ABSTRACT
Introduction The US nuclear arsenal was created during a time when the United States had a singular adversary in the Soviet Union and relied upon the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD) to protect the United States and its allies. MAD relied upon a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons to ensure that Soviet targets could be credibly destroyed in a second strike if a nuclear war were to break out. At the height of the Cold War, the United States maintained over 20,000 nuclear warheads. Today, Russia, China, and other countries still maintain large and expanding arsenals, which present an existential threat to the United States. The very existence of their nuclear stockpiles make America’s nuclear triadbombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and sea-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs)—necessary for continued deterrence. The fall of the Soviet Union not only eliminated the greatest singular threat to the United States, it also created conditions for previously controlled rogue regimes and terrorist organizations to flourish. In a significant change from the days of the Cold War, the United States must now be concerned with the emergence of a nuclear-capable rogue state such as North Korea, the nuclear aspirations of Iran and perhaps Syria, along with the potential of violent non-state actors (VNSAs) to acquire and use nuclear weapons. The United States is not only experiencing a shift in the security environment, but also a shift in domestic support for its nuclear arsenal. Today, it is popular, even chic, to demand the elimination of all nuclear weapons. Nuclear abolitionists suggest the United States no longer has the will to use nuclear weapons in any case except in response to a large-scale nuclear attack. They also believe that even if the United States were attacked with a nuclear weapon, the US would likely respond with conventional force. There are two reasons for this belief. The first is the ability of the US defense industry to produce technologically advanced non-nuclear weapons capable of destroying almost any target. This reliance on conventional military might is understandable given the United States’s recent success in war. Second, abolitionists believe Americans would avoid retaliating with nuclear weapons because of the devastating power. The yields of most warheads are so great that they generate
unintentional collateral damage and radioactive fallout. These effects make the current nuclear arsenal “unusable” and ensure “self-deterrence.” Arsenal detractors also point to President Obama’s April 2009 speech in Prague, Czech Republic, where he said, “The United States will take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons.”1 They also point to former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) as evidence that the nuclear arsenal is irrelevant in today’s security environment. According to the NPR, “The massive nuclear arsenal we inherited from the Cold War era of bipolar military confrontation is poorly suited to address the challenges posed by suicidal terrorists and unfriendly regimes seeking nuclear weapons.”2 Stephen Younger, former director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, writes, “Out of concern that any changes in the weapons in our nuclear arsenal would result in a new arms race, the United States continues to maintain an arsenal vastly more powerful than we need.”3 Ironically, the NPR’s challenge to the relevance of the nuclear arsenal also suggests a way ahead. In order to improve the nuclear arsenal’s ability to deter and counter current and future security threats, as well as to provide an effective extended deterrent, the United States should develop new nuclear warheads (of variable yields) that augment the current high-yield strategic nuclear inventory. The United States needs to develop and field warheads for ICMBs, SLBMs, and bombers that are maneuverable and low-yield, as well as to resume research and development of nuclear munitions that are capable of deep earth penetration. Stephen Younger supports this argument, “A stockpile in which 90 percent of the weapons had ten kilotons of yield and the remaining 10 percent had five hundred kilotons is compatible with most future targeting requirements.”4 The development of new nuclear warheads will require American decision makers to abandon their support for “global zero” and overturn the current policy of “no new nuclear weapons.” This is necessary to better deter and defeat threats below the existential level and improve the deterrence value of the nation’s nuclear arsenal.
