Guest column: Obama's nuclear security budget should match his rhetoric
Source: desmoinesregister
In his historic Prague speech of April 2009, President Barack Obama stepped up to the greatest challenge facing the U.S. commander in chief: the threat posed by nuclear weapons and nuclear terrorism. He pledged both to pursue "the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons" and to lead an international effort to "secure all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world within four years." This latter effort is an essential step to improve our national security on an urgent basis and to establish a safe context for deep reductions in arsenals and eventual complete elimination of nuclear weapons.
More than 20,000 nuclear weapons, 95 percent of which are in U.S. and Russian stockpiles, and thousands of tons of fissile material are scattered across the globe and pose a serious threat to our health and safety. We know that terrorist groups have been attempting to acquire the materials needed to construct either nuclear weapons or "dirty bombs." Highly enriched uranium or plutonium can be used to make a nuclear weapon. Other radioactive sources, ranging from radioisotopes used in medical treatments to high-level nuclear waste from a nuclear reactor waste storage facility, can be used to create a "dirty bomb."
An attack involving a nuclear device or dirty bomb would have devastating consequences. According to a Physicians for Social Responsibility study, if a terrorist group was able to explode a single Hiroshima-size nuclear bomb in New York City, the initial blast and fallout would kill more than 260,000 people. Several hundred thousand more would suffer radiation sickness and long-term affects of cancer and other disease. An estimated 1,000 hospital beds would be destroyed by the blast, and 8,700 beds would be in areas with radiation exposures high enough to cause radiation sickness. In the wake of such an attack, local and nearby medical facilities would be quickly overwhelmed. The economic cost would be staggering.
There is a real urgency to address this grave threat. While ambitious, Obama's goal to secure all vulnerable nuclear material in four years is attainable if the administration makes it a priority, allocates adequate funding and garners international support for this agenda. This is now emphasized within his just-released Nuclear Posture Review.
Toward this end, the president is convening a global Nuclear Security Summit on April 12-13. The intent of the summit is to build international consensus on the urgency of preventing nuclear terrorism, obtaining increased and sustained financing for securing nuclear materials by the world's wealthiest nations and seeking an agreement on a multilateral implementation plan to "deter, detect, and disrupt attempts at nuclear terrorism." All of which are essential to accomplish a global lockdown of vulnerable nuclear materials in four years.
To meet the four-year deadline, the president also will need to work with Congress to dramatically increase funding directed toward preventing the global spread of nuclear weapons and materials by putting in place measures to account for and safely dismantle and secure such weapons and material.
So far, the president's laudable rhetoric has not matched the budget request proposed by the administration. The Obama administration has proposed a $624 million increase in U.S. nuclear weapons-related spending over the previous year and is requesting $5 billion in additional funding over the next five years. Although an unprecedented increase, the majority of this funding is slated to go toward maintaining and enhancing U.S. nuclear weapons, which would have little impact on securing nuclear materials globally.
The ambitious agenda the president set out in Prague and reiterated in his Nuclear Posture Review may to prove to be his ultimate test. The president needs to be personally at the forefront in this effort. He must be willing to invest the diplomatic clout and political capital needed to focus the energy of the international community abroad and Congress and the American people at home to fulfill this worthy goal.
In his historic Prague speech of April 2009, President Barack Obama stepped up to the greatest challenge facing the U.S. commander in chief: the threat posed by nuclear weapons and nuclear terrorism. He pledged both to pursue "the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons" and to lead an international effort to "secure all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world within four years." This latter effort is an essential step to improve our national security on an urgent basis and to establish a safe context for deep reductions in arsenals and eventual complete elimination of nuclear weapons.
More than 20,000 nuclear weapons, 95 percent of which are in U.S. and Russian stockpiles, and thousands of tons of fissile material are scattered across the globe and pose a serious threat to our health and safety. We know that terrorist groups have been attempting to acquire the materials needed to construct either nuclear weapons or "dirty bombs." Highly enriched uranium or plutonium can be used to make a nuclear weapon. Other radioactive sources, ranging from radioisotopes used in medical treatments to high-level nuclear waste from a nuclear reactor waste storage facility, can be used to create a "dirty bomb."
An attack involving a nuclear device or dirty bomb would have devastating consequences. According to a Physicians for Social Responsibility study, if a terrorist group was able to explode a single Hiroshima-size nuclear bomb in New York City, the initial blast and fallout would kill more than 260,000 people. Several hundred thousand more would suffer radiation sickness and long-term affects of cancer and other disease. An estimated 1,000 hospital beds would be destroyed by the blast, and 8,700 beds would be in areas with radiation exposures high enough to cause radiation sickness. In the wake of such an attack, local and nearby medical facilities would be quickly overwhelmed. The economic cost would be staggering.
There is a real urgency to address this grave threat. While ambitious, Obama's goal to secure all vulnerable nuclear material in four years is attainable if the administration makes it a priority, allocates adequate funding and garners international support for this agenda. This is now emphasized within his just-released Nuclear Posture Review.
Toward this end, the president is convening a global Nuclear Security Summit on April 12-13. The intent of the summit is to build international consensus on the urgency of preventing nuclear terrorism, obtaining increased and sustained financing for securing nuclear materials by the world's wealthiest nations and seeking an agreement on a multilateral implementation plan to "deter, detect, and disrupt attempts at nuclear terrorism." All of which are essential to accomplish a global lockdown of vulnerable nuclear materials in four years.
To meet the four-year deadline, the president also will need to work with Congress to dramatically increase funding directed toward preventing the global spread of nuclear weapons and materials by putting in place measures to account for and safely dismantle and secure such weapons and material.
So far, the president's laudable rhetoric has not matched the budget request proposed by the administration. The Obama administration has proposed a $624 million increase in U.S. nuclear weapons-related spending over the previous year and is requesting $5 billion in additional funding over the next five years. Although an unprecedented increase, the majority of this funding is slated to go toward maintaining and enhancing U.S. nuclear weapons, which would have little impact on securing nuclear materials globally.
The ambitious agenda the president set out in Prague and reiterated in his Nuclear Posture Review may to prove to be his ultimate test. The president needs to be personally at the forefront in this effort. He must be willing to invest the diplomatic clout and political capital needed to focus the energy of the international community abroad and Congress and the American people at home to fulfill this worthy goal.
Comments