Trials of a New Nuclear Triad

The Seattle Times editorial on June 15th alerted readers to the Navy’s plans to upgrade the Naval Base-Kitsap Bangor to prepare for the arrival of at least eight of the new class of nuclear-powered submarines. Their arrival will mean that, if the base were a nation, it would be the world's third largest nuclear weapons country. This should not make regional residents feel safer. It assures that we will continue to be in the crosshairs of any nuclear adversaries for decades. 

It’s worth reviewing how we got here. While Bangor’s history began in 1942 when it became a shipping site for WW II ammunitions, in 1973 the Navy announced selection of the base as the west coast home port for the first edition of nuclear-powered submarines equipped with Trident nuclear missiles. 

It was not without controversy. Public opposition was prolonged and strident. Seattle Catholic Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen was a prominent voice of apposition but a range of religious, anti-nuclear and political activists sustained the campaign.  While opponents failed to stop the siting, the sustained criticism marked the beginning of a substantial change in attitudes toward the military in the West. Most communities had reflexly welcomed military installations as a source of economic growth.

Similarly the Navy’s Bangor recommendation faced substantial opposition in Congress. It took until February 1, 1977 before the Senate gave formal approval to siting the new subs at Bangor. Then-Washington Senator Henry M. Jackson, a powerhouse on the Senate Armed Services Committee, muscled support for Bangor. It is not widely remembered that the legislation siting the subs passed by a single vote.

As the Times editorial hints, there are legitimate environmental concerns with the $155 million in new spending poised to upgrade piers and facilities to prepare for the new subs. But there is not the slightest possibility that the new class of submarines will fail to come to the Bangor base. There are at least two reasons. First, support for the modernization of the subs in Congress is overwhelming. And, the submarine component of the nuclear triad of submarines, bombers and land-based missiles is clearly the most strategically secure in the event of a nuclear war.

This fact, their survivability, opens the door to a wing of the nuclear triad that the public can and should oppose - the planned replacement of the 400 land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Designed during the Cold War, these weapons are widely recognized by many military leaders, security experts and arms control advocated as the most dangerous component of the U.S. nuclear arsenal because they are fixed, easy targets for U.S. opponents. And, they can (and must) be launched within minutes to avoid elimination, seriously increasing the risk of accidental or miscalculated nuclear war. Further, they are militarily unnecessary because they are duplicative of the submarine-based nuclear arsenal which provides a more than adequate nuclear deterrent. 

For these reasons, and because the cost of replacing the ICBMs is staggering when other security and domestic needs are being squeezed out, Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility has initiated a national campaign to stop the replacement of the ICBMs in the five western and midwest sites that currently house them. We will do this by educating and empowering residents in the states, who are callously deemed “nuclear sponges” by some military planners in the event of a nuclear exchange, to demand they be retired. This will be accompanied by a major campaign to enlist members of Congress, notably first in Washington, who, in the current international and fiscal climate, have an opportunity to exhibit responsible leadership to help lead the effort in Congress to delete the new class of ICBMs.

WPSR is enlisting other health professionals, faith leaders, community organizations, national anti-nuclear organizations and any in the public willing to join this strategic initiative to preventive deployment of the new edition of the ICBMs. Rationale national nuclear security considerations and common sense, as well as moral arguments, point to this time in the long, dangerous nuclear era, to finally size the opportunity to began to actually reduce our excessive and costly nuclear arsenal.

Bruce Amundson, MD

Bruce Amundson is a retired Family Physician and past president of Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility.  He has a 4-decade history of nuclear activism. He currently chairs their ICBM Initiative Advisory Committee