New Nuclear Strategy for U.S.
Cato Institute
April 9, 2010
In advance of the Global Summit on Nuclear Security next week, President Obama on Tuesday announced a slight shift in U.S. nuclear weapons policy that essentially split the difference between conservatives who favor an expanded role for nuclear weapons and liberals who anticipate their complete elimination. Cato scholar Christopher A. Preble says that overall the Nuclear Posture Review "signals more continuity than change," but warns, "Unfortunately, it fails to set the stage for dramatic and necessary changes to a bloated and outdated force structure because it reaffirms the U.S. commitment to other countries that imposes a huge burden on our military and on U.S. taxpayers."
In the December 2009 issue of Cato’s Nuclear Proliferation Update, Preble discussed the cost of our nuclear program, and how it is the least transparent feature of the nation’s massive budget:
In the most comprehensive study of nuclear weapons spending, [researchers] concluded that U.S. taxpayers spent at least $52.8 billion in fiscal year 2008—a reasonable floor based solely on information in the public domain. The actual top–line budget, which includes classified and intelligence-related activities, is surely higher—and likely much higher. …Nuclear weapons–related spending might be warranted if the money was likely to advance American security, and do so at a reasonable cost. Programmatic reforms, beginning with a full and public accounting of all spending, are essential to making this a reality.
Preble discussed the reduction of the nuclear arsenal in a recent Cato Daily Podcast.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário