courtney (D-
Conn.) represents General Dynamics Electric Boat, which stands to reap large profits from the production of the SSBN(X) at its shipyard in Groton, Connecticut.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said earlier this year, "I think this is a debate that, between now and 2019, which is now inside the five-year defense budget, that we need to have because we need to build these [submarines]. ... If the money to build these comes out of Navy shipbuilding, comes out of procurement, it will take at least half, every year, of all our shipbuilding dollars."

And now, lawmakers are pushing hard to ensure that the SSBN(X) does not take a funding hit; they are pushing for full funding, no matter where they have to get it. Should 100 percent of the funding have to come out of the Navy's shipbuilding budget, as it should, then the project will face much greater scrutiny, and that is something the Navy and the lawmakers whose corporate benefactors who stand to gain from it do not want.

But then again, still, no one is asking the real questions that should be asked about the SSBN(X) program. Why should the US build a replacement for a Cold War nuclear weapons system that is no longer relevant in this post-Cold War world.  No one is challenging the doctrine of "strategic nuclear deterrence" and its relevance in this rapidly changing new world order.

At any rate, the following article, written last September is very relevant to the news about the newest call for alternative funding for the SSBN(X).  The article refers to the Navy using "slight-of-hand" to pay for the SSBN(X).  It's an appropriate term since no matter how one looks at the new SSBN(X), it's all hocus pocus.

*********************

Navy Tries a Budget Sleight-of-Hand to Pay for Ballistic Missile Submarines

by Kingston Reif

September 24, 2013

The budget busting Ohio class submarine replacement program is fast becoming a roaring migraine headache for the US Navy. In an attempt to skirt the pain caused by the program's enormous price tag, estimated to be over $100 billion, the Navy and its supporters in Congress are insisting that the program be exempt from normal budget procedures and protected from tough competition within the Navy budget.

Earlier this month the head of the US submarine force asked Congress for $60 billion in supplemental funding – meaning outside the regular Navy shipbuilding budget -- over 15 years to pay for the new nuclear ballistic missile submarine program.

But this ploy merely provides the illusion of pain relief; the bills will be paid out of someone else’s budget. The Pentagon faces tough budget choices in a constrained fiscal environment. An end run around those budget choices by creating a special fund obscures the hard choices that need to be made between nuclear weapons and other defense programs in a time of budget austerity.

Sticker shock

The problem facing the Navy is that the financial and opportunity costs of the Ohio class replacement program, which would replace the existing fleet of 14 Ohio class nuclear ballistic missile submarines with a fleet of 12 new SSBN(X) submarines, are staggering. A March 2013 GAO report stated that the estimated cost to design and build 12 SSBN(X)s is $93.1 billion. A 2012 CBO report put the cost north of $100 billion.

The new submarines are slated to put so much strain on the Navy’s shipbuilding budget that the service is at a loss to explain how it will be able to afford it.

Last year, in large part as a cost saving measure in the aftermath of the passage of the Budget Control Act, the Navy delayed the procurement of the first boat by two years from 2019 to 2021. Yet while the delay saves money in the near term, it does not reduce the total cost of the program. The Navy is searching for additional savings, but even if it is successful, a big if, Ohio replacement is poised to tear a gaping hole in the Navy's shipbuilding budget during the 2020s and 2030s - resulting in a smaller than desired conventional Navy.

Budgetary gymnastics

Instead of considering changes to the scope of the Ohio replacement program or making tough choices among programs, the Navy and its submarine boosters in Congress are proposing to fund the procurement of SSBN(X)s outside the Navy's shipbuilding budget. This step would not be unprecedented: there are some activities within the Pentagon, such as most missile defense spending, which are viewed as national programs and not funded by the individual services.

Supporters of treating Ohio replacement in a similar fashion argue that the Navy shouldn't have to bear the entire cost of the program because strategic nuclear deterrence is not a Navy-specific mission but rather a national mission. They also argue that outside funding for the new submarines would protect funding for other Navy shipbuilding programs. Much to the chagrin of the Navy, however, the Pentagon leadership has repeatedly poured cold water on this idea, insisting that the SSBN(X) will be funded through the Navy shipbuilding budget.

Undeterred by these rebuffs, Rear Admiral Richard Breckenridge, the director of the Navy’s Undersea Warfare Division, recently put forth the most detailed defense to date of supplemental funding for the Ohio class replacement program. At a September 12 House Seapower subcommittee hearing, Breckenridge asked Congress for $60 billion in supplemental funding over 15 years from somewhere else in the Pentagon budget to help fund the construction of 12 SSBN(X)s. According to Breckenridge,

Just to try to give some examples to make this more germane, let's say we only are able to identify a $30 billion supplement or $2 billion a year over the 15-year period. If the Navy has to absorb that other $30 billion, we would be required to cut from our -- from our other general-purpose forces four attack submarines; four large surface combatants, DDGs; and another eight combatants.
Breckenridge went on to add that the country should give the program “insulation from the pressures of sequestration.” Navy leaders have stated that the service reprogrammed funding from elsewhere in its budget in FY 2013 to keep the Ohio replacement on schedule in the face of sequestration.

The Navy understands that it is in a zero-sum competition with the other services over a declining pot of resources and is banking on support for its SSBN(X) funding gambit from submarine supporters in Congress, particularly in key states where sub and shipbuilding spending is.. However, the Navy must also contend with Congressional supporters of the Army and Air Force, who will justifiably fear that money for the SSBN(X) will come from the budgets of their favorite programs.

Moreover, while Pentagon leaders have called for exempting nuclear weapons from sequestration, the Office of the Secretary of Defense is reportedly pushing back against Breckenridge’s proposal to fund the SSBN(X) outside the shipbuilding budget. It appears that the Navy is flying solo on its gambit, at least at this juncture.

A solution worse than the problem

The Navy’s case for funding the bulk of the Ohio replacement program outside its budget is flawed for several reasons.

First, the claim that nuclear ballistic missile submarines are a national mission as opposed to a traditional Navy mission would likely come as news to most Americans, who might rightly ask: “Isn’t the whole Navy a national program?” The answer is of course, “Yes”.

Second, setting up barriers between programs inhibits choosing priorities, which is particularly important in a time of budget austerity. As the Stimson Center’s Russell Rumbaugh put it to me, if Ohio replacement is essential, then the Navy should find a way to pay for it. If the Navy can’t part with anything else to pay for the SSBN(X), then the money should come from the Air Force, Army, or somewhere else in the Defense Department. If the Department can’t find the money, then it should come from somewhere else in the government. If that fails, the only other alternative is to increase the national debt to pay for the submarines.

Third, now that the post-9/11 military spending binge has come to an end, the Navy’s inability to control the cost growth of other major programs such as the F-35 and its new class of carriers has contributed to the service’s current budget problems. But giving the Navy a free pass by moving the SSBN(X) off its budget won’t encourage it to spend its dollars more wisely.

Fourth, while scaling back the scope of the Ohio replacement program won’t solve the Navy’s budget problem, it can relieve some of the pressure the program is putting on the rest of the fleet. According to an estimate by the Arms Control Association, reducing the current SSBN fleet to eight submarines and reducing the planned purchase of 12 SSBN(X)s to eight would save nearly $20 billion over the next decade alone. It remains to be seen whether the new nuclear policy guidance approved by the President in June will relax current at sea deterrence requirements, thereby allowing for a smaller ballistic missile submarine force. However, the President’s proposal in his Berlin speech to reduce deployed strategic warheads by up to one-third below the New START level can be achieved with fewer than 12 submarines.

================
As Colin Powell once put it, nuclear weapons “are expensive. They take away from soldier pay. They take away from lots of things.” The enormous cost to recapitalize America’s fleet of ballistic missile submarines should not be swept under the rug by a budget sleight-of-hand. Instead the program should be forced to compete with everything else in the Navy and larger Pentagon budget on the basis of common criteria such as need, affordability, and cost-effectiveness. US national security and taxpayers will be better off for it.

###

Source URL for this article: http://armscontrolcenter.org/issues/nuclearweapons/articles/navy_propsing_a_budget_slight-of-hand_to_pay_for_ballistic_missile_submarines/ 

Kingston Reif is the Director of Nuclear Non-Proliferation at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, where his work focuses on arms control, nuclear nonproliferation, nuclear weapons, and preventing nuclear terrorism. He has published letters and articles on nuclear weapons policy in such venues as the Washington Post, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, Survival, Defense News, and Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. kreif@armscontrolcenter.org

Rep. Blumenauer on nuclear weapons: "There is no one left to deter"

Representative Earl Blumenauer, Oregon, has just introduced legislation to reduce spending on our nation's nuclear arsenal - HR 4107, the Reduce Expenditures in Nuclear Investments Now (REIN-IN) Act of 2014. Senator Edward Markey has introduced companion legislation in the Senate, S 2070, the Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditures (SANE) Act.

We must resist the current push to modernize and rebuild the nuclear arsenal, which has huge economic impact and presents even greater risks. Blumenauer's and Markey's bills are an important first step in engaging a dialogue, and hopefully making headway in the monumental task of chipping away at the nuclear monster.

Both Blumenauer and Markey understand that the archaic doctrine of strategic nuclear deterrence is no longer relevant and cannot be used to justify our continued reliance on nuclear weapons.  And yet, that is just how the Navy is justifying the production of a new generation of ballistic missile submarines - 12 submarines at an estimated construction cost of $100 billion.

The current fleet of 14 ballistic missile submarines was originally intended (as a deterrent) to hold the Soviet Union under the threat of annihilation should they have launched a nuclear attack against us. Of course, the Cold War ended well over two decades ago and that threat is long past. As Rep. Blumenauer said in his speech to the House of Representatives earlier this month, 

"There is no one left to deter."

Here is the full, unedited text of Rep. Blumenauer's speech:

***************

“Mr. Speaker, before turning to the subject at hand, I really hope that people look at the CBO report that was referenced by my good friend from Pennsylvania, and you will find that the 2 million people who would no longer be working, are not going to increase unemployment. The unemployment rate will be lower. There are people who are trapped in the workforce now because they can’t afford health care. The Affordable Care Act will actually enable some people to retire who want to retire or stop working a second job. Read the report and find out that this is actually a very positive signal.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer

But, Mr. Speaker, I am here today to reference something else that was in the newspapers. The papers are filled with scandal about the nuclear weapons program. The real scandal is not the cheating or drug use by people with their finger on the nuclear button. The scandal is that these people are there on the job at all, with these nuclear weapons; jobs and nuclear weapons that should no longer exist.

Don’t get me wrong. The alleged drug use by the people who stand watch daily with a finger on the nuclear trigger, or that were cheating on their proficiency exams, is outrageous, but it is scandalous that we are frozen in time linked to a nuclear Cold War past and committed to wildly wasteful spending.

These are weapons that have never been used in 69 years, that did not deter the 9/11 attackers, and cannot help us in our major strategic challenges today. They have never been used in battle since World War II, but they have almost been used by miscalculation and mistake.

In Eric Schlosser’s recent book called “Command and Control,” there are terrifying examples of what were termed “broken arrows,” nuclear mishaps.

A nuclear bomb was accidentally released over South Carolina, landing in Walter Greg’s backyard, leaving a 75-foot wide, 30-foot crater, leveling his home. Luckily, it failed to trigger the nuclear explosion.

In North Carolina, a B-52 fell into a tailspin carrying two hydrogen bombs, each 250 times more powerful than Hiroshima.

There were numerous instances when our bomber fleet, which used to be on the runway idling, on alert 24/7, was prone to catching on fire while packed with nuclear bombs.

A few years ago, there was a B-52 which flew across the country unknowingly carrying six nuclear-armed air-launched missiles.

By no stretch of the imagination, do we need these 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles on alert, plus nuclear armed bombers, all on top of our nuclear submarine-based missiles? We don’t need a fraction of this weaponry. At most, we need perhaps one scaled-down system. There is nobody left to deter. We are competing in Russia in the Winter Olympics right now.

A small portion of one of these delivery systems is all the nuclear deterrence we could ever possibly need. The larger and more complex the infrastructure is not just more expensive, but more prone to mistake.

We are talking about upwards of $700 billion over the next 10 years in operations, modernization, new systems, new nuclear submarines. It is outrageous. It is dangerous. Let me put that in context. $750 billion is more than the Federal Government will spend on education in its entirety in the next 5 years.

It is time for Congress and the American people to put an end to this”, said Rep. BLUMENAUER

Cartoon of the Week: The Elephant in the Room

New Trident Specifications Nearing Completion

The US Navy and General Dynamic' Electric Boat division, which will be the primary contractor for the Navy's new fleet of ballistic missile submarines, have been working hard to complete the specifications and designs for the next-generation ballistic missile submarine.  With construction scheduled to begin by 2021, it is critical that they get the final document completed in early 2014.

The following article announcing the news states that the specifications for the new subs "establish the requirements the numerous ship systems must adhere to in order to meet defined warfighting requirements." The only "warfighting" these submarines are designed for is nuclear warfighting, and as David Krieger recently wrote (as have a number of experts), even the most limited nuclear war will result in global catastrophe, including hundreds of billions of deaths from global famine.

The submarines currently in service as well as those that will replace them are designed for only one purpose, and that is to wage nuclear war - whether by first strike or counter strike.  The government still justifies the new submarines through the archaic Cold War doctrine of "constant strategic deterrence." Nowhere in the conversation surrounding the justification for the new subs has there been any debate surrounding this obsolete concept.

There is no rational justification for building 12 new ballistic missile submarines at a total estimated cost of $100 billion.

*********************

Navy, Electric Boat Finishing Designs for Ohio Replacement Program

by KRIS OSBORN on JANUARY 24, 2014, in DEFENSETECH

Groton, Conn. — The U.S. Navy and General Dynamics’ Electric Boat are close to finishing specifications and designs for the country’s next-generation ballistic nuclear submarine, the Ohio Replacement Program, or ORP.

The Ohio Replacement Program team is poised this year to finish up a 600-page ship specification document detailing designs and plans for the submarine, Navy and Electric Boat officials said.

“This spring, the Ohio Replacement Program will finalize the remaining few of the 161 Ship Specifications. These specifications establish the requirements the numerous ship systems must adhere to in order to meet defined warfighting requirements,” Capt.William Brougham, ORP program manager told Military​.com in a written statement.

Slated to enter service in 2031 and serve through 2085, ORP, a so-called SSBN, is scheduled to begin construction by 2021. Requirements work, technical specifications and early prototyping are already underway at Electric Boat locations in New London, Ct. and Quonset Point, R.I.

Consisting of three volumes, each with hundreds of pages, the ship specification documents are designed to detail the configurations, designs and technical requirements for the boat, said Brian Wilson, ORP director, Electric Boat. “We are very much in the technology and getting the requirements set phase. We’ll finish the ship specs this year, multi-volume documents that tell you everything about how you’re going to manage the design,” said Wilson.

The ship-specifications detail the systems, technologies and electronics as well as crew plans, design intentions and overall integration, Navy officials said.

Designed to be 560-feet– long and house 16 Trident II D5 missiles fired from 44-foot-long missile tubes, ORP will be engineered as a stealthy, high-tech nuclear deterrent able to quietly patrol the global undersea domain.

“The key thing about the SSBN is that it is out there maintaining a constant strategic deterrence,” said Wilson. The rationale for these submarines is to guarantee a nuclear response capability in the event that an adversary launches a first attack.

Electric Boat and the Navy are also already progressing on early prototype work connecting missile tubes to portions of the hull, Wilson said. Called integrated tube and hull forging, the effort is designed to weld parts of the boat together and assess the ability to manufacture key parts of the submarine before final integration.

“The key here is reconstituting the vendor base for missile tubes, which are 45-feet-long and weigh about 50 tons. We integrated these tubes into two large welds at the top of the hull to produce what we call a 4-pack. In 2017 and 2018, we will build a first-article quad pack,” said Wilson.

This manufacturing strategy is intended to be a modular, more efficient and lower cost effort compared to the previous class of Ohio submarines. The Navy is hoping to keep the cost of each ORP to below $5 billion in 2010 dollars for boats 2 through 12, service officials said.

“The early investment in development and rapid prototype and testing the integrated tube and hull is essential to reduce construction costs and to shorten the overall construction time span for both the U.S. and UK SSBN programs,” Brougham said.

In 2012, General Dynamics Electric Boat was awarded a five-year reasearch and development deal for the ORP with a value up to $1.85 billion. The contract contains specific incentives for lowering cost and increasing manufacturing efficiency, Navy and Electric Boat officials said. The first ORP boat is slated to be operational by 2031.

With the prior Ohio-class, the manufacturing technique first worked from an empty hull cylinder and then cut holes for missile tubes, Wilson added. The new strategy is designed to maximize efficiency and construct key elements before they are connected to an integrated boat.

The U.S. and U.K. are together immersed in a common missile compartment effort for ORP. In fact, the U.S. and U.K. are buying parts together for the common missile compartment and working on a $770 million contract with General Dynamics’ Electric Boat. The U.S. plans to build 12 ORPs, each with 16 missile tubes, and the U.K. plans to build four nuclear-armed ballistic submarines, each with 12 missile tubes.

The ORP is being designed with a series of next-generation technologies, many of them from the Virginia-Class attack submarine. In particular, the ORP will utilize Virginia-class’s fly-by-wire joystick control system and large-aperture bow array sonar.

The ORP will also use Virginia-class’s next-generation communications system, antennas and mast. For instance, what used to be a periscope is now a camera mast connected to fiber-optic cable, enabling crew members in the submarine to see images without needing to stand beneath the periscope. This allows designers to move command and control areas to larger parts of the ship and still have access to images from the camera mast, Electric Boat and Navy officials said.

ORP is also being engineered with a new, more powerful nuclear reactor core compared with existing Ohio-class submarines, Navy and Electric Boat officials explained. This will enable a submarine to serve for as long as 42 years without needing what’s called mid-life refueling of its nuclear reactor. This is part of the reason the Navy believes it can effectively complete its mission requirements with twelve SSBN boats, Navy officials said.

Source URL: http://defensetech.org/2014/01/24/navy-electric-boat-finishing-designs-for-ohio-replacement-program/#more-22218

To Abolish Trident, End the Arms Race!!!

As we begin the campaign to stop production of a new generation of U.S. ballistic missile submarines that will replace the current OHIO Class (Trident) fleet, we fully realize that this effort does not, and absolutely cannot, exist in a vacuum.  The push to develop new nuclear weapons systems such as new Trident is part of a broader desire of the U.S. to continue the global projection of military power.  Through this endless projection of power, which now is becoming blatantly manifest in the Asia-Pacific Pivot, the U.S. has abrogated its responsibilities under legally binding treaty obligations, including the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Lawrence Wittner, historian and expert on the movement to abolish nuclear weapons (Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement), has written a concise essay that provides some sobering perspective on where we are in the continuing "Endless Arms Race" and why.  Most importantly, Wittner is clear that we can only end this "Arms Race" by ending the "rhetoric" and replacing it with sincere "action" toward disarmament. Only then will the government be prepared to give up Trident.

May we choose to take that leap of faith.

*****************

The Endless Arms Race

 By Lawrence Wittner, Originally published in History News Network on January 20, 2014

It’s heartening to see that an agreement has been reached to ensure that Iran honors its commitment, made when it signed the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to forgo developing nuclear weapons.

But what about the other key part of the NPT, Article VI, which commits nuclear-armed nations to “cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament,” as well as to “a treaty on general and complete disarmament”? Here we find that, 44 years after the NPT went into force, the United States and other nuclear powers continue to pursue their nuclear weapons buildups, with no end in sight.

On January 8, 2014, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced what Reuters termed “ambitious plans to upgrade [U.S.] nuclear weapons systems by modernizing weapons and building new submarines, missiles and bombers to deliver them.” The Pentagon intends to build a dozen new ballistic missile submarines, a new fleet of long-range nuclear bombers, and new intercontinental ballistic missiles. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in late December that implementing the plans would cost $355 billion over the next decade, while an analysis by the independent Center for Nonproliferation Studies reported that this upgrade of U.S. nuclear forces would cost $1 trillion over the next 30 years. If the higher estimate proves correct, the submarines alone would cost over $29 billion each.

Of course, the United States already has a massive nuclear weapons capability -- approximately 7,700 nuclear weapons, with more than enough explosive power to destroy the world. Together with Russia, it possesses about 95 percent of the more than 17,000 nuclear weapons that comprise the global nuclear arsenal.

Nor is the United States the only nation with grand nuclear ambitions. Although China currently has only about 250 nuclear weapons, including 75 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), it recently flight-tested a hypersonic nuclear missile delivery vehicle capable of penetrating any existing defense system. The weapon, dubbed the Wu-14 by U.S. officials, was detected flying at ten times the speed of sound during a test flight over China during early January 2014. According to Chinese scientists, their government had put an “enormous investment” into the project, with more than a hundred teams from leading research institutes and universities working on it. Professor Wang Yuhui, a researcher on hypersonic flight control at Nanjing University, stated that “many more tests will be carried out” to solve the remaining technical problems. “It’s just the beginning.” Ni Lexiong, a Shanghai-based naval expert, commented approvingly that “missiles will play a dominant role in warfare, and China has a very clear idea of what is important.”

Other nations are engaged in this arms race, as well. Russia, the other dominant nuclear power, seems determined to keep pace with the United States through modernization of its nuclear forces. The development of new, updated Russian ICBMs is proceeding rapidly, while new nuclear submarines are already being produced. Also, the Russian government has started work on a new strategic bomber, known as the PAK DA, which reportedly will become operational in 2025. Both Russia and India are known to be working on their own versions of a hypersonic nuclear missile carrier. But, thus far, these two nuclear nations lag behind the United States and China in its development. Israel is also proceeding with modernization of its nuclear weapons, and apparently played the key role in scuttling the proposed U.N. conference on a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East in 2012.

This nuclear weapons buildup certainly contradicts the official rhetoric. On April 5, 2009, in his first major foreign policy address, President Barack Obama proclaimed “America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” That fall, the UN Security Council -- including Russia, China, Britain, France, and the United States, all of them nuclear powers -- unanimously passed Resolution 1887, which reiterated the point that the NPT required the “disarmament of countries currently possessing nuclear weapons.” But rhetoric, it seems, is one thing and action quite another.

Thus, although the Iranian government’s willingness to forgo the development of nuclear weapons is cause for encouragement, the failure of the nuclear nations to fulfill their own NPT obligations is appalling. Given these nations’ enhanced preparations for nuclear war -- a war that would be nothing short of catastrophic -- their evasion of responsibility should be condemned by everyone seeking a safer, saner world.

Lawrence S. Wittner (http://lawrenceswittner.com) is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. His latest book is a satirical novel about university corporatization, What’s Going On at UAardvark? 

Source URL for Wittner's essay: http://hnn.us/article/154488  

Asia-Pacfic Pivot and the Dangers of Trident

Friends,

The United States' Asia-Pacific Pivot continues to move full speed ahead, as the military continues to re-position existing resources from other regions and develop new bases and weapons systems to ensure containment of China and overall control of those we consider our adversaries (read competitors for strategic resources) in this region.

Among the myriad changes are the naval base (in construction) on Jeju Island, South Korea that will serve (among other things) US missile defense destroyers and the shift in nuclear weapons toward Asia.

We have seen a shift in basing of the OHIO Class "Trident" ballistic missile submarines from the Atlantic to the Pacific.  Currently, of the 14 total Trident subs, 8 of them are based at Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor in Washington State, a definite reversal of basing from earlier Cold War days.

The Trident nuclear weapons system has become what is arguably the greatest symbol of U.S. force projection around the world.  It is absolutely the most powerful destructive force ever designed and deployed, and is indeed a formidable symbol of power projection.
China has taken notice, and continues (with some difficulties along the way) to develop its submarine launched ballistic missile capabilities.  China knows, however, that it's submarine fleet would be vulnerable to U.S. control of "choke points" around the region should a conflict ever develop.

For many years, Hans Kristensen and Robert Norris of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) have issued carefully researched reports on various nations' nuclear forces.  In years past these valuable reports have been (or at least seem to have been) largely ignored by the mainstream media.  That appears to be changing along with the tensions building in the Asian region due to continued U.S. military buildup.

The Korea Herald published an article on January 13th - 60% of U.S. submarine reconnaissance focused on Pacific. The article is brief and gets directly to the point(s), stating that:

More than 60 percent of U.S. submarine-based reconnaissance activities are focused on Pacific areas including the Korean Peninsula, according to a recent report by two American nuclear experts. According to the report on U.S. nuclear forces by American scientists Hans Kristensen and Robert Norris, Washington has deployed 14 Ohio-class nuclear-powered submarines, equipped with Trident II D5 ballistic missiles, to the Pacific and Atlantic operational areas for nuclear deterrence. Observers say the U.S.’ strengthened operations in the Pacific indicate its growing concerns about nuclear capabilities of its potential adversaries such as China and North Korea.

The graphic that accompanies the article:

Key to the whole Asia-Pacific Pivot is the fact that it is driven by "national security" interests and is driven by a deeply embedded Military-Industrial Complex and archaic Cold War thinking.  Nuclear weapons that, quite ironically, are central to the strategy of the pivot, are essentially useless as "weapons."  Some of the submarines that patrol the Pacific are on 24 hour alert status, are prepared to launch their thermonuclear-armed Trident II D-5 missiles quickly, on command.  

Should our submarine forces ever launch any of these weapons, not only would those who are targeted be incinerated by these horrific weapons, but people of other nations in the region would be irreparably harmed as well. Nuclear weapons, once released, are uncontrollable in space and time.  The effects simply cannot be contained, and even a limited regional war would be a disaster affecting not only the region, but would be felt on a global scale (as has been determined from studies of limited nuclear war between India and Pakistan).

Essentially, nuclear weapons can never be used, and the U.S. is creating the very conditions by which they are most likely TO be used.  Trident is at the heart of this dangerous game of nuclear risk being played out via the Asia-Pacific Pivot.  At the same time, there is no apparent diplomacy going on among the nations involved in this dangerous game to reverse the nuclear danger.

It is up to the U.S. to take the first step in this process and make a good faith effort to initiate discussions with Asian nations about reducing and ultimately eliminating nuclear weapons and their delivery systems.  A critical first step, besides a pledge of No First Use, would be taking weapons of Alert Status. Having weapons on alert status increased the risk of accidental (and irreversible) launch of nuclear weapons during a crisis.

Trident is an archaic, first-strike, Cold War weapons system that stays vital not only through shear inertia, but also by virtue of its extraordinary power as a symbol of U.S. force projection. The irony of this situation is that it is a weapon system that can (and must) not ever be used.  The more tragic irony is that Trident is slated for replacement with an entire new fleet of 12 submarines, with construction beginning in 2021.  This plan has been pushed through without any real debate about the issues of "nuclear deterrence" and what useful purpose Trident could serve for many more decades.

Since the government refuses to engage in such a critical discussion and debate before entering into such an expensive ($100 billion estimated construction cost for 12 subs) and risky program, Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action is asking the tough questions and challenging New Trident.  

The NO To NEW TRIDENT campaign seeks to challenge the shaky foundation that underlies the Navy's plans and demonstrate that a new generation of Trident will by no means make the U.S., its allies, or the rest of the world safer.  The continued deployment of thermonuclear weapons ready to launch 24/7 is a recipe for disaster.  The only way to assure the elimination of the nuclear risk is to eliminate the nuclear weapons, and this can only come though dialogue with the other nations.

Let the dialogue begin!!!  

Learn more at the NO To NEW TRIDENT Website/Blog at notnt.org. NO To NEW TRIDENT is a campaign of Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action (gzcenter.org)..

Click here to read US Nuclear Forces, 2014.

URL for article in The Korea Herald:  http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20140113000678  

Calling on Congress to say NO To NEW TRIDENT!

Do we really need to replace the current Trident ballistic missile submarine fleet - an archaic, Cold War, first strike nuclear weapons system carrying enough nuclear warheads to incinerate millions of human beings, leave lethal radiation for generations, and cause nuclear winter and global famine???

Dr. David Hall, a member of Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action, wrote the following open letter to U.S. Representatives Rick Larsen and Adam Smith, both of whom serve on the House Armed Services Committee.  In it he asks our elected representatives to consider the costs - economic and human of Trident.

Dr. Hall's letter was originally published in the Opinion page of The Journal of the San Juan Islands on December 3, 2013.

**************

Military might; priorities misplaced | Guest column

By David C. Hall, MD

Special to the Journal

Gentlemen:

We Americans have built the strongest military force in history; also history’s most lethal weapons of mass destruction complex, much of it based on Hood Canal, 25 miles from Seattle, so I ask you:

What is the face we Americans truly wish to present to the rest of the world? How inhumane and destructive are we Americans willing to be to remain “secure”?

Today we project our nuclear weapons capabilities around the globe with our Trident submarine warships, each a first strike weapon, and each armed under current treaty restrictions with sufficient firepower to incinerate hundreds of cities and black out the sun for weeks to months (“nuclear winter”).

Dr. Hall protesting at Bangor, 2011

Iran seeks to build its first nuclear weapon and the political noise in Congress sounds like the EA-18G Growler over Anacortes. Israel with our support has amassed over 80 nuclear warheads, and we are modernizing ours.

Congress has already spent over a billion dollars to design the new Trident fleet for Cold War level patrolling of the world’s oceans through 2080, at costs estimated at $347 billion.

We managed to avoid the financial cliff created by a fractured Congress that could not agree in 2011 on a solution to outspending our resource base. Japan and China each hold over one trillion dollars of our national debt, yet the Trident fleet can only be justified, if at all, against an adversary like China. Certainly not North Korea, Pakistan or Iran. Russia remains our only serious nuclear adversary and we are cooperating with them and with China.

American Cold War policies reflexively supported military budget requests as a way to spend the Soviet Union into oblivion. For President Gorbachev, another critical piece in backing away from the nuclear arms race was learning about nuclear winter and the devastating effect it would have on all life on Earth.

We now have climate models for a possible nuclear war between India and Pakistan which predict a global catastrophe that could kill a billion people, many of whom already face malnutrition. New data from China double the possible death toll due to declines in China’s winter wheat and the resulting economic chaos.

One Trident warship loaded within current treaty restrictions to half its capacity carries 10 times the nuclear firepower of this modeled two-nation war.

Trident submarine carrying 24 missiles, ready to launch 24/7

We don’t need 12 new Trident warships each capable of creating nuclear winter. Support for this omni-cidal weapons system derails us from essential investments in our spiritual, physical, emotional, and economic health as a nation. Our credibility further erodes among those who rightly or wrongly mistrust our dedication to a peaceful planet.

Now is the time to stop the rebuild of the first-strike Trident nuclear weapons fleet, and instead to model intolerance for all weapons of mass destruction, expand our investments in diplomacy and foreign assistance, support truly democratic institutions worldwide, and live by treaties we have signed that outlaw weapons of mass destruction for the very reason that they cause indiscriminate calamity for innocents and destroy ecosystems essential to life.

We owe it to our grandchildren to act now. The two of you have a special role to play on our behalf.

Sincerest thanks for your years of generous public service.

— Editor’s note: Dr. David C. Hall of Lopez Island has been a board member of the national Physicians for Social Responsibility (‘91-’03), Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility (‘83-’11), and volunteer coordinator with Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action.

###

Source URL: http://www.sanjuanjournal.com/opinion/234303141.html#storyComments