Is the Use and Continued Maintenance of the US Nuclear Arsenal Justifiable?
A Deliberation Log
Carmine Cesario, Jeff Hannah, Lukas Treu, & Lynn Xie
Issues
1. Are Nuclear Weapons Necessary for Our National Security?
2. How Likely is it that the U.S. Will Actually Use Nuclear Weapons
3. Are Nuclear Weapons Cost-Effective?
4. How Strongly Should the U.S. be Governed by International Nuclear Treaties?
Commonplaces
1. The US needs a system of defense that can equally retaliate against other countries
with nuclear weapons.
2. It is an unstable world, treaties and other forms of pacts do not guarantee that countries
will or will not use nuclear weapons.
3. The US has a capacity to create and afford weapons which other countries cannot.
4. Many high value targets are located in underground facilities which require the use of
technologies such as “bunker busters” to destroy.
5. Nuclear weapons are highly powerful and their effects consist of more than just their
immediate explosion.
6. In the history or warfare only two nuclear weapons have been used; “Little Boy” on
the Japanese city of Hiroshima and “Fat Man” on the Japanese city of Nagasaki.
7. The United States possesses a nuclear arsenal of approximately 6,000 nuclear
warheads and various means of delivery systems.
8. An inventory of nuclear weapons should be kept.
Key Terms
Justifiable: “acting or being in conformity with what is morally right or good” (Merriam-
Webster, 2002)
Nuclear Weapon: either a fusion or fission bomb, the weapon has the capability even as a
small scale device to deliver a blast greater than any large scale conventional weapon.
Conventional Weapon: a weapon that does not deliver toxic, chemical, or nuclear
warheads.
Warhead: “the section of a torpedo or other missile containing the explosive” (Merriam-
Webster, 2002)
National Security: the maintenance of the welfare and survival of a country via means of
economic, military, or political power.
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT): The main international non-proliferation association, its
role has been to deter the proliferation of nuclear weapons, to monitor and protect nuclear
materials and facilities, make available to non-nuclear states information on ways to
produce peaceful nuclear energy, and to push for the disarmament of nuclear weapons
(Schneider, 1994)
Modern Pit Facility (MPF): Proposed by the George W. Bush Administration, the facility
would be built to produce Plutonium Pits, replacing the former Rocky Flats facility that
was closed in 1989 (Fetter & Hipple, 2004).
Plutonium Pit: A hollow shell of plutonium clad in corrosion-resistant metal, when a
nuclear weapon is detonated explosives compress the pit into a superficial mass, creating
a fission chain reaction.
ICBMs: Long-range ballistic missile systems mainly designed for the delivery of nuclear
warheads.
W-76: developed by the U.S. between 1978- 1987, it is a nuclear warhead that continues
to be in service.
High Value Target: a target deemed by military commanders as of great value and
significance.
Delivery Systems: mechanisms which are designed to deliver munitions. Delivery
systems created by the U.S. for the delivery of nuclear weaponry included Minuteman III,
ICBMs, Trident II submarine missiles, heavy bomber fleets consisting of B-2 and B-52
bombers (Woolf, 2007, p. 1).
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP): “a [nuclear] weapon with the capacity to
burrow into the ground some tens of feet before detonating, greatly increasing their
ability to destroy hardened underground targets” (Medallia, 2004).
Reliable Replacement Warhead Program (RRW): initiated in 2004, the program was
started to develop a nuclear arsenal for the United States which would be reliable and low
maintenance, replacing the existing nuclear weapon system developed during the Cold
War which has costly to maintain.
Central Claims with Support
Claim 1: Nuclear Weapons are Necessary for Our National Security.
1a. Nations build nuclear weapons because the world is unstable. Under the
“Security Model,” nations build nuclear weapons, “to increase national security
against foreign threats, especially nuclear threats” (Sagan, 1996-1997). Under the
“Security Model” justification for the manufacture of nuclear weapons is for
national security, thus the need for nuclear weapons is a necessary element of the
U.S.’s national security and therefore justifiable.
1b. We need nuclear weapons to assure allies of the United States of our
commitment to their security, to dissuade adversaries from challenging the United
States with nuclear weapons, to deter adversaries by promising an unacceptable
amount of damage in response to an adversary’s attack, and to defeat enemies by
holding at risk those targets that could not be destroyed with other types of
weapons. (Woolf, 2007).
1c. The US now currently possesses approximately 6,000 nuclear warheads, in
order to achieve the necessary goals outlined within the Nuclear Posture Review,
only 1,700 - 2,200 warheads are needed (Woolf, 2007). While the current
inventory of nuclear weapons held by the U.S. is not a necessity, there is still a
need for a nuclear arsenal.
1d. There are a number of current, post-Cold War threats which constitute the
need for nuclear weapons. The possibility of a nuclear weapon being obtained by
a terrorist group, a nuclear war between Pakistan and India, the chance that a
nuclear weapon will be used by another country; particularly Russia which does
not have adequate security facilities for its nuclear weapons, and the spread of
nuclear weapons to countries such as North Korea (Krieger & McCracken, 2007).
These modern threats constitute a need to maintain a nuclear weapons system in
order to preserve national security.
Claim 2: Nuclear Weapons are Not Necessary for Our National Security.
2a. The four offensive branches of the U.S.’s military; Army, Navy, Marine
Corps, and Air Force, are an effective conventional force to respond to any threat
presented to the U.S. Due to the flexibility and rapid deployment of the U.S.’s
forces, it is mainly considered the most powerful military existent today; because
of this a conventional response is a adequate response compared to nuclear
weapons.
2b. Having a nuclear arsenal only invites other nations to create a nuclear arsenal
of their own, making the likelihood of a country using nuclear weapons more of a
reality. The perpetuation of nuclear weapons by the U.S. and other countries
creates a domino effect which only weakens the security of the U.S. (Beyond
Nuclear, n.d.).
2c. It has been stated by defense officials that nuclear weapons are necessary for
the response to terrorist or “rogue nations,” yet the use of nuclear weapons on
such targets would not be justifiable and overkill. “The amount of force entailed
in using nuclear weaponry is indiscriminate, disproportionate and highly immoral.
It would not be useful against terrorists [or rogue state] because strategists could
not be certain of locating an appropriate target for retaliation” (Krieger &
McCracken, 2007). Because of the use of nuclear weapons as a response to
terrorist or rogue states would be insufficient the need for nuclear weapons is not
necessary for national security.
2d. Nuclear weapons as a means of deterrence have shortcomings. For nuclear
weapons to be used against a threat, “the threat must be accurately communicated
and it must be believed…Deterrence won’t work when the threat is unbelievable,
or when the opponent is suicidal or not locatable,” such as terrorist groups which
currently pose the greatest threat to U.S. security (Krieger, 2006, p 2).
2e. Countries that possess nuclear weapons carry a prestige with a heavy price;
the very fact that a nation has nuclear capabilities makes that nation a target of
other nation’s nuclear weaponry (Krieger, 2006, p 2). By having nuclear weapons,
other countries perceive the U.S. as a threat, thus diminishing the U.S.’s national
security.
2f. Nuclear weapons are anti-democratic, they “concentrate power in the hands of
single individuals,” i.e. the President of the United States (Krieger, 2006, p 2). As
a country founded on democratic principles, the power that the U.S. encompasses
with it’s nuclear weapon system compromises democracy, and diminishes the
security of the founding principles of America.
Claim 3: The Likelihood of the U.S. Using Nuclear Weapons is Plausible.
3a. United States officials have stated that the use of, “nuclear weapons in
response to attacks with chemical or biological weapons” would be a possible
option in the event of the use of such weapons (n.a., 2002).
3b. In the post-Cold War era regional powers with the capacity of weapons of
mass destruction (WMD) are the main threat to the United States (Spring &
Gudget, 2005). If in the event of the use of nuclear or bio-chemical weapons by a
regional power, the U.S. would be prompted to respond with the use of nuclear
weapons.
Claim 4: The Likelihood of the U.S. Using Nuclear Weapons is Not Plausible.
4a. The United States, under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, has agreed to not use
nuclear weapons on states that do not have the capabilities of nuclear weapons
(n.a., 2002). Countries such as Afghanistan, which do not have nuclear weapon
capabilities are host to threats to the U.S., such as al Qaeda To use nuclear
weapons on a country that is not a member of the NPT to attack a threat that is not
a official member of the targeted country would not occur.
4b. Nuclear weapons are not necessary in eliminating under ground targets.
Because of the accuracy of smart bombs, such as the GBU-24 2,000 pound laser
guided bomb; the use of non-nuclear weapons instead of nuclear weapons would
be effective in disabling such targets (Kaplan, 2003).
4c: With the advent of nuclear weapons, humans finally succeeded in devising an
instrument of war so terrible that other means had to be found to settle political
conflicts…Yet the fear of conflict in many cases has become more powerful than
the forces of conflict themselves (Rouke,1996)
Claim 5: The US Should be Strongly Regulated by International Treaties.
5a. Being a member of the NPT creates a uniform trust among nations (Drell,
2006). This trust ensures that nuclear nations make decisions about nuclear
weapons and policy under a status quo of what is and is not acceptable.
5b. The U.S. proposals to develop new nuclear weapon technologies such as the
“bunker busted” low-yield warhead, the Reliable Replacement Warhead Program;
which would update the current nuclear arsenal held by the U.S., and the U.S.’s
decision to exchange nuclear weaponry technologies with India have all violated
the Non-Proliferation Treaty (Roth, 2006, p. 3). By violating the NPT, the U.S.
encourages other countries to do the same. The uncompliant actions of the U.S.
should be held in check by international treaties in order to preserve global
security, no matter what U.S. administrations initiatives are.
5c: The value of the regime goes beyond combating proliferation. Directly or
indirectly, it can play a growing, albeit limited, role in preventing nuclear
terrorism. It should not be surprising that efforts to control proliferation, including
the NPT can contribute to this end. To the extent that the NPT works to prevent
an increase in the number of states with nuclear weapons, it decreases
opportunities for the emergence of new nuclear weapon states with possibly
inadequate security measures (Joseph, 2007, p 480).
Claim 6: The US Should in No Way Be Regulated by International Treaties.
6a. The absence of the ban on nuclear testing as prescribed by the Non-
Proliferation Treaty would allow for research and thus would ensure a safe and
reliable nuclear stockpile (Spring & Gudget, 2005). To make sure that the U.S.’s
nuclear weapon arsenal is up to date after the proposed rehabilitation of plutonium
pits, nuclear weapons will need to be tested to ensure that their revamp was
successful.
Claim 7: Nuclear Weapons are Cost-Effective.
7a. The George W. Bush administration has proposed the creation of a Modern Pit
Facility that would be completed by 2020, costing an estimated $2-4 billion. The
MPF would create anywhere between 120-450 pits per year (Fetter & Hipple,
2004). The proposed creation of a new pit facility is necessary and cost-effective
as it updates the U.S.’s nuclear weaponry, thus ensuring that if needed the U.S.
has nuclear weapons to defend itself.
7b. Scientist have stated that the revamp of the existing nuclear arsenal is a waste
of time and money and that the development of the Reliable Replacement
Warhead is a better way to go (Kaplan, 2005). To continue to develop nuclear
technologies is more cost-effective because it focuses funds to a more reliable
system, thus ensuring national security as well.
Claim 8: Nuclear Weapons are Not Cost-Effective.
8a. The allocation of funds to develop new nuclear weapon technologies is not
cost-effective. It has been said that the W-76 nuclear warhead would only have a
20-year lifespan, however the Department of Energy has spent considerable
amounts of money modifying the W-76 warhead to pro-long its lifespan. To
develop newer nuclear technologies or warheads would not be cost-effective
because funds have already been allocated to continue the life-span of already
existing nuclear weaponry (Kaplan, 2005).
8b. If a country has nuclear weapons, it is a nuclear power, “beyond a certain
number, nuclear weapons exert no influence on the international balance of
power” (Kaplan, 2005). The cost of maintaining an excessive amount of nuclear
weapons is not cost-effective because the desired effect, to have nuclear weapons,
is already accomplished.
8c. A product of nuclear weapons activities, there are 104,000,000 cubic meters of
radioactive waste (n.a., 2007). The waste produced is a problem that the U.S.
government will have to contain and maintain for years to come, resulting in the
extraction of government funds for an undefinable amount of time.
8d. The notion that having nuclear weapons prevents wars from occurring is not
true; “Between 1945 and 1997, nuclear weapons states have fought in an average
of 5.2 wars, while non-nuclear weapons states average about 0.67 wars” (ed.
D.R., 1999). The costs of maintaining a nuclear arsenal to prevent wars while
fighting in conventional wars is paradoxical and the costs of maintaining both a
nuclear arsenal and funding for conventional warfare is not cost-effective.
8e. Having nuclear weapons is more costly than the reasons given for the
expenditure to develop nuclear weapons. When considering the entirety of what it
has/is taking to develop/maintain nuclear weapons many costs become evident
such as; “the costs of research, development, testing, deployment, maintenance
and associated intelligence activities…damage to the land, illnesses of uranium
miners, cancer deaths from nuclear pollution, and storage of nuclear waste for
centuries…the price becomes astronomical…the U.S. alone as spent over $4
trillion ($4,000,000,000,000) on nuclear arms…this is the approximate size of the
U.S. national dept [as of 1999]” (ed. D.R., 1999). While it was presumed in the
1950’s that nuclear weapons would be a cost-effective way to arm the U.S. with
bigger weapons ensuring national security, the costs associated with the
manufacture/maintenance of nuclear weapons was not considered. Considering all
the secondary effects of nuclear weapons both financial and moral; nuclear
weapons are not cost-effective.
Values & Assumptions
1. The United States government’s duty is to protect the nation and its allies.
2. Human life is important
3. Steps should always be taken to avoid the use of nuclear weaponry.
References
Beyond Nuclear. n.d. Nuclear Weapons and the Link to Nuclear Power. Beyond Nuclear.
Retrieved October 16, 2007 from the Beyond Nuclear web site:
http://www.beyondnuclear.org/nuclearweapons.html
Drell, S. (2006). The shadow of the bomb. Policy Review. April/May Issue 136, p55-68.
ed. D.R. (1999). Six arguments for abolishing nuclear weapons. Retrieved October 3,
2007 from the www.nonukes.org library web site:
http://nonukes.org/cd18_sixarg.htm
Fetter, S. & Hipple, von F. (2004). Does the United States need a new plutonium-pit
facility? Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007, from the Arms Control Association web site:
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_05/FettervonHippel.asp?print
Joseph F., P. (2007). The end of the NPT regime?. International Affairs, 83, 469-482.
Kaplan, F. 2003. Low-Yield Nukes. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007, from the Slate Magazine web
site: http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2091531
Kaplan, F. (2005). Nuclear Options: Do we need new nukes?. Retrieved October 3, 2007
from the Slate Magazine web site:
http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2116692
Krieger, D. (2006). The Challenge of Abolishing Nuclear Weapons. Beyond Nuclear.
Retrieved on October 16, 2007 from the Beyond Nuclear web site:
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2006/08/28_krieger_challenge.htm
Krieger, D. & McCracke, A. (2007). Ten Myths About Nuclear Weapons. Nuclear Age
Peace Foundation. Retrieved October 16, 2007, from the Nuclear Age Peace
Foundation web site: http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/issues/nuclear-
weapons/start/10-nw-myths.htm
Medalia, J. (2004). Robust nuclear earth penetrator budget request and plan, FY2005-
FY2009. Congressional Research Service. RS21762.
Merriam-Webster. (2007). Retrieved October 8, 2007 from the Merriam-Webster web
site: www.m-w.com
n.a. (2002). U.S. Nuclear Policy: “Negative Security Assurances”. Retrieved October 3,
2007 from the Arms Control Association web site:
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/negsec.asp
n.a. 2007. 50 facts about U.S. nuclear weapons. The Brookings Institution. Retrieved
October 2, 2007 from the Brookings Institution web site:
www.brookings.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/50.html
Roth, N. (2006). The Modern Nuclear Threat: C-SPAN presentation marking the 61st
anniversary of the bombing of Nagasaki. Beyond Nuclear. Retrieved on October
17, 2007 from the Beyond Nuclear web site:
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2006/08/09_roth_modern-threat.htm
Rourke, J. T. (1996). Does the World Need to Have Nuclear Weapons at All? Taking
Sides. p. 222. Guildford, Connecticut: Dushkin.
Sagan, S. D. (1996-1997, Winter) Why do states build nuclear weapons? Three models in
search of a bomb. International Security Vol. 21, No. 3, 54-86.
Schneider, B. R. (1994, October). Nuclear proliferation and counter-proliferation:
policy issues and debates. Mershon International Studies Review Vol. 38, No. 2
209-234.
Spring, B. & Gudget, K. (2005). The role of nuclear weapons in the 21st century.
Retrieved Oct. 2, 2007 from the Heritage Foundation web site:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/wm721.cfm
Woolf, A. (2007). U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Development, and Issues.
Congressional Research Service. RL33640.