[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 94 (Thursday, June 27, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5488-S5489]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NUCLEAR ARSENAL
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the Record a copy of the following op-ed from POLITICO.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From POLITICO, June 26, 2013]
Modernize, Don't Abandon Our Nuclear Arsenal
(By: Senator Deb Fischer)
The Brandenburg Gate served as an iconic backdrop for the
20th-century struggle between freedom and oppression.
Standing before the gate in the long shadow of Presidents
John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, President Barack Obama
made a remarkable--and indeed a historic--announcement last
week that could drastically alter the course of the 21st
century for the United States and our allies.
Before thousands of German citizens, the president
announced our nation was effectively abandoning the long-
standing policy of ``peace through strength.'' Instead, Obama
pledged to pursue a policy of ``peace with justice.'' ``Peace
with justice means pursuing the security of a world without
nuclear weapons, no matter how distant that dream might be,''
Obama explained. Reducing our nuclear arsenal by one-third,
he argued, brought us closer to this lofty goal.
Following the president's speech, the Pentagon quickly
released a report on the new nuclear strategy, which
succeeded in making one thing clear: The world is
increasingly unstable. It states, ``the risk of nuclear
attack has increased''; it cites nuclear terrorism and
nuclear proliferation as key threats; and it expresses
concern with Russian and Chinese nuclear modernization and
the ``growth of China's nuclear arsenal.''
In an age of persistent nuclear proliferation, it is
puzzling as to why the commander in chief would endorse
shedding a third of our deterrent power. Responsible national
security policy requires a realistic recognition of the world
as it is, not as we hope it to be.
It is naive to believe terrorists and rogue nations will be
swayed by the philosophical righteousness some may attach to
the president's new policy. And count me among the skeptics
in believing that China or Russia will abandon its own
nuclear modernization plans.
Moreover, deep reductions in strategic weapons could
actually undermine the stability that characterizes current
force levels. Russia is estimated to maintain several
thousand tactical nuclear weapons, which are exempted from
current arms reduction agreements, compared with a few
hundred such devices in U.S. inventories.
The Department of Defense report notes, ``large disparities
in nuclear capabilities could raise concerns . . . and may
not be conducive to maintaining a stable, long-term strategic
relationship, especially as nuclear forces are significantly
reduced.'' In short, as the number of strategic weapons
diminishes, other nuclear weapons become more important. When
potential adversaries hold greater numbers of these weapons,
the U.S. and our allies are less secure.
Perhaps the president is motivated by cost reductions--a
pitch to fiscal conservatives like me--reasoning that fewer
weapons could save us tax dollars. This, too, is
unconvincing. Testifying earlier this year before the House
Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and Water,
Don Cook, the deputy administrator for Defense Programs at
the National Nuclear Security Administration, stated that
``not much savings will be achieved'' by nuclear reductions.
I received similar assessments from the directors of our
national weapons labs.
Some argue deep cuts are necessary because nuclear weapons
pose a threat to humanity. Lesser is better, they insist. The
president suggested a similar view in his Berlin speech: ``So
long as nuclear weapons exist, we are not truly safe.'' I
disagree.
Our freedom, security and prosperity are all contingent
upon the United States maintaining a position of unquestioned
strength. Since World War II, nuclear weapons have provided
the bulwark of American national security. Nuclear deterrence
is not academic; it is real. For example, the
administration's recent decision to order a nuclear-capable
aircraft to the Korean region earlier this year clearly
reaffirmed the power and relevance of our nuclear deterrent.
The president also failed to acknowledge his previous
commitments to nuclear modernization. When the Senate
ratified New START in 2010, the president pledged to provide
critical funding to modernize our aging nuclear forces (some
still have 1960s vacuum tubes) and supporting laboratories.
The reasoning was clear: As we retain fewer weapons, we must
exponentially increase our confidence in their ability to
fully function deterrence depends on it. This promised
funding has not materialized.
The Senate should not consider additional arms reductions
when we have not achieved the modernization guaranteed in
exchange for the last round of cuts to the arsenal.
Despite the president's pledge to pursue the ``dream'' of a
world without nuclear weapons, the truth is that dreams don't
always match reality. The frigid reception from Kremlin
officials to Obama's call for further Russian nuclear
reductions was telling. Moreover, history has proved the
current Russian president isn't exactly a good-faith
negotiator.
[[Page S5489]]
It's no secret that we live in a dangerous world and
national security decisions must be made to bolster--not
weaken--our ability to counter a growing array of threats. A
strong, safe America requires a nuclear deterrent that is
modern and effective, not aging and depleted. As former
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously warned,
``This is no time to go wobbly.''
____________________