Brian Bradley
NS&D Monitor
5/8/2015
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) questioned on Wednesday during a Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee the top enlisted Defense Department official on why the U.S. needs a replacement for the air-launched cruise missile, and expressed concern that the replacement’s W-80 warhead will vie with nonproliferation activities for federal funding. “This is a large expense, and it competes for funding with our nation’s nuclear non-proliferation programs,” Feinstein said during yesterday’s subcommittee hearing. “I question why we need this cruise missile that can deliver nuclear warheads from great distances in addition to the numerous gravity bombs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and intercontinental ballistic missiles we’ve armed ourselves with.” The Energy Department moved up the planned First Production Unit on the cruise missile warhead from 2025 to 2027 and requested $195 million for work on the warhead refurbishment in Fiscal Year 2016, up from $9.4 million in FY 2015. Additionally, DoD has programmed $1.8 billion in funding for the LRSO over the Future Years’ Defense Program, and requested $36.6 million for the program for Fiscal Year 2016, a $33.2 million increase above the FY 2015-enacted level.
Can Both LRSO and Nonproliferation Be Fully Funded?
Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, defended the project, saying it was necessary to penetrate improved global air defenses. He also voiced support for nonproliferation programs, noting that he hopes that the Energy Department can fund both LRSO’s W-80 warhead and nonproliferation activities. “I guess my hope is that we can accommodate both because I think it’s important to continue to have a penetrating air-breathing cruise missile for nuclear deterrence, but I also think nonproliferation is incredibly important, as well.” Feinstein, Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, said she thinks the U.S. has “enough” nuclear weapons. “I’ve watched the nuclear costs go up all over,” she said. “Whether it’s uranium, whether it’s plutonium, every project starts out in the hundreds of millions and ends in the billions. And I really question adding a nuclear cruise missile to all of the problems we already have. I really have a very hard time voting for it. I just want you to know that.” Dempsey said the Joint Chiefs of Staff have “rendered their advice” that the triad should be sustained and the U.S. shouldn’t negotiate further nuclear reductions until joined by other nuclear-capable nations. “Our deterrence has worked for the past 70 years and I would never recommend changing it unilaterally,” he said.
Unilateral Reductions?
On the other side of the aisle, Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), during the hearing expressed a concern counter to Feinstein’s. Daines applauded the Obama Administration for requesting “strong funding” to modernize the intercontinental ballistic missile arsenal, but said he was concerned by the President’s “willingness” for unilateral reductions. Daines’ concern comes a little more than a week after Secretary of State John Kerry said the U.S. plans to accelerate warhead dismantlement work by 20 percent. On April 27, the first day of the 2015 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference, Kerry said about 2,500 warheads await dismantlement. Those retired by 2009 will be dismantled by 2022, while those retired since then could take longer to take apart.
Administration’s Commitment to Nuclear Enterprise
Daines asked Defense Secretary Ash Carter whether the Administration was still committed to maintaining a strong nuclear triad. “Yes,” Carter responded. “The President has expressed a continuing commitment to the triad and I think that’s important, because as he has to, and I certainly support, the nuclear modernization program and sustainment programs that we’re doing in partnership with the Department of Energy, the three legs of our triad, as you mention, and also the command and control that goes with a nuclear arsenal. I know that slogan well and that unit well, but it speaks the truth, which is that even though nuclear weapons are not in the news every day, thank goodness, they remain the foundation of our security. And so we need to maintain them. We need to modernize them. And it’s important that we have the programs and the dollars to do that.”
