To the editor:

According to an article in the Nov. 11 New York Times, the Obama administration has approved a $1 trillion program over three decades to modernize the U.S. nuclear weapons system. The Pentagon and Department of Energy have started testing the B61 Model 12 nuclear warhead which can zero in on buried targets and is the first of five new warhead types planned. Plus, its explosive yield can be ratcheted up or down to minimize “collateral damage” and radioactive fallout. The lowest setting for the variable-yield, precision-guided bomb is only 2 percent as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb. The problem is the precision-targeting and yield-control make the use of nuclear weapons more thinkable.

The plans also include a nuclear-tipped cruise missile which can fly under enemy radar and hit targets thousands of miles away thereby giving a president a “limited nuclear war” option. However, cruise missiles also have conventional warheads, so an adversary may assume an incoming cruise missile is nuclear-tipped and then overreact.

Undoubtedly, this plan will trigger a new arms race with Russia, which will further increase the risk of an accidental nuclear war. Further, the plans include new bombers such as the B-3 Bomber, submarines, land-based missiles and upgrades to eight nuclear factories and labs. So, it is clear the Military Industrial Complex is going to reap an enormous bonanza and that military contractors have pushed for approval of this plan. But what happens if an unstable president is elected and the system is still on its launch-on-warning, hair-trigger alert?