The U.S. lacks the infrastructure it needs to produce the nuclear weapons estimated to keep pace with Russia and China, according to a congressional panel.
“I think we have to be very practical. And right now, pretty much everything is behind schedule and over budget,” Madelyn Creedon, chair of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, told reporters Thursday at a Defense Writers Group event.
The commission’s final report, released in October, argues that the U.S. lacks the comprehensive strategy and force structure needed to face the nuclear threats of the future.
Critics have responded that the commission’s “full-throated embrace of a U.S. nuclear build-up…ignores the consequences of a likely arms race with Russia and China.”
The report says today’s nuclear bombers, submarines, and ICBMs could fail before their replacements are ready.
“All three of the major platform programs—B-21, Columbia, and Sentinel—are already experiencing delays,” the report says. “Further delays in delivering modernized systems, or early aging out of legacy systems, could create shortfalls in U.S. nuclear capabilities if adequate mitigation measures are not developed and implemented.”
The Sentinel program, for example, which aims to replace 400 ICBMs, 450 silos, and more than 600 facilities, recently saw its planned initial capability delayed by a year to 2030.
“We haven’t done a new missile like this in 50 years. I know people talk about where we did a Peacekeeper, but the Peacekeeper was just the missile. It wasn’t the launch control facilities. It wasn’t redoing all the silos…we haven’t done this in a very long time,” Creedon said, noting similar delays with the Navy’s Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine program. “So one of the lessons learned is ‘don’t let these things die’. Don’t let these things atrophy. Keep, at some level, the industrial base alive.”
The commissioners rejected suggestions that the aging ICBM force be retired, not replaced by a new generation of weapons that critics have called vulnerable, unnecessary, and destabilizing. Land-based missiles provide “unique strengths,” the report says, citing their ability to be launched quickly during an enemy attack or to ride out a strike—two capabilities shared by submarines.
The report says that part of the reason for modernizing the nuclear force is to deter China and Russia if U.S. conventional forces cannot.
“The objectives of U.S. strategy must include effective deterrence and defeat of simultaneous Russian and Chinese aggression in Europe and Asia using conventional forces,” the report states. “If the United States and its Allies and partners do not field sufficient conventional forces to achieve this objective, U.S. strategy would need to be altered to increase reliance on nuclear weapons to deter or counter opportunistic or collaborative aggression in the other theater.”
Critics of the report say it leans too hard on this “doomsday scenario” of simultaneous attacks, and ignores the likely consequences of a nuclear build-up.
“If the United States responds to the Chinese buildup by increasing its own deployed warheads and launchers, Russia would most likely respond by increasing its deployed warheads and launchers. That would increase the nuclear threat against the United States and its allies. China, who has already decided that it needs more nuclear weapons to stand up to the existing U.S. force level (and those of Russia and India), might well respond to the U.S and Russian increases by increasing its own arsenal even further,” wrote Hans Kristensen and three colleagues at the Federation of American Scientists.
The report does not attempt to put a price tag on its recommendations. It acknowledges that more money would be needed—in 2021, the Congressional Budget Office put the cost of nuclear modernization plans at $621 billion—but says nuclear-weapons efforts are “a relatively small portion of the overall defense budget but provide the backbone and foundation of deterrence and are the nation’s highest defense priority.” does not attempt to put a price tag on its recommendations. It acknowledges that more money would be needed—in 2021, the Congressional Budget Office put the cost of nuclear modernization plans at $621 billion—but says nuclear-weapons efforts are “a relatively small portion of the overall defense budget but provide the backbone and foundation of deterrence and are the nation’s highest defense priority.”
Among the recommendations: add a third shipyard to produce nuclear-powered vessels, especially submarines.
Among the recommendations: add a third shipyard to produce nuclear-powered vessels, especially submarines.
“We made this recommendation for a third shipyard because we know, right now, that we need more conventional capability in the Asia-Pacific and we also know that, right now, it’s going to be very hard for the Navy to produce the Virginia class. Even on the schedule that they want to,” said Creedon, who was the former principal deputy administrator for the National Nuclear Security Administration. “But it isn’t just the floor space, it’s also people…It’s concrete, it’s rebar, it’s everything” from engineers and physicists to technicians and electricians.
Part of that workforce challenge goes beyond jobs and training but making areas where the work would be done more livable.
“If you’re going to recruit people to come out and do these things that we need them to do, you need to make sure that there are schools there for their kids to go to that aren’t an hour and a half away,” said Rebeccah Heinrichs, a commissioner and director of the Hudson Institute’s Keystone Defense Initiative. “There are second-, third-order, issues that we simply have to take, but it takes a national focus over many years.”
The Pentagon is planning to release its first defense industrial base strategy in December, which is expected to focus on areas like supply chains, workforce, and emerging technologies.
The Pentagon is planning to release its first defense industrial base strategy in December, which is expected to focus on areas like supply chains, workforce, and emerging technologies.
