by CKR
Britain is about to embark on the kind of non-debate the US is having on nuclear policy.
They're going to spend £1 billion (about $1.8 billion) on upgrading the Trident weapons facility at Aldermaston.
At present, over 80% of the infrastructure at AWE pre-dates 1960 and it is becoming increasingly difficult and expensive to sustain. The package will enable AWE to take forward a program of work aimed at sustaining key skills in the AWE workforce and modernizing some of its core research and manufacturing facilities, including the provision of some extra supporting infrastructure. Defense Industry Daily
Sounds like Los Alamos, even down to the problems.
And Robin Cook weighs in. He makes a number of good points that apply to the US nuclear program too.
As the Defense Industry Daily observes, the facilities at the nuclear weapons plants and research labs are getting antiquated. They were built during the Cold War, which ended 16 years ago when the Soviet Union gave up its doctrine of exporting class warfare.
The nineties languished without a serious discussion of nuclear doctrine. A Cold-War-style nuclear exchange with Russia is highly unlikely unless a highly belligerent government takes over in Russia. China is slowly building up a nuclear arsenal, but it's unlikely that it will ever rival the numbers of the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. They most likely have 80-100 nuclear weapons now. India and Pakistan are mostly concerned about each other, and President Bush's recent actions could move India into negotiated limitations on their weapons and possible use. That leaves the mavericks like North Korea, and there even seems to be some progress there.
We don't have a Herman Kahn who is developing nuclear exchange scenarios any more, just our own mavericks like Tom Tancredo and the folks who are rumored to be developing scenarios for nuking Iran on the next terrorist attack. (I can't find a link for that one, but those guys might take a look at this.)
The broader issues are the role of the US and its allies in the world and the perceived value of nuclear weapons to nations. Coming in the US is a debate over the reliable replacement warhead, for which a reasonable case can be made if the administration can cut through its self-inflicted lack of credibility.
Or perhaps not. I find the silence on nuclear weapons on the part of the public and most politicians puzzling. I'd like to hear from readers, particularly those who aren't specialists in this area, what they think the reasons are for this silence.