Nuclear weapons dismantlement: Politics vs. good management

If you blinked, you may have missed Secretary of State Kerry’s big April announcement at the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty Review Conference: “The United States will seek to accelerate the dismantlement of retired nuclear warheads by 20 percent.” Most observers greeted this news with as much excitement as Silicon Valley would have to an IBM announcement that it would accelerate reduction in its stockpile of electric typewriters. That is to say, not much.

Kerry’s announcement did get a reaction from one set of close observers though.  House Republicans Mike Turner (Ohio) and Trent Franks (Ariz.) on the Armed Services Committee responded with alacrity, inserting a so-called “Limitation on Funds for Unilateral Disarmament,” provision into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would limit funds for dismantlement of retired nuclear weapons and also interfere in management of the dismantlement process. This provision drew a strong objection from the White House, noting that it “restricts the Executive Branch’s ability to determine the appropriate stockpile adjustments to meet national security goals.”

{mosads}Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), not one to stand on the sidelines of a political battle, has also jumped into the fray, offering an amendment to the Senate’s version of the NDAA to restrict and meddle in dismantlement efforts.

The House “unilateral disarmament” language is a bit over the top even for those trying to score political points and scare the American public. The reality is that these to-be-dismantled warheads have not been part of our military plans and strategies for a long time. Many of the warheads have been retired for decades, waiting in the long dismantlement queue along with about 2,500 others.  

While many of the nuclear weapons awaiting dismantlement are from the same era as typewriters, storing and managing nuclear weapons is a bit more challenging. Security and safety risks are more of a concern with nuclear weapons, for example. Clearly these weapons need to be stored in secure facilities requiring guards, gates, and guns. And these facilities should not be vulnerable to floods, fires, tornados, and such. The possible consequences of theft, diversion, attack, or a major accident is very grave when it comes to these weapons and their nuclear materials. It takes more than your average warehouse.

Managing these kinds of risks is expensive. A 2014 Government Accountability Office report (GAO -14-449) noted that when a decision was made to accelerate dismantlement of the retired W 76-0 warhead, the Navy avoided spending $190 million to construct a new storage facility for these weapons. Surely the Navy and other military branches have different places where they would prefer to spend that kind of money.

Rather than pushing back against accelerating dismantlement, responsible lawmakers could instead embrace the administration’s goal to accelerate dismantlement thus reducing storage and management risks and costs. Moreover, dismantlement provides good jobs for highly skilled workers. These workers at the Pantex facility in Amarillo, Texas are constituents of Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) TX -13), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Further dismantlement activities take place at theY-12 facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) chairs the Energy and Water Appropriations subcommittee. These powerful leaders with special knowledge and oversight roles of the nation’s nuclear weapons should be advocates of dismantlement work.

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has been implementing the dismantlement of retired warheads at the rate of about three hundred warheads per year. Some think this is cautious and others call it plodding. What is important to note is that the NNSA, along with the defense establishment experts charged with the safe, secure management of nuclear weapons, believe that accelerating dismantlement by 20 percent is feasible and responsible. Perhaps lawmakers would do well to listen to these experts, rather than jumping in line behind knee jerk political posturing.

In short, restricting dismantlement does not strengthen our deterrent, it encourages nuclear weapons hoarding. And this hoarding foists management challenges and costs on the military and American taxpayers. Congress should encourage management of our nuclear weapons that furthers national security and fiscal responsibility.  

Robinson is the senior policy director at Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND), a national women’s peace organization. She has more than fifteen years of experience in analysis and advocacy on nuclear weapons policy.