new start

You can tell the conversation in Washington is changed when defense hawks argue we should cut the nuclear arsenal and use the funds elsewhere. That is exactly what happened last week on the floor of the House.

When U.S. President Barack Obama took to the podium during a rare visit to the Pentagon early last month, he announced a new strategy for the country's military posture abroad. The United States would shift from being able to fight two major wars simultaneously to increasing its focus on Asia. But the president also explained that reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal would be key to future defense: "We will continue to get rid of outdated Cold War-era systems," he said, "so that we can invest in the capabilities we need for the future."

From the very first moment that Ploughshares Fund was founded, we understood that people don’t want to fund paperclips, they want to fund peace. That’s why every dollar you donate goes directly to our grantmaking program, with nothing subtracted for administrative or overhead costs. That means your contribution funds a carefully selected set of grants to the smartest people with the best ideas for effective nuclear weapons policy, all with the shared goal of eliminating nuclear weapons.

In a recent article, Jeffrey Lewis of Arms Control Wonk outlined what could happen to U.S. nuclear forces under a sequestration budget. He illustrates that even with Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s so-called “doomsday” cuts to nuclear weapons related activities, the U.S. could still field enough warheads to greatly surpass the limits put in place by New START.

What could that “doomsday” look like if the U.S. maximized its nuclear forces? (View at full size)