| ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. Jan 8 Defense Secretary Chuck
Hagel said on Wednesday the United States had always supported a
strong nuclear deterrent and would continue to do so, even as it
braces for a nuclear forces overhaul that analysts say could
cost $1 trillion over 30 years.
"To modernize your nuclear weapons stockpile and assure that
they continue to stay secure and safe, it takes money, it takes
resources," Hagel said after touring Sandia National
Laboratories and Kirtland Air Force Base, two facilities
involved in maintaining the weapons.
The U.S. defense chief said upgrading U.S. nuclear warheads
and the submarines, bombers and missiles that deliver them would
require setting priorities and minding the budget, but he added
the country "has always been willing to make that investment and
I think it will continue to make it."
The visit was part of a two-day trip to bases supporting
U.S. nuclear forces. Hagel travels on Thursday to F.E. Warren
Air Force Base in Cheyenne, Wyoming, where he will see
intercontinental ballistic missile silos and talk to troops in a
nuclear mission that has been troubled by morale problems.
Major General Michael Carey was fired as head of the
450-weapon U.S. intercontinental ballistic missile force in
October for getting drunk and carousing with Russian women while
leading a government delegation to Moscow for talks on nuclear
Hagel acknowledged the morale problems in the unit and said
he planned to underscore the importance of the ICBM mission and
thank the troops for their service.
"They do feel unappreciated many times," he said. "They're
stuck out in areas where not a lot of attention is paid."
Hagel's visit to the nuclear-related facilities comes as the
administration is pushing ahead with ambitious plans to upgrade
nuclear systems by modernizing weapons and building new
submarines, missiles and bombers to deliver them.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated in late December
the plans would cost $355 billion over the next decade. The
Center for Nonproliferation Studies calculated in a study on
Tuesday that the upgrade would cost $1 trillion over 30 years.
"These are going to cost much more than people
appreciate they are going to cost," said Jon Wolfsthal, the
deputy director of the center in Monterey, California.
"Annually we're going to be spending upwards of $33 billion ...
once we get to year 11, 12 and onward."
The administration plans to modernize its 1970s-era nuclear
bombs - some of which still use vacuum tubes that date to the
1960s - and upgrade them with current electronic components and
tail kit guidance systems to make them more accurate.
At the same time, the Pentagon is planning to build a dozen
new ballistic missile submarines, a new fleet of long-range
nuclear bombers and new intercontinental ballistic missiles to
replace the current delivery systems, all of which are nearing
the end of their useful life.
Critics of the administration's plans say the spending is
excessive given President Barack Obama's announcement last year
that a nuclear posture review had concluded the United States
could reduce the size of its arsenal by about a third to between
1,000 and 1,500 deployed atomic weapons.
Under the New START treaty Obama negotiated with Russia, the
two former Cold War rivals are committed to reduce their
deployed strategic nuclear weapons to 1,550 per side by 2018.
"In a constrained budget environment, and in a time in which
the president has already determined that the United States can
reduce our deployed strategic arsenal by a third, ... we don't
believe the taxpayer should be asked to build a new triad that's
the same size, the same firepower as the triad that we no longer
need," said Daryl Kimball, head of the Arms Control Association.
Supporters of the plans say the spending is a small
proportion of the overall Defense Department base budget, which
has been running at more than $500 billion annually, and they
note that maintaining a credible deterrent is necessary to
fulfill treaty obligations in Europe and Asia.
Clark Murdock, a nuclear weapons expert at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies think tank, said Russia had
been modernizing the legs of its own triad and had become more
reliant upon nuclear arms as its conventional forces weakened.
"I don't want the Russians thinking they have a superior
nuclear force," he said, adding it was also important to
maintain nuclear forces superior to those of China to fulfill
U.S. treaty obligations to Japan, South Korea and others.
"This is an uncertain time, particularly in the Asian
sphere, particularly with China getting more and more aggressive
and assertive about its territorial claims within the region,"
Murdock said. "Under those kind of circumstances, that's not a
time when you take a way the overarching security architecture
that's anchored right now on the U.S. nuclear umbrella."