Pentagon Studies: Opportunity for Change

Dan Koslofsky, Council for A Livable World Education Fund,
202-543-4100

 

President Bush has ordered a series of Pentagon studies on nuclear strategy, conventional weapons and the quality of life of the military. If utilized correctly, these studies would provide an opportunity to institute long overdue changes in American security policies and Pentagon practices. The President's objective is to complete a top-to-bottom analysis of military strategies before determining an appropriate level of military spending.

For example, the nuclear review must address overall U.S. nuclear strategy, target selection, stockpile size, and the relation of these matters to the goal of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. The results will provide the basis for a full "nuclear posture review" due in December as mandated by the fiscal year 2001 Defense Authorization Act.

During the presidential campaign, Bush suggested making unilateral cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. He also discussed taking nuclear weapons off high alert. Such changes in the U.S. nuclear posture would clearly enhance U.S. security and pave the way for:

  • Deep cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal to no more than 1,000 nuclear weapons: The U.S. currently maintains 7,206 nuclear weapons on intercontinental ballistic missiles, ballistic missile submarines, and strategic bombers. The START II Treaty that has yet to enter into force, requires the U.S. to reduce this number to between 3,000 and 3,500 warheads. President Bush called for significant reductions below START II levels, vowing that he would "pursue the lowest possible number consistent with our national security." (Press Conference, May 23, 2000)
  • De-alerting of all nuclear forces: The U.S. keeps more than 2,000 nuclear weapons on hair- trigger alert status, ready to launch at a moment's notice. In the words of President Bush, "keeping so many weapons on high alert may create unacceptable risks of accidental or unauthorized launch." (Press Conference, May 23, 2000) President Bush is certainly aware that U.S. nuclear submarines at sea provide an invulnerable retaliatory force.
  • Reject national missile defense: Although Bush and his national security team view anti-ballistic missile systems as a complement to nuclear reductions, NMD may make such reductions impossible. Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated that if the U.S. abrogates the ABM treaty and proceeds with NMD deployment, "we will withdraw not only from the START II treaty, but from the whole system of treaties on the limitation and control of strategic and conventional weapons" (Speech to Russian Duma, April 15, 2000). A CIA intelligence estimate predicts that China's strategic nuclear arsenal could increase to ten times its present size-from 20 to 200 warheads in response to NMD.
  • Abandon plans to build new nuclear weapons designed to destroy hardened and buried targets. Such weapons would require the U.S. to break its current moratorium on nuclear testing, a moratorium which President Bush has endorsed.

While the Pentagon is expected to complete its comprehensive Quadrennial Defense Review next month, President Bush has ordered that a study of Pentagon programs be conducted immediately. At the same time, President Bush has "limited" the fiscal 2002 defense budget request to about $324 billion, the same total proposed by the Clinton Administration. Although the request represents a $14 billion increase over fiscal 2001 funding, it falls short of the expectations of many defense officials and some members of Congress. The Administration has insisted that any further increases should wait until a thorough review of Pentagon plans and needs is conducted.

One study, to be completed prior to the submission of President Bush's fiscal 2002 defense budget, is being conducted by Andrew Marshall, the renowned Pentagon futurist who has been critical of many Cold War era weapons systems including aircraft carriers, tanks, and tactical aircraft.

While candidate Bush made strengthening national defense a focal point of his campaign, he never promised to add billions in new military spending. In his 1999 speech at the Citadel, Bush said that improving defense will not simply require "spending more," but also "spending more wisely." He also spoke about the need to "skip a generation of technology" and invest in weapons systems that will "propel America generations ahead in military technology."

However, without significant changes to previous Clinton military budgets, the proposed Bush military budget will be full of programs that waste dollars and support political boondoggles. President Bush should take a serious look at the following weapons designed to fight the disbanded Soviet Union:

  • V-22 Osprey: The $80 million tilt-rotor troop transporter is on the verge of production despite allegations of fraud and Pentagon reports detailing a host of problems. Meanwhile, the Marines, for whom the aircraft was developed, have not been engaged in an amphibious assault since the Korean War in the 1950's.
  • F-22: This fighter jet, costing $180 million each, was designed to fight next-generation Soviet planes that were never built. Its limited range requires forward basing, which Pentagon policy is trying to avoid. Furthermore, a stated Bush priority is the development of unmanned aerial vehicles that will eventually replace pilot controlled aircraft.
  • Crusader Mobile Howitzer: At 90 tons, the Crusader does not fit into Army plans for a rapidly deployable force. By the time the Crusader is ready for use in 2008, artillery power may be obsolete.
  • Aircraft Carriers: At $5 billion each, not including costs for the protective fleet, carriers are an expensive means to promote forward presence. Improvements in long range aircraft and missile capabilities will reduce the need for forward positioning by carrier.
  • Nuclear Attack Submarines: With 56 Virginia Class attack submarines already in its arsenal, the Navy has more than enough firepower to conduct its missions and these $2 billion ships are specially designed to hunt down Soviet subs, which rarely leave their bases.

As President Bush said on the campaign trail, our "relative peace" grants us a "window of opportunity" for real change in the Pentagon. The Bush Administration should be encouraged to take a hard look at antiquated weapons and strategies to bring them in line with U.S. military requirements for the foreseeable future.

 

This page was last modified on Tuesday, June 3, 2003 6:19 PM
Contact the IRC's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2001 IRC. All rights reserved.