Elon Musk has an easy task in
cutting $2 trillion from the federal budget in the view of Scientific American opinion editor Dan Vergano. But rather than going after the NOAA or the Labor Department,
his Department of Government Efficiency should "recommend ending one of
the most misguided, wasteful and dangerous programs contemplated by the
US government:" its nuclear weapons modernization plans. There's reason
for President Trump and his advisor to get on board: After all, it was
Trump "nemesis" President Obama who first dedicated $1 trillion to
modernizing the force in 2010, Vergano writes, noting the cost of the
initiative has nearly doubled since and is likely to climb further by
its 2050 end date.
Trump himself has complained
of "tremendous amounts of money" spent on "destructive" nuclear
weapons, the editor notes. So it won't be the promised $2 trillion in
cuts in a single year, "but it wouldn't be the first time one of
[Musk's] promises suffered some shrinkage," Vergano writes. And this is
about far more than cost. There's a little thing called the risk of
nuclear war, which would, at best, "cause global famine," and at worst
trigger "hundreds of millions of immediate deaths, followed by nuclear
winter starving billions."
What about China and Russia?
Vergano counters that question with another. With the coming expiration
of the START Treaty, wouldn't Trump love to make a deal that "prevents a
three-way rerun of the cold war's fruitless, perilous warhead race?"
There's just one, glaring problem, as Vergano sees it. Project 2025, the
far-right blueprint for Trump's presidency, calls for expanding and
modernizing the US nuclear force, restarting nuclear tests, and
deploying space-based weapons—"in other words, start a new arms race."
If Trump and Musk can only close the book on Project 2025, the decision
will be obvious, Vergano notes. So "have at it, you noble knights of
slaying government waste." (More nuclear weapons stories.)