Trump Admin Plans New Nuclear Weapons

Kerry Lear

8 years ago

With on-going threats from North Korea, paired with China and Russia&rsquo&semi;s growing military capabilities, President Donald Trump promised to enhance our nuclear weapon arsenal and the overall U&period;S&period; nuclear strategy&period; &nbsp&semi;&NewLine;This has inspired somewhat of a debate in Washington&period; The Pentagon believes that there is no better time to enhance the U&period;S&period; nuclear forces, while critics believe it will encourage other countries to do the same and will lower the threshold for testing these weapons and ultimately, risk a nuclear war&period; &nbsp&semi;&NewLine;The Huffington Post published an alleged unclassified draft of the upcoming U&period;S&period; nuclear strategy last week, which was dismissed by the Pentagon as &ldquo&semi;pre-decisional&period;&rdquo&semi; A source privy to the plan told Reuters that the draft obtained was authentic, but didn&rsquo&semi;t say if it was the final document presented to the president&period;&NewLine;&ldquo&semi;While the United States has continued to reduce the number and salience of nuclear weapons, others, including Russia and China, have moved in the opposite direction,&rdquo&semi; said the alleged draft in defense of the plan&period; &ldquo&semi;The United States must be capable of developing and deploying new capabilities, if necessary, to deter, assure, achieve U&period;S&period; objectives if deterrence fails, and hedge against uncertainty&period;&rdquo&semi;&nbsp&semi;&NewLine;&ldquo&semi;The Nuclear Posture Review has not been completed and will ultimately be reviewed and approved by the President and the Secretary of Defense,&rdquo&semi; said the Pentagon in a statement&period;&NewLine;A year ago, Trump commissioned the Pentagon&rsquo&semi;s Nuclear Posture Review to reassess the U&period;S&period; nuclear strategy and weaponry&period; &nbsp&semi;&NewLine;The plan will likely include the development of new nuclear weapons&period; &nbsp&semi;&NewLine;&ldquo&semi;One weapon, which experts say could be deployed in about two years, is a &ldquo&semi;low yield&rdquo&semi; warhead for the Trident missile, which currently is deployed with more powerful warheads on the Navy&rsquo&semi;s submarines that carry ballistic missiles,&rdquo&semi; writes Wall Street Journal&period; &ldquo&semi;The U&period;S&period; also would pursue the development of a new nuclear-tipped sea-launched cruise missile, reintroducing a system that was retired from the American arsenal in 2010&period;&rdquo&semi;&NewLine;Russia just developed a new ground-launched cruise missile, which violates the treaty signed between the U&period;S&period; and Russia in 1987 that bans intermediate-range missiles based on land&period;&nbsp&semi;&NewLine;The &ldquo&semi;low yield&rdquo&semi; system will help the U&period;S&period; respond better to threats since these weapons will be based at sea where the U&period;S&period; doesn&rsquo&semi;t need permission from other countries to deploy&period; Sea-based weapons also don&rsquo&semi;t violate any existing arms-control agreements&period;&NewLine;Critics argue that this will only encourage other nations to develop more weapons and deploy them&period; &nbsp&semi;&NewLine;&ldquo&semi;We should be doing everything to reduce the risk that nuclear weapons are going to be used, not expanding the ambiguity of when we might use nuclear weapons,&rdquo&semi; said Jon Wolfsthal, who was the senior official for arms control under President Barack Obama&rsquo&semi;s National Security Council to WSJ&period;&NewLine;Daryl Kimball, the head of the Arms Control Association, also said that developing more weapons is a dangerous move&period;&NewLine;&ldquo&semi;The use of even a small number of these weapons would be catastrophic,&rdquo&semi; said Kimball to The Guardian&period; &ldquo&semi;Threatening nuclear attack to counter new kinds of &lsquo&semi;asymmetric&rsquo&semi; threats is unnecessary, would increase the risk of nuclear weapons use, and would make it easier for other countries to justify excessive roles for nuclear weapons in their policies&period;&rdquo&semi;&nbsp&semi;&NewLine;Proponents of the new nuclear plan claim that are needed as a defensive measure that will make other countries think twice before threatening the U&period;S&period;&NewLine;&ldquo&semi;This is not about making weapons more usable&semi; this is about strengthening deterrence so that nuclear weapons are not used in the first place,&rdquo&semi; said Robert Joseph, a senior national security official in under the George W&period; Bush administration to WSJ&period; &ldquo&semi;We have to think what would be credible in Russian eyes&period;&rdquo&semi;&nbsp&semi;&NewLine;The draft is purposely vague about how the U&period;S&period; will retaliate to enemies&period; &nbsp&semi;&NewLine;&ldquo&semi;If we are explicit about saying (when) we will not retaliate with the strongest weapons we have, we are implicitly telling our adversaries you can plan for these scenarios more freely,&rdquo&semi; said Michaela Dodge, senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation to Reuters&period; &nbsp&semi;&NewLine;The official strategy is expected to be unveiled later this month&period;&NewLine;Author&rsquo&semi;s note&colon; Trump promised to build up our nuclear weapon program and the draft shows that the Pentagon has come up with a clever way of doing so without violating any arms agreements that the U&period;S&period; has with other countries&period; With more powerful weapons at our disposal, the more countries will hesitate before threatening or attacking us&period;&NewLine;&nbsp&semi;&NewLine;