The return to power of Donald Trump raises serious questions about the future of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. His statements on nuclear weapons have been all over the map, but a 2017 review by Anthony Zurcher of The Guardian of Trump’s statements since the 980s concluded that “his thoughts on atomic weaponry reflect a certain strain of Cold War arms-race enthusiasm and diplomatic brinkmanship.” And in 2016, after he was challenged when he said ‘possibly, possibly” nuclear weapons could be used, Trump went on to say that if they weren’t to be used, “Then why are we making them?” On the flip side, he has also called nuclear war “the ultimate catastrophe.”
As for his actions in office, Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which by all objective accounts had been working to stop Tehran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon. And in 2019, the Trump administration withdrew from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces in Europe treaty (INF), which had banned ground-based ballistic missiles and cruise missiles in the range of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.
On the other hand, Trump was roundly (and unfairly) criticized for his short-lived effort at nuclear negotiations with North Korea. The talks ultimately failed, but critics who slammed Trump for “rewarding” North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un seemed to be ignoring the fact that in the final analysis talking with adversaries is a precondition for any sort of agreement. Criticism of Trump for being ill-prepared or inconsistent was fair game, but slamming him for talking to the North Korean leader at all didn’t make a lot of sense.
The real test of Trump’s stance on all-things nuclear will be his approach to the Pentagon’s multi-year effort to build a new generation of nuclear-armed missiles, bombers, and submarines, plus new warheads to go with them, a plan that some experts suggest could cost up to $2 trillion in the next three decades.
The nuclear plan has already been plagued by major cost overruns, including an 81% increase in the projected cost of the new intercontinental ballistic missile, dubbed the Sentinel, and developed and produced by Northrop Grumman. The cost overrun prompted a government review of the program, but the assessment ended up pronouncing that the program was too important to cancel.
The review of the Sentinel was a missed opportunity. Former secretary of defense William Perry has called ICBMs “some of the most dangerous weapons we have,” because the president would have only a matter of minutes to decide whether to launch them on warning of attack, increasing the risk of a nuclear confrontation sparked by a false alarm.
The Pentagon has a big shopping list – a larger Navy, more combat aircraft, new armored vehicles, drones and other unpiloted vehicles. Even with a Pentagon budget soaring towards $1 trillion per year, something may have to be cut. There’s also a chance that at least a few fiscal conservatives in Congress may seek across-the-board cuts, including the Pentagon, upon news that for the first time interest on the federal debt is larger than the Pentagon budget.
On the other hand, despite the occasional criticism, Trump has come to see weapons contractors as important allies in executing his domestic strategy because of the jobs created by contracts with the Pentagon and foreign buyers. This alliance was on display in Trump’s effort to make a huge weapons deal with Saudi Arabia, which he claimed could create 500,000 jobs in the United States, when a more realistic estimate would be one-tenth to one-twentieth of that figure. The ultimate test came after the Saudi regime’s murder of the U.S.-resident Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi, when Trump issued a statement saying that U.S. arms to the Saudi regime would continue, in part because he didn’t want to reduce business for “our wonderful defense companies.”
Donald Trump is nothing if not unpredictable. Will Trump the deal maker pleasantly surprise us by attempting to enter into negotiations to reduce nuclear arsenals, or will he resort to bluster and threats that make negotiations more difficult, even as he helps line the pockets of major weapons makers with billions of dollars of our tax money? To some degree it’s up to what kind of pressure he gets for and against the current buildup, which is a question that can only be answered once he is in office.
Reprinted from Forbes.com
