Do Not Sell My Personal Information
When you visit our website, we store cookies on your browser to collect information. The information collected might relate to you, your preferences or your device, and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to and to provide a more personalized web experience. However, you can choose not to allow certain types of cookies, which may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings according to your preference. You cannot opt-out of our First Party Strictly Necessary
Patty-Jane is the policy analyst for nuclear deterrence and missile defense at The Heritage Foundation. A budget that does not fully support modernization at a time when nuclear threats are growing would be nothing less than irresponsible. Doug Mills / Pool / Getty Images
Key Takeaways
Reducing the nuclear modernization budget is incompatible with maintaining a “strong, credible nuclear deterrent.” You can’t have it both ways.
With nuclear modernization already late-to-need, delays could stick the U.S. with Cold War capabilities whose deterrence value erodes as they continue to age.
Never before has the United States had to deter two peer adversaries and deter them differently at the same time.
This week, top military officers launched their big push on Capitol Hill for a total overhaul of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, at an estimated cost of $1.3 trillion over the next 30 years, and their top rationale the go-to rationale for just about every large federal program these days was the threat from China.
Their case was less than compelling.
Yes, China is displaying some bellicose behavior these days, economically, politically, and militarily. But a new generation of U.S. intercontinental ballistic missiles, bombers, cruise missiles, and submarines would do nothing to deal with the problem.
Advertisement
Adm. Charles Richard, the head of U.S. Strategic Command, which runs plans and operations for the nuclear arsenal, laid out his case in hearings before House and subcommittees on strategic forces. He noted that China is expanding its nuclear arsenal at an “unprecedented” pace, on course to double in size by the end of the decade. It’s building more solid-fuel missiles, w
Lawmakers, defense officials joust over next-gen ICBM plans 1 hour ago An unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile launches during a test on Oct. 29, 2020, at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. (U.S. Air Force) WASHINGTON ― The war over developing a next-generation intercontinental ballistic missile ― whether it’s vital to deter Russia and China, as conservatives say, or whether existing missiles can be overhauled for less ― flared up at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday. Lawmakers from both parties leveled pointed questions at Pentagon officials over whether it’s worthwhile to study extending the life of the 50-year-old Minuteman III as an alternative to its $100 billion replacement program, the Air Force’s Ground Based Strategic Deterrent.