July 10, 2024
More than 700
scientists on Monday called for an end to the United States' land-based nuclear
weapons program that's set to be replaced, following a Pentagon decision to
approve the program despite soaring costs.
In an open
letter to President Joe Biden and Congress, the Union of Concerned Scientists
(UCS) argued that the new intercontinental-range ballistic missile system,
known as Sentinel, was "expensive, dangerous, and unnecessary."
The Department
of Defense on Monday certified the continuation of the project, releasing the
results of a review that was legally required when the cost estimate ballooned
to "at least" $131 billion earlier this year, which drew the scrutiny
of some Democrats in Congress, according to The Hill.
The Defense
review found that Sentinel was "essential to national security," but
the scientists disagreed with the assessment.
"There is
no sound technical or strategic rationale for spending tens of billions of
dollars building new nuclear weapons," Tara Drozdenko, director of UCS'
global security program, said in a statement.
Nobel
Prize-winning physicist Barry Barish, a signatory to the letter, was also
harshly critical of the Pentagon's approach.
"It is
unconscionable to continue to develop nuclear weapons, like the Sentinel
program," he said.
The soaring
costs of Sentinel, which is overseen by the defense contractor Northrup
Grumman, have been the subject of media attention. The program will cost an
estimated $214 million per missile, far more than originally expected,
Bloombergreported on Friday.
However, the
cost is hardly the only reason to cancel the program, UCS scientists argue. The
silos that house the nuclear missiles, which are found in North Dakota,
Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and Nebraska, are vulnerable to attack—in fact,
they are designed to draw enemy weapons away other U.S. targets, according
toScientific American. Such an attack would expose huge swaths of the American
population to radioactive fallout.
Because they are
a likely target, the siloed missiles are kept on "hair-trigger" alert
so the U.S. president can launch them within minutes. This "increases the
risk of nuclear war" that could start from false alarms, miscalculations,
or misunderstandings, the UCS letter states.
The scientists
further argue that there's no need for a land-based nuclear weapons system
given the effectiveness of nuclear-armed submarines—one of the other parts of
the nuclear triad, along with bomber jets. Such submarines are "hidden at
sea" and "essentially invulnerable to attack," according to the
letter. Moreover, the submarine missiles are just as accurate as land-based
missiles, and already have "destructive capability than could ever be
employed effectively," it states.
The submarine
system is also being overhauled, as is the 'air' component of the nuclear
triad. In total, the U.S. military plans to spend more than $1 trillion over 30
years on renewing the nuclear arsenal, according to the Arms Control
Association.
The U.S. leads
the way in a surge of global spending on nuclear arms, according to two studies
published last month, one of which found that nearly $3,000 per second was
spent in 2023.
No comments:
Post a Comment