• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Lack of U.S. Nuclear Modernization Dangerous

    The Obama Administration traded 25 percent of the U.S. operationally deployed strategic nuclear missiles for a Russian nuclear buildup in New START, a bilateral arms control treaty with the Russian Federation, writes Mark Schneider in his latest op-ed.

    This became clear after the U.S. State Department released a factsheet making the disparity in destruction of accountable systems—delivery vehicles, nuclear warheads, deployed and non-deployed launchers of intercontinental-range ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers—official.

    According to the factsheet, Russia can deploy 179 more ICBMs, SLBMs, and bombers (the U.S. has to remove 182 total) and add 27 accountable nuclear warheads to its operational arsenal (the U.S. has to remove 250 accountable nuclear warheads). In concurrence with New START—President Obama’s alleged step to a world free of nuclear weapons—Russian officials announced the largest nuclear buildup since the end of the Cold War. So much for leading by example.

    If the Russians follow through on their modernization plan and the United States sticks to the “no new nuclear warheads, no new military missions, no new military capabilities” policy stated in President Obama’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, the country’s forces will be vulnerable to a Russian first strike. Second-class nuclear forces are likely going to make the U.S. deterrent less effective and could eventually contribute to adversaries more aggressively pursuing their national goals, which are likely to be contrary to U.S. interests.

    Currently, the average age of U.S. delivery platforms is 41 years for the Minuteman III, 21 years for the Trident II D-5 SLBM, 50 years for the B-52H bomber, 14 years for the B-2 bomber, and 28 years for the Ohio-class submarine. Russia, unlike the United States, is planning on buying 36 strategic ballistic missiles, two strategic missile submarines, and 20 strategic cruise missiles in 2011 alone. Starting in 2018, fifth-generation ICBMs will make up at least 80 percent of the Russian strategic arsenal. The Minuteman III replacement missile will be deployed, if ever, in 2030 at earliest.

    Despite President Obama’s nuclear modernization promises, increases in funding for the U.S. nuclear weapons enterprise will allow only sustainment rather than real modernization of the U.S. nuclear capabilities. In the view of the Russian modernization and the deterioration of the U.S. nuclear weapons knowledge and skill base, it seems only prudent that Congress establish a link between New START implementation and modernization of U.S. strategic nuclear weapons.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    One Response to Lack of U.S. Nuclear Modernization Dangerous

    1. AmandaK says:

      I know this blog/article is on Nuclear Modernization Dangers, but I just wanted to try to reach out to you about EMP because there's a guy that's going to be on this online radio show that has hosted seminars about strategic nuclear modernization. The online show that he's going to be on focuses on EMP hits, so I think you guys would find this episode interesting and informative. The show is Wednesday the 31st(tomorrow), here's the link if you are interested: http://empactradio.org/pvp/episode64-peter-huessy

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×