SEN. TESTER CONTINUES TO MAKE CASE TO MAINTAIN ICBM LEG OF TRIAD

By ExchangeMonitor

If the Obama Administration is looking for cuts to the nation’s nuclear deterrence, it should look past the nation’s fleet of intercontinental ballistic missiles, Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) said yesterday. Suggesting that the nation’s ICBMs were the most economical leg of the nuclear triad, Tester said it would be a mistake to cut the size of the nation’s ICBM force. “Make no mistake—we have to get our fiscal house in order,” Tester said in a speech at the Reserve Offices Association in Washington, D.C. “And defense cuts are a part of the mix. But it makes no sense to start with the cheapest, most cost-effective programs. And that’s exactly what the ICBM force is. On any given day, the ICBM fleet provides an always-ready nuclear deterrent for a fraction of the cost of other options.”

As the Administration considers its force structure under the New START and the potential for a new round of arms control reductions with Russia, the size of the nation’s ICBM fleet has been the subject of considerable discussion. In a report released last year, the anti-nuclear group Global Zero suggested that the U.S. should do away with the ICBM leg of the triad and rely solely on its bombers and nuclear submarines to maintain its nuclear deterrent. The report was co-authored by current Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. Additionally, force structure studies being conducted by the Administration are examining the size of the ICBM fleet, Defense Department officials confirmed last week during a House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing. Tester promised that he would continue fighting to maintain the ICBM force and noted how expensive it would be to modernize the bomber and submarine legs of the triad. “When we hear right out of the shoot that the ICBMs are the ones that are going to be eliminated and by the way that’s what I’ve been hearing for a while and that’s why we’ve been working so hard to maintain them because they are the most cost effective,” Tester said. “When you talk about the ones in the bombers or the ones through the submarines, and you hear those kinds of dollars thrown around, we’ve got to make sure were getting the bang for the buck. It needs to be scrutinized very, very heavily.”

Comments are closed.