As the Pentagon certified the continuation of the new Sentinel intercontinental ballistic nuclear missile today, 716 scientists, including ten Nobel laureates and 23 members of the National Academies, are calling for the program to be canceled.
In a letter to President Joe Biden and Congress, scientists recommend entirely retiring the nuclear triad's land-based leg, calling it "expensive, dangerous, and unnecessary," as stated by writer Kyle Ann Sebastian in her story "More Than 700 Scientists Call on Biden, Congress to Scrap Plans for New Land-Based Nuclear Missiles: Canceling "Expensive, Dangerous, and Unnecessary" Sentinel Would Save $100 Billion."
Dr. Tara Drozdenko, director of the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said: "There is no sound technical or strategic rationale for spending tens of billions of dollars building new nuclear weapons." She also said the weapons - stored in silos across the plains states - place a target on communities and increase the risk of nuclear war while offering no real security benefits and that the US could eliminate the land-based leg of the triad and the US public would only be safer for it.
The Pentagon review of the Sentinel came after the project's projected cost rose 37 percent to $131 billion, requiring a re-evaluation of the program and possible alternatives under the Nunn-McCurdy Act. This law requires a government audit if a defense project increases too much after initial planning.
Dr. Barry Barish, recipient of the 2017 Nobel Prize in physics, member of the National Academy of Sciences and signatory to the letter, said: "It is unconscionable to continue to develop nuclear weapons, like the Sentinel Program. The Russell-Einstein Manifesto in 1955 stated that 'such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind'. Today's more advanced weapons only emphasize that profound statement."
While the ballooning cost is reason enough to cancel the program, silo-based nuclear missiles also pose a danger to the US public, according to the letter by the scientists. A recent study found that an attack on US land-based missiles - which are intended to act as a "sponge" to attract and absorb incoming adversary missiles - would result in millions of deaths across the US due to radioactive fallout. Because the locations of these missiles are well known, they are vulnerable to attack. The US military keeps these missiles on "hair-trigger" alert so they can be launched within minutes, increasing the risk of nuclear war due to false alarms, misunderstandings as well as miscalculations.
Improvements in other legs of the U.S. nuclear triad have rendered the land-based leg redundant and unnecessary. Nuclear-armed submarines hidden at sea are as accurate as silo-based missiles, quick to respond, and invulnerable to attack. Previous research by the Union of Concerned Scientists found US land-based missiles superfluous and argued they could be eliminated without sacrificing U.S. security.
Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin III recommended continuing spending on the overbudget and behind-scheduled Sentinel program. However, President Biden and Congress should examine this, conclude that the costs outweigh the benefits, and cancel the program, saving U.S. taxpayers over $100 billion.
Will we choose security or what's suitable for the military-industrial complex?
Jason Sibert is the Lead Writer of the Peace Economy Project
