A New Nuclear Triad?

Something profound is happening in the proposed 2012 $670 billion (including $117 billion for Afghanistan and Iraq) defense budget that will be released on Monday, but few are paying attention. You may want to, because it sets the nation on a path that, if history is any guide, will last for a half-century, and cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

Both the Air Force and the Navy have gotten green lights to plan rebuilding all three legs of the nation’s so-called nuclear triad. The triad was a creation of the Cold War to ensure that some unforeseen super-weapon developed by the Soviet Union couldn’t destroy all of our nuclear weapons in first-strike, bolt-out-of-the-blue scenario (to use some Cold War lingo).

So the Navy got a fleet of ballistic-missile firing submarines. The Air Force got two legs of the triad — nuclear bombers and land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles. The logic of three legs was questionable during the Cold War — the Soviets could never detect and target all of the “boomer” submarines — and makes even less sense now.

Nonetheless, with the Pentagon currently spending more each year than it did during the Cold War, it’s got to find somewhere to put all that money. So the nuclear triad not only marches on, it is going to be rebuilt. On Feb. 4, the Navy announced it has begun planning for a new fleet of ballistic-missile submarines. Last month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Air Force to get to work on a new bomber. And the Pentagon is studying follow-on designs for the land-based Minuteman III missile force.

“The Navy is committed to ensuring that an affordable replacement ballistic missile submarine is designed, built, and delivered on time with the right capabilities to sustain the most survivable leg of our triad for many decades to come,” said the Navy’s submarine procurement chief, Rear Adm. Dave Johnson.

“A major area of new investment for the Air Force will be a new long-range, nuclear-capable penetrating bomber,” Gates said Jan. 6.

“Land-based ICBMs are an integral and enduring part of the nuclear triad,” Air Force General Robert Kehler told the Senate Armed Services Committee last November at his confirmation hearing as head of U.S. Strategic Command. Studies now underway “will shape the plan and resource strategy to recapitalize our ICBM force beyond 2030.”

The decisions stem from last year’s Nuclear Posture Review, which concluded that “retaining all three Triad legs will best maintain strategic stability at reasonable cost, while hedging against potential technical problems or vulnerabilities.”

Replacing the triad would cost about $216 billion through 2050, according to a 2009 Air Force Association study. That includes $104 billion for the submarine leg, $68 billion for the bomber leg, and $44 billion for the land-based missile leg.

In late 2009, a senior U.S. nuclear-weapons designer argued that the nation seriously weigh moving to a “nuclear dyad” by scrapping its land-based ICBMs. But such a proposal, Jeffrey Richardson warned in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “will provoke debate from certain camps, most notably, the pro-nuclear camp that feels unconstrained by fiscal resources and strives for a risk-free world.” The 35-year veteran of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory argued that the nation’s leaders need to admit that strategic nuclear forces “should mitigate possible risk and provide a hedge against potential scenarios, but also acknowledge that the elimination of all risk is unachievable.”

Yet as was the case during the Cold War, the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review said the possibility of currently unknown vulnerabilities justifies continuing the triple nuclear force. “Strategic nuclear submarines…represent the most survivable leg of the U.S. nuclear Triad,” it declared. “Today, there appears to be no viable near or mid-term threats to the survivability of U.S. [submarines], but such threats – or other technical problems – cannot be ruled out over the long term.” Of course, if ruling out long-term threats is the standard — a physical impossibility in this and every other known universe — the nuclear triad will never die.

Related Topics: nuclear triad, pentagon budget, National Security
  • Latest on Battleland

    Army photo / Sgt. Michael J. MacLeod

    Humpin’ It…And Jammin’ It…

    Reuters

    China’s ‘Security Dilemma’ Risks Arms Race in Asia

    TOKYO – A shooting war with China may not be inevitable, but a dangerous arms escalation seems a dead certainty. That’s the take from a rare public discussion here this week among naval experts from Japan, the U.S. and China.

    Chris Hondros / Getty Images

    Mental Ills Top Reason U.S. Troops Now Hospitalized

    Four of the top five non-combat medical conditions sending troops to the hospital in 2011 were mental ailments, the Pentagon reports:

  • afguy

    A risk free world? Are they kidding? Our main threat these days is from nation-less groups. How is the threat of a massive response (against whom?) going to stop an attack from them?
    .
    None of this will protect against something arriving in the back of a U-Haul, van or private plane.
    .
    MIssile defense still has to be close to a launch (or flight path) to be very useful.
    .
    The MIC is going to make out like bandits off of this, even if no one else realizes any real benefit from it.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Recommended reading.

    One of the problems is that we are trying to think about global problems with tribal brains. After we’ve gained the ability to destroy all life on the planet and quite concievably all the life in the universe, what possible impulse could require us to ‘modernnize’ that capability?

    The question as to whjether we have reached an evolutionalry dead end remains open.

    In the meatime the gravy train keeps rolling…….

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    I’m not against our nation defending itself; I’ve had a brother and two brothers in law in the service. However, there has to be much better things to spend $670 billion on.

  • afguy

    There are some here that celebrate that type of technological advancement.
    .
    If killing is good, more efficient killing is absolutely awesome!!
    .
    One of my favorite older SciFi movies is “The Day The Earth Stood Still”.
    .
    We better hope there’s no one else out there.

  • afguy

    erie,
    .
    NO ONE is, even among us so-called “spineless liberals”.
    .
    But it’s gotten to the point that the definition has been broadened to the point that it’s almost impossible to find the line between real defense and “pre-emptive offense in the name of defense”.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Reminds me again of what an Economist blogger said a few months ago:

    “I think it’s important to distinguish between the government—the temporary, elected authors of national policy—and the state—the permanent bureaucratic and military apparatus superficially but not fully controlled by the reigning government”

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/11/overseeing_state_secrecy

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    jcapan–
    .
    Assange calls this the “invisible government.” It is what Wikileaks is targeting.
    .
    http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-and-the-computer-conspiracy-“to-destroy-this-invisible-government”/

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    Also, talking to Sam Seder this evening, we discussed the elements of this invisible government in the longstanding collaboration between the US and Egyptian military.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Interstingly enough, when Conservatives make fun of Obama’s ‘inexperience’ they totally ignore the degree to which it actually helps their cause. The one thing that Obama has been completely unwilling to do from the jump is to interfere with the way the military and intelligence agencies do business.

    The DOJ has been particularly cooperative on that front.

  • Cliff

    Nonetheless, with the Pentagon currently spending more each year than it did during the Cold War, it’s got to find somewhere to put all that money.
    .
    You know, that’s really not a problem for them.
    .
    The problem is where the f*cking money is coming from.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Thanks for the link Jay. Will try to get to it tonight, as well as your show. And BTW, love your ideas about blocking users/collapsing comment streams.

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    I realize the point you’re making. I just made my point so that I wouldn’t be called a “spineless liberal” or told that I love my country or some such nonsense.
    .
    And Cliff, with tax rates what they are, the money is coming from the only it can come–China!!

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    The only PLACE it can come from–China!!

  • pintortwo

    Thank you MT.
    .
    We’re starting debate over the 2011 budget and the painful cuts under consideration. JNS refers to the tens-of-thousands of jobs potentially lost due to these cuts. Meanwhile “certain camps… feel() unconstrained by fiscal resources”.
    .
    It’s sickening. Our military budget is unsustainable. We guard against fantastical enemies that exist only in scary stories. Stories intended to make us accept this bludgeoning.
    .
    The military brass and State dept know we are not at risk of attack, not now, not in the foreseeable future. We will always be somewhat vulnerable to isolated terror attack- a risk that cannot be mitigated by nuclear subs. And our on-going wars insure future generations of people that wish to harm us.
    .
    The goal of our bloated budget is perpetual bloated budgets.. a scenario they hope “will never die”.

  • pintortwo

    ..post comment editing..
    .
    When I say “we are not at risk of attack”, I mean by another nation’s military– carriers, troops, missiles, jets, etc.

  • apr2563

    afguy: Klaatu barada nikto. Say it loud and clear.

  • michaelfury

    “We have been drawn into the world of permanent war by these fools. We allow fools to destroy the continuity of life, to tear apart all systems—economic, social, environmental and political—that sustain us. Dostoevsky was not dismayed by evil. He was dismayed by a society that no longer had the moral fortitude to confront the fools. These fools are leading us over the precipice. What will rise up from the ruins will not be something new, but the face of the monster that has, until then, remained hidden behind the facade.”

    - Chris Hedges

    http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/forever-war/

  • afguy

    erie,
    .
    Wasn’t yelling at you. Sorry if you got that impression.

  • afguy

    Military spending is the backbone of our economy right now.
    .
    We HAVE to have an enemy to keep it going. If the Mooslims disappeared tomorrow, we’d find signs of aliens that would justify a continued build-up… just in a completely different direction.
    .
    If the Chnese mount a successful expedition back to the moon or Mars, we will suddenly find the need for a dynamic space research and exploration program (again).
    .
    Don’t want to go to bed at night by the light of a Chinese moon… and that RED color on Mars will suddenly have a more sinister meaning.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    Something that came up briefly last night was an instance of what I think is meant by the “invisible government.”
    .
    There’s been much written about how closely the Egyptian military officers have worked with their US counterparts–even to the point of an Egyptian contingent here in the US as events were breaking in Cairo.
    .
    The communication that takes place at the full colonel/one star level is an instance of this behind the scenes governance that takes place independent of elected officials or, FTM, autocratic ruler. These guys carry over,and are in many ways the institutional memory for the politicians who are putatively in charge.
    .
    In a different conversation, with Juan Cole, he remarked on Petraeus ability to persuade Obama to follow the path Petraeus preferred. It’s really difficult for even a President to gainsay an expert who has been on the ground for a decade or two, even when there are many of us looking from the outside saying “What, are you crazy?”
    .
    When you add the supersecret stuff the permanent government has custodial power over, you end up a really unresponsive, undemocratic policy apparatus.
    .
    As Marcy and Stuart discussed a while ago, the result is an underlying government that is both unelected, unaccountable and hates democracy–which is evident in the cable traffic.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    And Cliff, with tax rates what they are, the money is coming from the only it can come–China!!

    .
    Yikes! But the only even barely plausible military opponent to the US is…….China!
    .
    Talk about a cheap preemptive strike capability. They just have to dump US bonds onto world markets, and, Bingo!

  • pintortwo

    Military spending is the backbone of our economy right now.
    .
    We are history’s greatest exporter of war. It’s about the only thing we produce on a global scale.

blog comments powered by Disqus