We are far removed from the days of Bert the Turtle, the friendly cartoon creature who taught the “Duck and Cover” method to protect them from nuclear explosions. Yet, while Bert and widespread fear of nuclear strikes left our country with the Cold War, a sizable amount of our nuclear arsenal did not.
The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) estimates that as of 2016, the U.S. holds 6,970 nuclear weapons; 1,930 of which are deployed and ready for use, 4,670 are stockpiled and the remaining 2,300 have been retired. While a nuclear arsenal is arguably a necessary military asset to the U.S., holding this many weapons is dangerous, irresponsible, expensive and simply unnecessary.
First, let’s debunk the notion that holding thousands of nuclear weapons is necessary for national security. The only other nation that has a comparable arsenal is Russia, which FAS estimates has 140 fewer active weapons and 180 fewer stockpiled weapons than the U.S. nuclear war with Russia is currently unlikely, plus Russia and the U.S. have taken similar steps in reducing their arsenals, such as signing an arms reduction pact in 2010.
The other nations that hold nuclear arms — China, France, India, Israel and the UK — all have fewer than 300 weapons. Yes, a country like Iran or North Korea or a rogue terrorist group may obtain and develop its own weapons, but even a fraction of our current arsenal is sufficient in overpowering such a threat.
Some might argue that holding nuclear weapons actually creates peace, because doing so deters possible attacks and makes leaders more apprehensive of actually using weapons. Regardless of your beliefs on this, it seems clear that we don’t need so many. According to a plan devised by two professors of strategy in the Air Force, only 311 strategically-dispersed warheads are necessary for a defensive or offensive strike.
If anything, maintaining and holding so many nukes is a greater national security threat than asset. So many sitting weapons can be targets of terrorist attacks or international sabotage. In many cases, warheads are kept in facilities with poor security or outdated technologies, some controlled by computers that still run on floppy disks. The U.S. has an embarrassing track record with its nuclear weapons. In 1961, the Air Force accidentally dropped an armed nuclear warhead on North Carolina because of a plane malfunction. All but one of its safety mechanisms failed. In 2007, the Air Force lost track of six nuclear warheads for 36 hours, leaving them unguarded on a tarmac overnight.
The accidental or deliberate detonation of just one nuke would have devastating effects on human and non-human life. Even worse is the threat of nuclear war. In 1980, a U.S. army almost launched missiles at Russia after a computer chip malfunctioned, indicating that 2,200 missiles were headed their way. In 1995, Russia mistook a scientific test missile for a nuclear one. The Russian president was two minutes away from deciding whether or not to launch a retaliation before determining the test wasn’t a threat.
Nuclear war would usher in an extreme loss of life and long-term climate change from nuclear fallout. The more excess warheads we have, the greater a chance of an accident or deliberate attack that may trigger war. Yet, despite all of this, we spend billions on maintaining, guarding and upgrading our nuclear arsenal. Reducing, not increasing, our arsenal is the rational step forward.
So what can we do about it? Luckily, if you’re reading this and you’re not a high-ranking military official or politician, you can still have an impact on the issue. For example, you can vote for representatives who support anti-nuclear legislation like the Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditures Act and publicly show your support. The act, which reduces our nuclear submarine fleet from 14 to eight and cuts back on expanding nuclear weapons programs, saves $100 billion over 10 years.
Similarly, you can encourage divestment from and protest companies that produce nuclear weapons. Companies such as Lockheed Martin and BAE Industries — both of which have a large presence on campus — produce ballistic missiles designed to carry nuclear loads. Strategic divestment not only financially discourages production but stigmatizes the weapons. Enough stigmatization can ultimately lead to a change in policy. In fact, Lockheed Martin recently stopped production of harmful cluster munitions in part due to stigmatization and divestment campaigns.
As Binghamton University students, we should speak out against Lockheed and BAE, two companies that profit off nuclear expansion and recruit our brightest students. As U.S. citizens, we should support spending our money in education, infrastructure and human services, not an outdated nuclear program that has many risks. As global citizens, we should support a safer future, free from the threat of global nuclear violence.
Caleb Schwartz is a freshman double-majoring in environmental studies and political science.