Lawmaker: “U.S. ground-based nuclear weapons need to be reconsidered”

Despite the fact that a nuclear exchange between superpowers would shatter the world, the debate over US nuclear weapons policy has stalled for the past two decades. Considering the US Air Force’s recent report on the staggering cost increase of the Sentinel program, a “megaproject” to replace the currently fielded 400 Minuteman III nuclear-capable ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), We can no longer leave this alone. Momentum alone will propel us down a $150 billion path that will fundamentally reduce the security of our country and the world.

Some, including the current administration, argue that our nuclear triad’s land forces are absolutely necessary to maintain strategic deterrence as the triad’s most “ready” force. Many nuclear policy experts, including the former Secretary of Defense and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have convincingly argued just the opposite. The common assumption is that nuclear deterrence, especially the ground forces of the Trilateral Alliance, will only be used deliberately and with reasonable deliberation in times of crisis. Any student of history knows that in times of crisis, decisions are often rushed, vague, and irrational, no matter who is in charge. Furthermore, as a recent Princeton University Science and Global Security Program (SGS) study concluded, up to 300 million innocent American lives could be lost if attacked by an enemy. The weapon is unlike any other in the US arsenal.

Despite these serious concerns and rising prices, the Sentinel program enjoys broad support across the administration and on both sides of Congress. Given this reality, it is unfortunately unlikely that we will cancel the program completely. But President Joe Biden and Secretary Lloyd Austin could not only save American taxpayers a lot of hard-earned money, but also directly address some of the concerns that experts are warning about. We have the ability to reconsider some of the fundamental tenants of our current programs. For decades.

• Reduce the total number of land-based ICBMs. It is incredibly unlikely that he would be able to release all 400 Minuteman IIIs within the short allotted schedule. Given the degree of flexibility in current designs regarding the use of warheads, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Strategic Command Commander to determine the absolute minimum number of ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles required. It is.
• The Strategic Posture Board recently concluded that the Pentagon should “pursue the feasibility of fielding a portion of a future intercontinental ballistic missile force in a road-mobile configuration.” This doesn’t mean loading nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles onto semi-trucks and driving them around the United States. Instead, launcher-based intercontinental ballistic missiles stored in secure storage would be placed on alert only when necessary. If this option were used as a replacement for all or some of the existing Minuteman III ICBMs, it could significantly reduce the number of underground silos and launch control facilities that are a major contributor to Sentinel’s ballooning program costs, and matters may also be addressed. Keep existing systems on continuous high alert.
• The committee also concluded that in the short term, the department should increase its investment in conventional weapons, as both Russia and Communist China currently produce more than the United States. If this trend continues, it could directly impact strategic stability in future conflicts. Efforts like Replicator aim to address this discrepancy in the future, but the fiscal year 2025 budget request would reduce both traditional platforms and weapons. If the Sentinel program continues to expand, these cuts to legacy systems are likely to increase further, as Pentagon revenues are unlikely to increase significantly.
• There is widespread agreement among nearly all nuclear policy experts that the Triad submarine leg is the most survivable and probably the most reliable leg in an actual nuclear exchange. It would not make more sense to invest even half of the currently projected Sentinel program budget (approximately $70 billion) instead of having more than 400 “sitting duck” targets in the heart of the United States to act as sponges. I wonder. Do you want to move to another part of the triad that is operationally more relevant?

These options are not exhaustive, but are a good starting point. A world free of nuclear weapons is a goal to which we must continue to strive. Because you can’t win a nuclear war, so you should never fight it. Until that is achieved, we must have the moral fortitude to make decisions that move us closer to that goal, rather than pushing us to the brink of catastrophic nuclear holocaust.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) is the Democratic leader on the House Armed Services Committee. He has served as his full committee chair since 2019 and has been a committee member since 1997.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own.