Russia and China Aren’t Less Committed to Nuclear Force. So Why Are We?
Michaela Dodge
As Russia and other nations
around the world flex their “nuclear muscles,” when it comes to the
United States, maintaining a credible nuclear force is certainly a tough
task. Challenges include: declining research, development and
acquisition budgets; uncertain prospects for modernization, and an
American public that lacks a clear understanding of how nuclear weapons
contribute to national security.
The U.S. nuclear force has
prevented a great power war for seven decades. Yet the commitment to
maintain a credible nuclear force appears shaky.
That is certainly not the case in competitor nations such as Russia,
China and North Korea. While sanctions and low oil prices have crippled
Russia’s economy, the Kremlin is still doggedly spending billions of
dollars on modernizing its strategic rocket forces. Washington’s lack of
commitment takes a toll on more than investment. It does not go
unnoticed by the men and women who man the nation’s nuclear submarines,
bombers, and intercontinental ballistic missiles. That only makes
executing a nuclear mission more difficult, both practically and
morally.
State of Affairs
Imagine being out on the vast prairie of Montana, North Dakota,
Wyoming, Colorado or Nebraska in the dead of winter, the blasts of wind
making the sub-zero temperatures nearly unbearable. After driving one to
three hours to reach your missile alert facility, you go down into the
launch control center where the 50-year-old equipment smells the same as
it did to your father, who pulled alerts here before you were born.
During winter, heavy snow may trap maintenance and missile alert crews
in the missile field for days. When they finally get to go home, the
smell of old equipment and chemicals lingers on their clothes.
Much the same can be said for the bomber crews who fly the exact same
aircraft their fathers flew and their sons or daughters will likely
fly.
Recent Analysis
The Heritage Foundation’s
newly released “2015 Index of U.S. Military Strength” evaluates the
health of the U.S. nuclear complex according to nine categories. In four
of those categories—warhead modernization, delivery systems
modernization, nuclear weapons complex and nuclear test readiness—the
complex was rated as “weak” (the second worst rating possible).
One of the main factors behind these low scores is sequestration. Its
“automatic pilot” budget regimen threatens sustained and predictable
funding—a major problem for addressing issues within the nuclear
complex. It has already forced a delay in plans to replace aging
delivery systems. This includes everything from a new bomber and its
nuclear certifications, to a replacement for the Ohio-class strategic
submarine, to a follow-on intercontinental ballistic missile.
Another major factor contributing to lower scores are the
government’s conflicting policies regarding the nuclear complex. We say
we care about the nuclear force and the complex that supports it, yet
manpower and resources available to execute the nuclear mission have
been steadily declining until recently. We say we are in favor of a
robust nuclear modernization program, yet proclaim, at the same time, we
need to get to a world without nuclear weapons—all while refusing to
truly modernize our weapons.
The president’s fiscal year
2016 budget dedicates over $75 million for the ground-based strategic
deterrent, better known as the Minuteman replacement. While the current
missiles are in fact woefully archaic—they were first deployed in the
1970s—there is no provision for replacing the even older silos and
launch control centers from which a new missile would be launched.
On the bright side, the president’s budget accelerates by two years
the Long-Range Standoff missile, an essential advancement in American
capabilities. This project is particularly vital considering the limited
number of available stealth bombers and the angle of attack needed to
counter the tunneling efforts of our adversaries, which make targets
hard to reach.
The main question, however, is what Congress will do. At the end of
the day, it’s the House and Senate that decide which programs get funded
and at what level.
The Index’s low rankings indicate the areas of America’s nuclear
force that are in greatest need of investment. And it’s a force that
must be sustained.
The nuclear
mission is critical. Its ultimate purpose is to deter a catastrophic
attack on our homeland, our forces abroad, and our allies. While it
is true that we require a nuclear force we never hope to launch, it is
important to recognize that our nuclear weapons serve to keep the peace
every day.
