Brian Bradley
NS&D Monitor
8/22/2014
A new bipartisan National Institute for Public Policy study has concluded that minimum deterrence is an ineffective model for the post-Cold War world. Along with several academics, six retired high-level military officers and three former U.S. ambassadors contributed to the 59-page report titled “Minimum Deterrence: Examining the Evidence.” The study argues that the minimum deterrence paradigm, espoused by groups like Global Zero, stems from exaggerated optimism about expected rational opponent behavior.
The study critiques recent reports calling for sweeping nuclear cuts and dismantlement of the nuclear triad, and states that nuclear proliferation is necessary to protect the U.S. and its allies against a shifting variety of threats. In the recent past, Gen. James Cartwright and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel were among the authors of a Global Zero report calling for the slashing of the total 4,688-warhead nuclear stockpile to 900. Last summer, the Obama Administration said it supported shrinking the strategic deployed U.S. nuclear stockpile to 1,000 deployed nuclear weapons, a one-third cut below the ceiling established by the New START Treaty.
Need for Reduced Force Levels Called ‘Highly Speculative’
The article states that minimum deterrence proponents’ calls for reduced nuclear force levels are “highly speculative” and disproportionate with today’s multifaceted threat environment. In contrast with the bipolarity of the Cold War, when the U.S. faced one “relatively familiar” opponent in the Soviet Union, today presents a more amorphous and volatile nuclear landscape, where non-state actors and several smaller nations could potentially threaten the U.S. “For example, Israel’s Strategic Affairs Minister, Yuval Steinitz, recently said that in 10 years time, Iran could have 50-100 nuclear warheads and missiles that could target the United States,” the report said. “And, serious analyses of North Korean behavior conclude that North Korea engages in high-risk behavior, despite endangering its own security, in protection of its perceptions of intangible values such as the honor and dignity of North Korean leaders, past and present. This dynamic makes North Korean behavior appear erratic and even ‘incomprehensible’ to Western observers.”
The unpredictable, panoramic threat environment dictates that the U.S. should respond dynamically with all the resources at its disposal, instead of relegating itself to a fixed minimum set of capabilities, according to the article. Citing former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the article highlights the wars in Grenada, Somalia and Kuwait, among others, to describe how the U.S. has regularly failed to predict its next military engagements.
Report Cites Aggressive Behavior by Russia, China
The piece also touches on Russia’s recent aggressive behavior, from its reopening of Soviet-era military bases to its annexation of Crimea, its conduction of military operations in the Arctic Ocean and its violation of the INF Treaty. The article also states: “Russia has announced it is modernizing its entire nuclear triad, including: 1) modernization of 98 percent of its ICBM force by 2021 with three new ICBMs; 2) deployment of eight new Borey-class missile submarines carrying the new Bulava-30 SLBMs and the first of a new ‘5th generation’ missile submarine by 2020; and 3) on-going modernization of existing heavy bombers, including new nuclear long-range cruise missiles, and the delivery of the first of a new stealthy heavy bomber by 2023.”
In addition to Russia, China could present a formidable threat, as it has recently tested a hypersonic weapon that can reach speeds over Mach 5. To preserve and enhance nuclear flexibility to respond to the threats from Russia and China, the article underscores the need for maintaining a high alert rate for a large number of existing ICBMs. The article also argues for continued operation of gravity bombs, in line with the flexibility goals of the Department of Defense.
Continued Forward Deployment Capability Among Other Recommendations
The report also includes arguments in favor of continued forward deployment capability, intercontinental range and delivery accuracy, resilience in the existing nuclear force, next-generation weapon systems, modernization and foolproofing of the nuclear command and control infrastructure, stockpile maintenance and streamlining the defense industrial base.
NIPP President Keith Payne directed the study, and former Lawrence Livermore National Lab Director Johnnie Foster, served as senior review group chairman. Authors also included Maj. Gen. Donald Alston, former commander of the Global Strike Command’s 20th Air Force; LLNL Senior Fellow Kathleen Bailey; 20th Air Force current commander Maj. Gen. Roger Burg; former Strategic Command commander Gen. Kevin Chilton; NIPP research analyst Matthew Costlow; former ambassadors William Courtney, Eric Edelman and Robert Joseph; NIPP co-founder Colin Gray; NIPP Director of Strategic Studies Kurt Guthe; John Harvey; former Strategic Command commander Gen. Robert Kehler; Missouri State defense and strategic studies professor Susan Koch; former Strategic Command chief Adm. Richard Mies; Scowcroft Group principal Franklin Miller; Stanford University William Perry Fellow in International Security Bradley Roberts; NIPP Vice President Thomas Scheber; NIPP senior analyst Mark Schneider and former Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Larry Welch.
