U.S. President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey unveiled a new long-term defense strategy on Wednesday designed to save money while adapting U.S. forces to tomorrow’s security challenges.
While short on specifics about individual programs — those will come later this month in an official budget (USBODEFN) request — the Defense Strategic Review is realistic about trims in force size and retiree costs, and rightly calls for an increased focus on Asia and the Pacific Ocean, counterterrorism and cybersecurity.
In particular, we applaud the insistence that U.S. “deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force.” Unlike many other areas of the Pentagon budget, in which strategists and number crunchers should be able to negotiate their way to fiscal detente, the nuclear issue requires a complete rethinking of long-term strategy and philosophy.
Today’s world calls for a two-part nuclear strategy: ensuring that the U.S. has a robust retaliatory force against a major power (a resurgent Russia or a rising China) in a large- scale nuclear war, and maintaining a flexible deterrent to deal with regional challenges in a proliferating world (think Iran, North Korea and, perhaps, Pakistan). The key is making certain that the arsenal is optimal in terms of size, cost and, most important, capability.
Continue reading at Fewer, Better Nuclear Weapons Can Make the U.S. Stronger: View
Choose Language / 言語
Updates / 最新記事
- Merkel protege struggles with Germany’s green revolution via Reuters
- Moniz sworn in as secretary of DOE via Power Engineering
- IAEA:日本政府と東電へ17の助言 報告書提出 via 毎日jp
- 溶け落ちた燃料の回収は絶対できない via 人民新聞オンライン
- [UK] Government reaffirms nuclear commitment via the construction index
- Stricken Japan nuke plant struggles to keep staff via AP
- Countdown to Nuclear Ruin at Paducah via EcoWatch
- Lawmaker resurrects radioactive waste bill via My San Antonio
- 保管のセシウム汚泥 1年で3倍に via とある原発の溶融貫通(メルトスルー)
- 核融合発電の安全性は識者の間でも意見が割れている via 週プレNews
カレンダー
Archives / 月別アーカイブ
- May 2013 (124)
- April 2013 (156)
- March 2013 (199)
- February 2013 (191)
- January 2013 (173)
- December 2012 (92)
- November 2012 (198)
- October 2012 (229)
- September 2012 (207)
- August 2012 (255)
- July 2012 (347)
- June 2012 (231)
- May 2012 (168)
- April 2012 (116)
- March 2012 (150)
- February 2012 (198)
- January 2012 (292)
- December 2011 (251)
- November 2011 (252)
- October 2011 (364)
- September 2011 (288)
- August 2011 (513)
- July 2011 (592)
- June 2011 (253)
- May 2011 (251)
- April 2011 (571)
- March 2011 (494)
- February 2011 (1)
- December 2010 (1)
By Topic / トピック一覧
anti-nuclear energy movement
Atomic Age
Capitalism
East Japan Earthquake + Fukushima
energy policy
EU
food
France
health
Hiroshima/Nagasaki
IAEA
India
Inequality
labor
nuclear waste
Nuclear Weapons
Oi
Radiation exposure
restart
Russia/Ukraine/Chernobyl
TEPCO
U.S.
UK
エネルギー政策
メディア
ヨーロッパ
ロシア/ウクライナ/チェルノブイリ
上関
健康
公正・共生
兵器
再稼働
労働における公正・平等
原発推進
反原発運動
大飯原発
女性・フェミニズム
広島・長崎
教育
東京電力
東日本大震災・福島原発
米国
脱原発
被ばく
資本主義



“Better” nuclear weapons…. isn’t that categorically wrong?