Can President Obama Afford to Make Deeper Nuclear and Military Spending Cuts? Can He Afford Not to?

This year, according to the New York Times, “Pentagon spending will total $531 billion. In 2017, it will rise to $567 billion.” So, while Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s talk of $487 billion reductions over 10 years is impressive, most of the cuts are reductions in the rate of growth. In fact, after inflation, the cuts are less than 2%/year in real dollars.

What does that mean for the American people? And what does it mean for President Obama’s promises of real cuts, including in nuclear weapons and their costs?

First the good news—the last time we had real cuts in military spending, in the mid-to-late 1990’s, it was good for the economy, helped to create balanced budgets and the longest period of real economic growth and low unemployment in a century. That’s nothing to sneeze at, and we can achieve this again.

From the point of view of smart power, this is a view of foreign policy which says: “Spend only what you must for a strong defense, and build your capacity to use economic, political, and development efforts to advance our interests.” This pays off in many ways, making the US a country which is seen as an assist, not a hindrance, as a great but friendly power, not a power to be feared.

So what can President Obama do to emphasize smart power? PNA and friends sent the White House a letter on January 19, 2012, which gives some important ideas, shared by many in the arms-control community.

The president will be submitting a budget soon. Now is the time to examine further cuts, such as these:
- Cut the nuclear arsenal’s budget. As the Times notes (Jan. 30), there is no reflection in the Panetta budget plan of the President’s stated commitment to nuclear arms control, and cutting actual numbers of nuclear weapons. This can save some $25 billion or more.
- Cut the number of ballistic missile submarines projected in the budget. This could save some $50 billion.
- Cut F-35 fighter jets planned by over half, saving $150 billion. This still leaves many more advanced fighters (1000) than anyone else, including China’s projected fleet of advanced fighter jets.
- Cut the number of ICBM’s, saving $79 billion.
- Cut U.S. forces in Europe. The Cold War ended in 1989. Save at least $25 billion by bringing more troops home from Germany and England, where they’re not needed. Let them do work at home, fighting natural disasters, floods and hurricanes, when not in service abroad.

There are additional ways. At a recent meeting of the Arms Control Association, a leading US expert group, Dr. Hans Kristensen and others spoke of going from a “triad” (three-prong) nuclear attack force to a “dyad” (two-prong force). It seems we mainly keep a three-prong force so each branch of the armed services feels it has a role. This is no way to spend hundreds of billions of dollars, when we need money for education, infrastructure, and cutting the deficit.

As the Times editorial concluded:
“We know that it is politically easier to continue programs that outlive their usefulness or outrun their cost estimates… But the country cannot afford to continue on this way. And there is no strategic argument for doing so.”

If that is the case, and we agree that it is, then the President’s work is cut out for him. If we make the tough cuts now, as we have already done for health and human services, we will be much stronger tomorrow—in our economy, in our balancing of budgets, and in the employment and advancement of our people.

Written by Ed Aguilar, co-founder of the Project for Nuclear Awareness, and is the program and development coordinator for PNA.