Editor:
We are again in the process of developing a federal budget and setting priorities. Some think we should cut domestic spending — on highways and bridges. But what about our extravagant weapons?
We are always preparing to fight the previous war, and our weapons expenditures show that clearly. How many nuclear submarines do we need, now that the Cold War is over? Is the security of America enhanced because we have 71 operational nuclear submarines? Well it certainly helps board members of Westinghouse and Electric Boat, who make the subs. They get $2.5 billion for each sub that we buy this year. Congress — so concerned about waste — is authorizing three new subs for almost $8 billion. For what purpose? What good do these subs do against Al Qaeda in Yemen, or Assad in Syria? In Afghanistan — during the longest war in American history — how many times did we use our 71 nuclear subs?
We worry about Russia and China. Russia has been unable to keep more than one sub on patrol at a time lately, due to high maintenance and operating costs. It costs $50 million per year to operate a nuclear sub. So operating our 71 subs is costing us $3.5 billion yearly. The new subs, and operation of the existing ones thus cost us taxpayers $11 billion this year. Do we need 71 subs to balance the one that Russia has in the water, or the couple that China expects to have in 5-10 years?
We are pledged, along with Russia, to each reduce our strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550. But General Cartwright, former commander of our nuclear arsenal, said that effective deterrence could be maintained with 900, a 40 percent reduction. Senator Levin of the Armed Services Committee said in the Senate on 15 June 2012, “I can’t see any reason for having as large an inventory ...” So why do we need three more nuclear subs, each with 16 new Trident nuclear missiles? Do you think we might stop buying more subs for a while? It would save $8 billion this year.
Bill Jobin
Cortez