[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Page 10829]
[From the U.S. 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.
       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.''

                          ____________________