A new and controversial report arguing for the production of low-yield, tactical nuclear weapons by the U.S. released by a noted D.C. think tank has drawn heavy criticism from field experts, including one of the report’s coauthors, who labeled the report’s conclusions as “reckless” and “insane.”
The report, released by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and entitled Project Atom: A Competitive Strategies Approach to Defining U.S. Nuclear Strategy and Posture for 2025–2050, was produced by nine coauthors from four think tanks but the conclusions drawn were solely that of the CSIS’ Clark Murdock.
“In order to execute its Measured Response strategy, the nuclear forces for both deterrence and extended deterrence should have low-yield, accurate, special-effects options that can respond proportionately at the lower end of the nuclear continuum,” Murdock writes in the report.
Funding for nuclear weapons comes from the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Energy (DOE). In recent years, the DOD has had to spread funding over a range of issues, such as cyber security and anti-terrorism, in addition to nuclear weapons. Murdock argues that developing smaller nuclear weapons will act as a deterrent against the military power of competing nations. This is necessary, he says, because the U.S.’ conventional military power — unarguably the strongest in the world — cannot be maintained.
Murdock’s proposed strategy would not act as a deterrent but instead renew a nuclear arms race between global powers, experts specializing in nuclear weapons and disarmament told ThinkProgress. “There’s a number of reasons why this idea doesn’t make sense,” Kingston Reif, the Director of Disarmament and Threat Reduction Policy at the Arms Control Association, said. “[I don’t think that] Russia and China would understand its use to control escalation and not part of a campaign to change regimes in those countries.”
Such a move would be seen as provocative by the Chinese and Russians, Dr. Barry Blechman, a political scientist and cofounder of the Stimson Center who coauthored the report, told ThinkProgress.
With the strongest conventional military in the world at the U.S.’ disposal, experts believe that the threat of retaliation by conventional means is enough to deter the prospect of a nuclear attack.
Murdock’s idea for the U.S. to expand its arsenal of low-yield, tactical nuclear weapons and deploy them to allied countries was “terrible on so many grounds,” Blechman said, because it would upset U.S. allies uncomfortable with hosting nuclear weapons and would be “a huge waste of money.”
An even more concerning aspect that comes from Murdock’s recommendations is the suggestion to distribute these low-yield nuclear weapons to allies around the world — primarily in Europe and southeast Asia. Experts worry about those weapons falling into the wrong hands. “Terrorists might penetrate [bases where the weapons are held] and secure the weapons,” Blechman said. He pointed to Turkey, where the jihadist movement the Islamic State holds territory across the border, as a concern.
Murdock’s suggestions don’t seem likely to be taken up by the government anytime soon. Apart from the threat they may pose to Russia and China, the two departments who give funding to the nuclear program have budget constraints. However, a strong movement to remove American nuclear weapons hosted in Europe seems to have been derailed thanks in part to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression. Blechman pointed to a “rebirth of the adversarial relationship between NATO and Russia,” as a reason why $8–10 billion will be used to modernize the current nuclear arsenal.
“Every dollar we spend on nuclear weapons is a dollar we can’t spend on conventional weapons,” Blechman said.