Download Nuclear Weapons Talking Points and Legislative Asks

DO NOT DISTRIBUTE – INTERNAL DOCUMENT
Nuclear Weapons: Talking Points
Leaders from Henry Kissinger to President Obama recognize that nuclear weapons are
uniquely destructive and have called for their eventual elimination. WAND is mindful that this goal
requires strong efforts now and in the coming decades from governments, leaders, and individuals across the
globe. There are common sense steps that can and should be taken now to begin reducing the nuclear weapons
threat.
As we take steps to reduce the nuclear weapons threat, we can also save money. Independent
reports estimate that the United States spends $31 billion per year directly on nuclear weapons.1 With
additional costs factored in, such as environmental cleanup and addressing health impacts of nuclear weapons
production, testing and maintenance, and costs for delivery systems and related programs such as missile
defense, that figure is approximately $640 billion over the next decade.2 In a time of constrained budgets,
it is important to make sure that each of those dollars is being spent in a way that conforms to
our national interest.
Looking ahead, we must think about how nuclear weapons fit into a 21st century security
posture. In June 2013, President Obama announced that he and his top military advisers have concluded that
the United States could maintain a deployed nuclear force of 1,000 to 1,100 warheads, or another 1/3 below
level of deployed strategic forces required under the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START).
As the President and Congress begin to think about the nuclear weapons modernization budget
-- estimated at over $200 billion to simultaneously update all three legs of the Triad and maintain existing
nuclear weapons – some key points must be kept in mind:

Tight budgets are here to stay. A high level of spending to modernize the nuclear force will
require tradeoffs with other priorities, such as troop training and readiness and operations and
maintenance, in addition to health care, social safety net spending, and other needed investments. The
United States should reconsider modernization plans that conform to new budgetary realities.

Nuclear weapons contribute to global instability. Greater numbers of nuclear weapons means a
higher likelihood for accidents, terrorism, and diplomatic crises. The rest of the world still sees the
United States as its standard bearer. When the United States upholds its global nonproliferation
commitment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to work toward disarmament, other nuclear
“wannabes” have less of an incentive to uphold their own Treaty obligations not to build a nuclear
weapon.
Russell Rumbaugh and Nathan Cohn, “Resolving Ambiguity: Costing Nuclear Weapons,” Washington, DC: Stimson
Center, June 2012.
2 Ploughshares Fund, “What Nuclear Weapons Cost Us,” Working Paper, September 2012.
1
DO NOT DISTRIBUTE – INTERNAL DOCUMENT
WiLL/WAND National Women’s Leadership Conference | September 29 – October 1
DO NOT DISTRIBUTE – INTERNAL DOCUMENT
Nuclear Weapons: Legislative “Asks”
Support the Senate-appropriated (subcommittee) levels for the B61 Life Extension Program in
the final spending bill for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014.

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is upgrading the aging B61 nuclear warhead
through a “Life Extension Program” or LEP. The B61, originally deployed in Europe to deter a
Soviet threat to the continent, is a Cold War holdover.

The program has been plagued by cost overruns: the LEP would cost $12.6 billion over 10
years
 Costs estimates jumped from $4 billion in 2008 to $8 billion in 2010. Yet, an independent
review by the Defense Department puts the actual estimate at $11 billion. And a “tail kit,”
funded by the Defense Department would add $1.6 million.
 With each refurbished bomb at $25 million, a B61 warhead would cost more than twice
its weight in gold3

Refurbishing a bomb we don’t need?
 Take it from former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General James Cartwright: there
is no military purpose for tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.
 We could be upgrading a weapon that is withdrawn from Europe BEFORE its expected roll out in
2020.
Oppose cuts to vital nonproliferation programs, such as the International Material
Protection Cooperation and the Global Threat Reduction Initiative. Support the Energy
and Water subcommittee mark for FY2014.

In the post-9/11 era, there is near universal agreement that nuclear terrorism is the greatest threat to
the world and national security.

There is enough weapons-usable nuclear material spread across the globe to build more than 120,000
nuclear bombs. In some places, significant stockpiles are not adequately protected. Securing loose
nuclear material is essential to the prevention of terrorists acquiring or building nuclear weapons.

Fortunately, the Senate Energy and Water appropriations subcommittee added a total of $120 million
above the administration’s request for two vital nonproliferation programs that work to protect and
reduce the spread of nuclear and radiological material. We urge support of this figure.

From President Obama’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review: “Concerns have grown in recent years that we
are approaching a nuclear tipping point – that unless today’s dangerous trends are arrested and
reversed, before very long we will be living in a world with a steadily growing number of nucleararmed states and an increasing likelihood of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons.”
See Ploughshares Fund infographic, “Meet the budget busting B61 Nuclear Bomb”
http://www.ploughshares.org/blog/budget-busting-b61
3
DO NOT DISTRIBUTE – INTERNAL DOCUMENT
WiLL/WAND National Women’s Leadership Conference | September 29 – October 1