Brian Bradley
NS&D Monitor
12/5/2014
A report recently released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office last week states that a reduction of the planned nuclear ballistic missile submarine posture from 12 to eight, a delay of the start construction date of the Ohio-class replacement from Fiscal Year 2021 to FY 2025, and a deferral of long-range strike bomber development until at least FY 2025 would save the U.S. $55 billion. “Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2015 to 2024” lists 79 options for slashing the national deficit, and states that the bulk of the savings would be realized in the long term. It estimates the Navy will save $21 billion and the Air Force could save $34 billion over the next 10 years, including respective savings of $5 billion and $11 billion over the next five years. Released Nov. 20, the report follows the October release of an unaffiliated report by arms control advocates calling for development delays of next-generation bombers and Ohio-class replacement submarines, and for a reduction of the SSBN posture from 12 to eight.
‘Not the Time to Double-Down on the Mistakes of the Recent Past’
A Senate staffer wrote in an email to NS&D Monitor this week that none of options “stand a chance,” citing Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s recent characterization of the nuclear triad as the “highest priority” in DoD. The staffer added that the Senate Armed Services Committee fully supported the President’s Budget for nuclear modernization this year, adding a prediction that the soon-to-be GOP-led committee would extend the same level of support through next year.
After years “sustained funding and de-prioritization” of the nuclear enterprise, “now is not the time to double-down on the mistakes of the recent past,” Taylor Foy, a spokesperson for SASC member Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), said in an email this week to NS&D Monitor. While lawmakers remain aware of budgetary challenges, military spending has seen deep cuts under sequestration and Hagel has been “especially clear” on the necessity of nuclear modernization, the aide wrote.
Delayed Procurement ‘Nonsense?’
During a phone interview this week with NS&D Monitor, Peter Huessy, a nuclear expert and president of defense consulting firm GeoStrategic Analysis, blasted the Nov. 20-released report’s options as budgetary “window dressing,” and added that procurement postponement would only increase the LRSB’s overall cost. “Let me be very frank,” he said. “That’s nonsense. You’re not saving anything. You’re just going to buy the bomber 10 years later at a greater cost.” Tom Collina, Director of Policy for the Ploughshares Fund, said that moving the LRSB program “to the right” would add to long-term modernization costs, but added that time and nuclear need have an inverse relationship. “The world that this bomber comes into 10 years from now will be different than the world today,” he said. “And that’s part of the problem with all these systems is that we’re projecting future needs in a world of declining nuclear threat. So generally, the longer you wait to decide to produce something, the less of it you’re going to need.”
Huessy also pointed to U.S. Strategic Command plans that demand a force posture of 12 SSBNs across two oceans. In addition to detailing an SSBN posture reduction and delaying procurement of the Ohio-class replacement, the CBO report also presents the option of expediting the start retirement date of current Ohio-class submarines, from 2027 to 2016, another option that Huessy opposed. “That’s not saving any money,” he said. “If you cut the force, you’re going to reduce the amount of money you’re spending, but did [CBO report participants] get permission to undo the SIOP [Single Integrated Operational Plan] in our deterrent policy which calls for 12 boats and four at station at any one time in two oceans? Because you can’t do that with eight boats—not a prayer. So what they’ve done is basically unraveled the SIOP, or the deterrent capability and policy of the United States of America, without any corresponding change in the security environment, which to me is a no-brainer.”
Time to Reconsider SSBN Posture?
While Huessy cited STRATCOM policy, Collina called for a reconsideration of the SSBN posture, as “we see the Russian nuclear threat continuing to recede,” he told NS&D Monitor during a phone interview this week. “What is so magical about 12 that keeps us secure, but eight doesn’t? I just don’t see it.” If the subs patrolled closer to U.S. shores, Collina said they would be more secure and would still be able to steam to their deployment point in a day’s time. Collina co-authored an October-released report with the Arms Control Association, titled “The Unaffordable Arsenal,” that proposed delaying procurement of the first Ohio-class replacement submarine until 2023 to save money. “With eight subs, you could deploy the same number of warheads that we’re planning to deploy under the New START Treaty on submarines, which is about 1,000,” he said. “So from our perspective, you save a lot of money, here to the tune of $20 billion, and really give up no security, so it’s a win-win from my perspective.” Referring generally to possibilities raised by the arms control community of stocking the would-be lower number of submarines with more warheads, Huessy said the result would be “wasted warheads,” as more MIRVed missiles would leave less potential targets to hit after they’re deployed.
