Members of the Defense Science Board suggested Thursday that the United States keep its options open for someday enhancing the mission of the nuclear enterprise with activities including design competitions, resumed nuclear testing, and lower-yield warheads.
The Defense Science Board is an independent expert advisory committee for the secretary of defense that currently has 46 members.
The United States has maintained a voluntary moratorium on explosive nuclear testing since the early 1990s. Board member Michael Anastasio said during the hearing that he believes nuclear testing is not currently needed, but that it remains an option in the future in the event the nuclear enterprise faces changing requirements. “There are potential versions of the job . . . for which we would say we do need nuclear testing,” said Anastasio, a nuclear physicist and former director of the Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos national laboratories.
Anastasio also said that warhead life-extension programs do “not completely” ensure that the nuclear enterprise will maintain its weapon design capabilities. Some have suggested initiating design competitions between Department of Energy nuclear weapons design labs to maintain and develop the technical skills of the nuclear enterprise’s workforce. This might involve prototyping a new weapon without adding it to the stockpile.
“What we’re not doing is exercising that full end-to-end partnership with the Department of Defense and DOE to think about what a requirement might be, how would you go implement that requirement with the constraints that get imposed, and then carry that all the way through to developing a weapon . . . that could potentially go in the stockpile,” Anastasio said.
The Defense Science Board in a December report encouraged the administration to consider adding a greater number of “lower yield options” for the nuclear arsenal, Roll Call first reported. It recommended new delivery methods for such smaller-scale nuclear warheads, such as drones or modified missiles.
The board’s reasoning is that this would deter Russia or other nuclear-armed states from using a nuclear first strike. The suggestion sparked some opposition on the Hill, with some lawmakers arguing more lower-yield warheads would increase the risk of nuclear war by encouraging a response from potential adversaries.
The Congressional Research Service has said that the United States has roughly 760 tactical nuclear weapons – roughly 200 of which are deployed in Europe – while Russia is believed to have between 1,000 and 6,000 in its arsenal.
Board member Miriam John, a former Sandia National Laboratories executive, said during the hearing that U.S. nuclear triad modernization – expected to cost up to $1 trillion over 30 years – “is long overdue,” but that “to ensure our robust deterrence posture, besides the triad, there’s much more to the story.”
John suggested efforts to “deepen our insight into the developing capabilities, doctrine, and threats of current and potential adversaries,” as well as to “ensure a demonstrated, flexible, an adaptive capability to respond to changing threats through a strong research and development program.”
Even so, she said there is no current military requirement for new tactical nuclear weapons.
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein said last month he would consider the board’s recommendations as the administration prepares a new Nuclear Posture Review, which will set U.S. nuclear deterrence policy for up to 10 years.
