Press note August 10, 2020

Permalink * Prior press releases

News flash, of interest to some: a majority of Americans support phasing out ICBMs, modestly cutting nuclear weapons budget, deploying low-yield sub warheads (already done)

Contact: Greg Mello, 505-265-1200 (office) 505-577-8563 (cell)

Dear press colleagues --

The Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland is a reputable outfit.

A report issued this past Friday (“Common Ground of the American People”), funded by a number of centrist (if also Democrat-leaning) foundations, contains a few interesting findings regarding nuclear weapons (on pp. 6 and 20).

Overall this report finds bipartisan support for modest changes to current policies in a large number of areas. It does not say that these changes represent an optimal set of policies. It just says they are supported (or in some cases at least "tolerated") by bipartisan majorities.

In the report we read that Americans support:

1. Reducing spending on nuclear weapons programs by $2 billion/year: (Democrats 73%, Republicans 56%, overall 65%)
2. Developing low-yield nuclear warheads to put on submarines: (Democrats 56%, Republicans 77%, overall 65%)
   
3. Phasing out land-based missiles (ICBMs) instead of replacing them: (Democrats 69%, Republicans 53%, overall 61%)
   

Regarding 1: At present, the U.S. is spending about $45 billion (B) per year on nuclear weapons (see review on pp. 7-13 in Update on US Nuclear Weapons Modernization for the International Disarmament Community, May 13, 2020). A $2 B/yr reduction is thus about 4.4% of the total, much less than recent cost increases (Ibid).

Regarding 2: No "development" was needed to deploy such warheads (W76-2s), which began last year. This initiative lies in the rear-view mirror, as far as submarine-launched ballistic missiles are concerned. There are no findings in this poll regarding sea-launched cruise missiles.

Regarding 3: This finding -- support for phasing out ICBMs -- is quite striking and interesting.

As you may know, the entire basis for the requirement to begin production of at least 80 plutonium warhead cores ("pits") per year by 2030 lies in the requirement to begin production of W87-1 warheads in that same year for a new ICBM (the "Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent," GBSD).

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) have both said the 2030 pit production deadline is virtually impossible to meet (references in context here). The House of Representatives is now requesting a review of the W87-1 program, including an independent assessment of options not requiring new pits and other components (pp. 119-120).

Altogether, the GBSD program, the associated Mark 21A reentry vehicle, the W87-1 warhead, and rushed around-the-clock pit production in old, inadequate facilities at Los Alamos, will almost certainly cost more than $100 B. GBSD alone may cost far more (Table 1.)

It is also unlikely (as noted here) that the GBSD/W87-1 program can be brought to fruition on schedule. Acquisition of pits is not the only problem.

Public attitudes do not influence policy, nuclear or otherwise, and the salience of nuclear weapons issues remains low. The significance of Friday's poll results does not lie in any imagined policy-forcing quality, but rather in their policy-permitting quality.  Public attitudes, when polled nationwide, present no barrier to phasing out ICBMs.

We see this observation as a general one regarding nuclear weapons reductions (pp. 15-21).

A number of experts -- including Gen. James Cartwright (Ret.), former STRATCOM commander under GW Bush and later Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and William Perry, former Secretary of Defense -- have argued that U.S. national security would be improved by phasing out ICBMs.

Taking a step back, the Congressional Budget Office has noted (p. 9) that support and funding for nuclear weapons programs may not remain strong through the present decade. We consider that an understatement (see "The Great Transformation: Nuclear Weapons Policy Considerations for the 116th Congress"; alternatives to GBSD and the W87-1 are discussed there also. GBSD and the W87-1 represent layers of folly, in our view, and can be critiqued from within several overall reference frames.)

Thank you for your attention, best wishes, and stay safe,