RRW Rat Race

So the letter of the day is apparently R. I'm not sure that it is a tribute to pirates worldwide, but i'm sure they arghhhh happy.

So why not discuss a word that has two R's! RRW or reliable replaceable warhead.

A program that was once dead has since been revived, well at least the debate has been. This should have been done yesterday.

Elaine M Grossman wrote on the latest tug of war in an article published through the Global Security Newswire. I assure you, it's a worthwhile read.

Much to my surprise, Robert Gates is leading the charge on the issue, and has received considerable support from top officials including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, as well as his successor, Gen. Kevin Chilton, and perhaps most importantly DSSFeed. That is an impressive list, no matter what you think about this administration or this blog for that matter.

Most surprising to me is Chu's about face, as his Department of Energy called for the death of RRW in their FY2010 budget. (although it did call for a program which very much resembles RRW)

The support is not universal. Joe Biden, being the heavy hitting nuclear strategist that he is, was the lone critic at the NSC meeting. His concerns are legitimate - how can we expect other nations to limit and even disarm their nuclear arsenals if we are modernizing ours.

His logic is sound if you believe nuclear abolition is the primary end goal for our arsenal - he makes a poor argument if you tend to think otherwise.

The RRW is aimed at maintaining a credible deterrent, and were not the only ones contemplating it. The Russians and Chinese have blatantly pursued nuclear modernization programs, even pursuing new kinds of warheads like EMP and ERW.

While they move ahead, we are lagging behind. We have a large arsenal, and as of January 2009, it is estimated at 5,200 nuclear warheads: approximately 2,700 operational warheads, 2,200 of which are strategic (greater than 3,500 miles) and 500 are nonstrategic (less than 3,500 miles) warheads. We have about 2500 in reserve due to START restrictions. The size and scope of the arsenal means next to nothing if our opponents know they will not function on a reliable basis. Imagine trying to deter a robber with a rifle he knows isn't loaded - it won't work very well I promise.

We must also consider the safety mechanisms of these weapons. Some of these weapons like the w62 and w76 are still operational and date back to the 70's. Consider the fact that just 2 years prior; cars were required to be outfitted with seat belts. We are stockpiling weapons that were built during the same era that seat belts were new. Consider the new safety technology that has increased the survival rates of drivers everywhere. Now think of how much higher the stakes are on nuclear weapons. Shortfalls in safety are not acceptable - and Gates agrees.

Also consider the scientific capital we are missing out on. The United States has not built a nuclear warhead since 1992, and the scientific community has lost out on perhaps cutting edge technologies that may make the US in a better strategic position, perhaps by even making nukes impotent and obsolete.

The goal isn't disarming the world of its nukes, because it's far too lofty. Convincing rogue nations and even potentially FTO's to disarm will ultimately be fruitless. I don't want to hear the hogwash that diplomacy may work. No nation that is looking out for its national preservation will give up their nuclear warheads if they deter their regional and global opponents. It just won't happen. The only way nuclear states will give up their weapons is if they realize they will no longer help them achieve their unique geopolitical objectives.

So fight on Righteous Gates. (I'm still not forgetting that you lead the charge on axing the f22)