One of the big problems with nuclear weapons is a lack of transparency. While it is understandable that national security demands that certain facts about nuclear weapons be kept secret, too often agencies have deliberately kept information secret that should have been made available to U.S. citizens. Sometimes it is an attempt to keep obvious examples of oversight failures and agency incompetence from public view. Now the Pentagon has changed its policy on making reviews of safety and security of nuclear weapons operations public.
It has been the long-standing standard practice of withholding detained information about reviews of operations at U.S. nuclear weapons bases which is entirely understandable. However, previously, it had been the tradition that the bottom line findings of such reviews such as a “pass-fail” grade have been made public. Now such basic inspection results will no longer be revealed.
The stated reason for the change in policy is that potential enemies might learn too much about the vulnerabilities of U.S. nuclear weapons facilities. The spokesman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that the added secrecy was necessary. He also said, “We are comfortable with the secrecy. As long as nuclear weapons exist, the U.S. will maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear stockpile.”
The decision about reporting on basic inspections about how nuclear weapons are operated, maintained and guarded was based on a secret recommendation developed by detailed Pentagon reviews of problems with the weapons, workers and facilities in the nation's nuclear force. However, the problems that led to the call for the reviews were not related to reporting inspection results. The problems included poor work performance, security lapses and flawed training. These shortcomings in the nuclear force were partly a result of a shortage of funding and poor leadership.
In 2013 and 2014, the Associated Press used the public results of nuclear weapons facility performance inspections to report on serious problems in the Air Force nuclear missile corps. The AP articles detailed security lapses, leadership and training failures, morale problems and other issues. The articles prompted the Pentagon to order an in-depth study by an independent group. The review found serious problems and made recommendations. There was also a parallel internal review of problems with the nuclear weapons programs whose findings were kept secret.
The Defense Secretary who ordered the reviews said, "Trust and confidence of the people is the coin of the realm for leaders and nations. That requires an openness even on sensitive issues. Certain specifics must always stay classified for national security reasons but should be classified only when absolutely necessary. When you close down information channels and stop the flow of information you invite questions, distrust and investigations."
The recommendation to not publish the results of the inspections did not come from the independent report. The recommendation came from the internal report that was classified. So it is not possible for the press and public to see and understand the actual reasoning behind the recommendation to hide the basic results of inspections.
Critics are concerned that it national security may not be the reason for the restriction of reporting on inspections. A government security expert with the Federation of American Scientists said, “They're acting like they have something to hide, and it's not national security secrets. I think the new policy fails to distinguish between protecting valid secrets and shielding incompetence. Clearly, nuclear weapons technology secrets should be protected. But negligence or misconduct in handling nuclear weapons should not be insulated from public accountability."
