• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Uncertainty Does Not Pay Off When It Comes to the U.S. Strategic Arsenal

    The U.S. Minuteman III intercontinental-range ballistic missile (ICBM) force faces an uncertain future, writes Mark Schneider in his recent post on DefenseNews.com.

    A set of Minuteman failures in the recent years is as concerning as the exponential loss of design and engineering expertise within the Air Force itself. As Schneider warns, no one involved in the original Minuteman design is active in the program, and no one in the Air Force project office has experience in managing the development of a new ICBM. This could cause substantial problems if a major technological problem with a Minuteman missile is found.

    The ICBM force is not the only OLD operationally deployed U.S. nuclear delivery system. Currently, the average age of other U.S. components of the triad is 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.

    During the Cold War, the United States replaced its weapons every 10 to 15 years. This is no longer possible unless Congress substantially increases reinvestments in the nuclear weapons complex. Even then, it will take years to reconstitute the capability to develop new systems. Currently, the United States is the only nuclear weapon state without a substantial modernization program.

    The Obama Administration promised to increase investments to the U.S. nuclear weapons complex in the context of the New Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (New START) that entered into force in February 2011. The implementation of New START will be costly and will drain additional resources from the already strained defense budget. The Administration’s proposed increase of about $15 billion in nuclear weapons spending over the next decade is modest, at best, compared to the need. Most of the money is proposed to be spent well beyond the President’s term and currently cannot be used to develop new capabilities suited for the current proliferated environment.

    The Administration cannot guarantee anything, because it is Congress that has the final say in formulating the budget, not the White House. The loss of credibility in the U.S. deterrent could have grave consequences as over 30 countries all over the world enjoy U.S. nuclear security guarantees in exchange for not developing their own capabilities.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to Uncertainty Does Not Pay Off When It Comes to the U.S. Strategic Arsenal

    1. Bobbie says:

      Uncertainty pays off in favor of the government. That's why it's imposed by government! No accountability and always made exception to this ignorant, American government narcissism. Undeserving of all America(ns.) We have to stop the intentional blatant danger they are holding America to!

    2. bobbymike says:

      If the US is to reduce deployed strategic warheads to New Start limits they need to have unquestioned performance and reliability.

      This will take a wholesale modernization effort not only of delivery systems and their important sub-components like reentry vehicles and guidance sets but also the nuclear warhead infrastructure. We also need to be able to produce new modern and robust warheads into the foreseeable future.

      Anyone who believes in and understands deterrence should be very concerned with the current "die on the vine" attitude of our politicians since about 1991. The time has come to replace and modernize, I feel we are literally less than a generation away from not being able to even produce these systems.

    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.