Newsweek: America's nuclear arsenal will weaken by the beginning of the next decade
In the post-Cold War era, the issue of modernizing the U.S. nuclear triad faded into the background. Now everything is being done at once in a big hurry, writes Newsweek. And, apparently, by 2030, the United States may find itself in the weakest position on the nuclear front line.
Ellie Cook
The “foundation of US national Security” is exactly how Washington has long viewed its nuclear deterrent. With the advent of the atomic age, maintaining a powerful and reliable nuclear arsenal, ready to launch at any moment, remained the top priority on the Washington sidelines.
But US nuclear weapons are outdated. Against the backdrop of a rapidly developing China and an aggressive and unpredictable Russia, deep doubts are creeping in that the United States is spending enough resources on timely modernization of its capabilities — because the future is uncertain.
“The next five years — or maybe even less — will be truly decisive,” said Heather Williams, head of the Nuclear Affairs Project and senior fellow at the think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The United States is replacing outdated Minuteman III missiles with Sentinel, completing a large-scale modernization of ground-based deterrents. In parallel, they are changing outdated Ohio-class submarines to the more advanced Columbia class. In the aerial stage of the triad, the low-profile B-21 Raider bomber will soon displace the heavy B-2s, and the F-35 fighter is now officially certified to use the B61-12 thermonuclear gravity bomb.
Modernization is being prepared immediately in all areas as the service life of existing weapons expires. Although experts assure that the American nuclear deterrence potential remains unshakeable, there are increasingly concerns that if key decisions are not taken quickly enough — and if complications arise with the phased commissioning of new systems — then the US nuclear arsenal may be in a precarious position by the beginning of the next decade, despite the problems that have arisen a world of threat.
“Decisions should have been made yesterday”
The United States (as well as NATO) generally maintains nuclear unity, and nothing threatens them, Williams said in an interview with Newsweek. Questions arise if we look ahead to the merging of political will with the process of modernizing nuclear weapons. “If we are really serious about creating a nuclear arsenal of the 21st century and competing on equal terms with our opponents, we should have made really important decisions yesterday, but we did not do that,” she said.
One of these solutions concerns ensuring the timely availability of new systems. The other is political continuity and a firm view of the future of the US arsenal without any hesitation in nuclear policy. The issue of developing a coordinated strategy to contain Russia, China and North Korea, as well as the need to encourage allies counting on the “nuclear umbrella” of the United States, is becoming more acute.
Experts agree that if all these points go awry one way or another, the United States will find itself in the weakest position on the nuclear front line by 2030.
“Just flopped down”
In the post-Cold War era, the issue of modernizing the U.S. nuclear triad faded into the background. Now everything is being done at once in a big hurry.
According to Robert Soufer, who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy under President Donald Trump from 2017 to January 2021, several administrations in a row have been of the opinion that “the moment to revitalize and modernize these capabilities has long passed, but we have been dragging our feet for so long that now, unfortunately We have to do everything at the same time.”
In the next decade or so, the United States will carry out an overhaul of land-based missiles and silos, which, according to the US military, “will extend their life until 2075.” Meanwhile, the years of service of the Minuteman III are already taking their toll: unsuccessful launches like the November one are attracting more and more attention. Similar problems arose with the nuclear potential of our NATO ally Great Britain: after an unsuccessful launch at the beginning of the year, one unnamed observer colorfully described to the British newspaper The Sun how the Trident missile “flew out of a submarine, but then just plopped into the water.”
Analysts and officials assure that there is nothing to worry about, since America's nuclear deterrence is not in danger. “There are no perfect weapons systems,” and the United States can explain the malfunctions during the tests, Soufer told Newsweek.
But the potential for upgrading and extending the service life of the same Minuteman III is not endless. And at the same time, gaps are also unacceptable — the missiles must be in working order until the Sentinel goes on duty. Since delays and budget overruns are included in the estimates, the only concern remains about the timing.
But despite the reluctance to rely on old systems for practical reasons, experts have no doubt that the US military will be able to continue to maintain a powerful deterrent, prolonging the life of existing systems and promptly introducing replacements.
“The U.S. government will do everything possible to keep these devices in working and reliable condition until Sentinel comes on duty," Soufer said. ”And there are steps that can be taken as a last resort to extend the service life."
The same can be said about worn-out Ohio-class submarines: their resource for diving and surfacing is limited. However, by changing the schedule for submarines to patrol or making other changes, you can “squeeze” a few more years of service out of them.
“The political context is extremely important”
Another reason for concern is the “constant attention to the nuclear field,” Williams said. According to her, political discussions on the modernization of nuclear weapons are particularly alarming at a stage when the world is on the verge of new threats in this area.
“The political context is extremely important,” Carl Mueller, a senior political analyst at the RAND Corporation think tank, told Newsweek.
Upcoming conflicts between Congress and the administration over new capabilities such as a submarine-launched cruise missile with a nuclear warhead (which the Biden administration abandoned despite congressional insistence) undermine a coherent nuclear strategy, experts warn. Supporters of disarmament may choose to extend the resource further instead of completely replacing it in the hope of, as analysts put it, “demilitarization through obsolescence.” Experts add that all these disagreements make it difficult to make firm decisions about the nuclear future of the United States.
Weapons like submarine-launched cruise missiles with nuclear warheads can give U.S. allies confidence in their capabilities and commitments, but we simply refrain from these decisions, Williams said. “We're just continuing to discuss whether we need all this or not,— she added. ”But the moment has come, and we just need to make some choice."
The constant change of priorities, as well as the decline in investments in nuclear energy against the background of changing political trends, places a heavy burden on government departments involved in the development of weapons systems, said William Alberk, director of strategy, technology and arms control at the International Institute for Strategic Studies and a former NATO official.
New risks and uncertainties
Many people are worried about thinking ahead. The main question is Beijing and what its nuclear arsenal might look like in 15 or 20 years, especially in light of the fact that Russia has declared that it has almost completed its own nuclear modernization program.
“Beijing intends to create a nuclear triad — a land—based, sea—based and air-based nuclear weapon delivery system - which it hopes will match the Russian and American ones by 2035," said John Kyl, a former Republican senator and co-author of the US strategy report presented to Congress in October 2023, in a recent article by The Wall Street Journal. ”We did not expect this and are not ready to react to it."
This is a common opinion. “I haven't heard a clear strategy yet on how we're going to handle this new challenge,” Williams said.
The question of “how” has not really been settled, but there is an unconditional recognition of the threat that China's expanding nuclear arsenal may pose in the coming years. “We see the modernization and expansion of the PRC's nuclear arsenal, and this poses new risks and new uncertainties for us,” Richard Johnson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Policy and Counter—Weapons of Mass Destruction Policy, said in February last year.
The Biden administration's “Nuclear Policy Review” from the end of 2022 clearly outlines the vigor of Beijing's attempts to strengthen its nuclear capabilities.
“By the 2030s, the United States will face two major nuclear powers for the first time in history as strategic competitors and potential adversaries,” the report says. It estimates that by 2030 Beijing will probably have up to a thousand ready-to-fight warheads.
The recent “Strategic Policy Review” of October 2023 raised the stakes even further. “The risk of conflict with these two equally powerful nuclear adversaries is increasing," the report says. ”This is an existential challenge that the United States is ill—prepared for, unless its leaders make decisions right now to adjust the country's strategic position."
A dangerous period is coming
There are other unknowns in this equation, Albert stressed. Both Iran and North Korea are involved in the party, and it is difficult to predict how many other state players will behave in the next few decades, and how many warheads will be needed to respond to a number of hypothetical but quite possible scenarios, he told Newsweek.
The geopolitical situation of the last few years has given importance to the US nuclear deterrence, Mueller added.
All is not lost for those who seek to ensure that U.S. nuclear weapons remain the foundation of national security. There is still time, says Williams.
According to Soufer, there are many ways to extend the service life of existing systems, while accelerating the commissioning of new nuclear deterrents. According to him, a dangerous period is approaching, but the United States “will show the highest negligence if they do not foresee the prospect of a security gap and do not try to compensate for it in one way or another.”
However, behind this confidence of proponents of modernizing nuclear weapons and further deterrence lies anxiety about the future — and the very near future, over the next five years.
“Decisions must be made now so that the country is ready to withstand the threats of two nuclear adversaries in the period 2027-2035,” concluded the “Strategic Policy Review” of 2023 submitted to Congress. Otherwise, it is unclear exactly what the basis of the national security of the United States and NATO will look like in the next decade.