• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • A Twisted View of Nuclear Parity

    The United States should cut its nuclear weapons capabilities to contribute to deficit reduction, writes Michael O’Hanlon, director of research in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. O’Hanlon qualifies this opinion by stating that “our strategic forces should remain as large as Russia’s.” Yet these two statements are mutually exclusive, as the United States is already below Russia’s numbers—considering Russia’s advantage in nuclear short-range systems.

    Cutting funding for the nuclear weapons complex would only make the situation worse, both qualitatively and quantitatively, as the Russians are vigorously modernizing their nuclear weapons while the United States is just sustaining its supply.

    U.S. strategic forces should remain on par with the Russians “to avoid giving Moscow any more reason to push its weight around with its neighbors,” according to O’Hanlon. This is wrong, because the global obligations of the two countries are fundamentally different. While Russia is a threat to many and the protector of none, the United States provides nuclear security guarantees to more than 30 countries all over the world. These guarantees contributed to nonproliferation more than any arms control treaty signed during the Cold War.

    In addition, Russia is vigorously modernizing its bombers, submarines, long-range missiles, and warheads. Moscow plans to develop a new Bulava 30 SLBM, eight new Borey class submarines, a fifth-generation missile submarine, an improved Sineva, the Liner, and the Arbalet submarine-launched ballistic missile. The United States is the only nuclear country without substantial modernization plans underway. Eventually, the qualitative difference between Russian and U.S. weapons will shift to Russia’s favor.

    The situation gets even worse if the “super committee” does not agree on the deficit-reduction package, and automatic sequestration under the Budget Control Act of 2011 kicks in. As Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta stated in his November 14 letter to Senators John McCain (R–AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R–SC), sequestration would force the Department of Defense to terminate the bomber modernization program, further delay next-generation submarine-launched ballistic missiles, cut the force to 10 submarines (from the current level of 12), and eliminate all U.S. intercontinental-range ballistic missiles (ICBMs). This would mean abandoning a longstanding U.S. policy of maintaining nuclear triad and moving to a dyad.

    In the age of a multipolar proliferated environment where other actors are quickly obtaining capabilities to threaten the U.S., forward-deployed troops, and allies, such a policy would be ill-advised. As the bipartisan, congressionally mandated Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States (also known as the Schlesinger–Perry Commission) wrote, “The triad of strategic delivery systems continues to have value. Each leg of the nuclear triad provides unique contributions to stability. As the overall force shrinks, their unique values become more prominent.” General Kevin Chilton, former commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, stated that the current stockpile is sized so that the United States can hedge against both technical failures in the currently deployed arsenal and any geopolitical concerns that might cause it to need more deployed weapons. To cut the stockpile means to accept a larger strategic risk.

    Each leg of the triad has unique features and attributes that are essential for keeping the U.S. nuclear deterrent credible in the view of U.S. allies and adversaries alike. Heavy bombers can signal the leadership’s policy intent and be dispersed between military bases to enhance survivability. Submarines provide for survivability, and ICBMs are the most responsive leg and, operationally, the cheapest leg of the strategic triad. It is imperative that the United States maintains this capability to hedge against the uncertainties of the future, deter threats against its territory and troops, and assure allies.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to A Twisted View of Nuclear Parity

    1. edwah zj says:

      Michael, this logic is well below the intelligent line, and you must be at least four feet to ride with it: In a world where everybody and their mother as a nucs and many others seeking , you want to What? NEXT sincerely edwah zj

      • djdrew says:

        You're on the right line, but need more clarity if I may make the point. The author suffers the same.

        The author fails to address the issue objectively and unbiased. There are many other factors other than pouring money into nuclear armament that are important to our security in the US. What they fail to admit is that the US and other countries allied with the US, has one of the most sophisticated defense systems against attack in the world, and in use widely throughout the world, made useful to allied countries.

        Preaching the need for a bolstered nuclear armament systems returns me to the days as I was growing up, with nuclear drills in classrooms and the fear factor openly hyped on TV.

        It doesn't take that many threats to make a nation nuclear capable to defend oneself. As of 2010, The Pentagon said it had a total of 5,113 warheads in its nuclear stockpile at the end of September, down 84 percent from a peak of 31,225 in 1967. The arsenal stood at 22,217 warheads when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989.

        As if the author is totally ignorant of that fact, they seem to find any excuse at all to make a point that nuclear funding is a necessity, as if we need to build more and more missiles. I do believe that with our 5,113 warheads, combined with whatever warheads would be aimed at us and impacting the continent from a given enemy, we would not have to worry about regretting not building more after the atomic clouds disappeared.

        China: About 240 total warheads.

        France: Fewer than 300 operational warheads.

        Russia: Approximately 2,400 operational strategic warheads , approximately 2,000 operational tactical warheads, and approximately 7,000 stockpiled strategic and tactical warheads.

        United Kingdom: Fewer than 160 deployed strategic warheads, total stockpile of up to 225.

        United States: 5,113 active and inactive [1] nuclear warheads and approximately 3,500 warheads retired and awaiting dismantlement. The 5,113 active and inactive nuclear warhead stockpile includes 1,968 strategic warheads, approximately 500 operational tactical weapons, and approximately 2,645 inactive warheads.

        So basically, although we can see the necessity for the US to continue advanced technology research, we can tell that the author is totally ignorant and retarded about the need for more arms.

        The old adage is true, "Don't believe everything you read". Also, being able to write something does not a reputable author make.

        Also, the almost total lack of comments from readers makes me question just how much circulation this internet news source covers. It seems to be mainly accumulated hype against political interests of the current administration merely to leech accountability from reader's discontent from current situations. With a total lack of objective articles, it diminishes the rags worthiness as a reliable news source.

    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.

    ×