• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Defense Strategic Guidance Lacks Strategic Thinking on Nuclear Weapons

    The Obama Administration just rolled out its Defense Strategic Guidance (DSG), which outlines priorities of the U.S. military after the Budget Control Act of 2011.

    While it will have significant negative impact for the entire U.S. force structure, readiness, and training, the DSG mentions nuclear weapons to state that “it is possible that our deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force.” This is a mark of a wishful, rather than strategic, thinking. In addition, there is no justification as to why the document arrived at this conclusion.

    Assuming that U.S. deterrence goals are still the same—most importantly, to deter an attack on its homeland, forward-deployed troops, and allies—the U.S. should be modernizing its arsenal and developing new weapons designs capable of securing its interests around the world. Nuclear modernization is important because more nuclear-armed countries emerged since the end of the Cold War. Some of these countries—e.g., North Korea and nuclear-wannabe Iran—are openly hostile to U.S. interests. The U.S. should develop capabilities to deter and defeat these actors.

    The U.S. response to other countries’ nuclear modernization plans has been inadequate. Instead of developing new nuclear weapons suited for deterring what the leadership of new nuclear weapons states values—power and means of attack—the U.S. stopped its nuclear weapon testing entirely. This left the country with Cold War–style high-yield nuclear weapons designed to kill as many people as possible. But people are clearly not what North Korea’s leadership values.

    The U.S. is the only country in the world without a substantial modernization program. After Russia signed the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which unilaterally reduced U.S. forces, Moscow announced the largest nuclear modernization program since the end of the Cold War. Meanwhile, the U.S. continues on the path of unilateral disarmament, this time under the cloud of budgetary constraints.

    While the Obama Administration has agreed on the importance of revitalizing the nuclear complex during the Senate debate over the New START last year, it did not take long for the Administration to renege on its promises. While the Administration requested $7.6 billion for nuclear weapons activities, the House Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee cut $400 million from the President’s budget request, and its Senate counterpart has cut $440 million. The Administration has made very little effort to prevent these cuts. But nuclear weapons are not the cause of the country’s fiscal troubles.


    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to Defense Strategic Guidance Lacks Strategic Thinking on Nuclear Weapons

    1. Jon says:

      In this era of fiscal crisis, we can make cuts to the nuclear force structure while still maintaining a creditable deterrent. For example, the following would still give us 1,516 warheads under New START counting rules while also bolstering our conventional forces which are needed more:
      1. 300 icbms with one warhead each. Close one icbm base. 300 warheads.
      2. 192 slbms on 8 deployed Ohio subs (10 total) with 150 warheads per sub. 1,200 warheads.
      3. 16 B-2s armed with B83 gravity bombs. 300 warheads.
      4. Convert 4 Ohio subs to Tactical Trident SSGNs.
      5. Convert B-52Hs and AGM-86Bs to conventional only.
      6. Convert B61s to be carried by tactical fighter aircraft only.
      I would love to elaborate more, especially how this structure relates to Prompt Global Strike, Missile Defense, total warhead arsenal (deployed strategic, non-deployed strategic, non-deployed non-strategic), forward deployed nukes, follow-on treaties after New STAT, but I will refrain for now.

    2. mahmoud says:

      which outlines priorities of the U.S. military after the Budget Control Act of 2011.

    3. Stephanie Spies says:

      My thoughts on the subject: http://bit.ly/xR3SnI

    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.