![]() ![]() This mindset has, historically, led to continued postponement of much-needed NSE investment and placed a wide array of organizational responsibilities at risk.ĭespite long-standing bipartisan support and hefty budgets that favor modernization, NNSA infrastructure has atrophied, and much-needed investments that were necessary decades ago have been pushed into the future without concern for the strategic implications of such decisions. ![]() ![]() Public debate on modernization often oversimplifies the NNSA as a conduit for weapons funding rather than as an organization with a vast array of responsibilities outside weapons development and sustainment. Inevitably, these debates catch a third party in their crosshairs: the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), and with it, the nuclear infrastructure that underpins the United States’ entire nuclear stockpile and strategy. Additional friction can be found when considering the development of the submarine-launched cruise missile (SLCM) given its similar operational functionality to the Long-Range Standoff weapon-a nuclear-armed, air-launched cruise missile-and the potentially disruptive ramifications of the SLCM on global strategic stability. Cost is a central tenant of the deliberations, as the program is estimated to carry a $264-billion price tag over its lifetime.Īdditionally, Biden faces the challenge of justifying such investments while remaining committed to reducing the role of nuclear weapons in the nuclear posture review. Much of the current debate is focused on the new Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent that is intended to replace the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile, which has served as the land leg of U.S. Proponents of modernization cite rapidly expanding Russian and Chinese nuclear capabilities as a reason to maintain the weapons programs approved under the Trump administration, while opponents believe the focus should be on arms control, strategic stability, and funding for domestic issues. nuclear deterrent? The divide can be traced to arguments around delivery systems, such as ballistic missiles, cruises missiles, and bombers. public continue to oppose modernization despite both political parties’ evident support for the U.S. So why do cynics in Congress, think tanks, and the U.S. foreign-policy objectives and the global security environment have transformed dramatically in recent decades, investment and bipartisan support for the nuclear stockpile have remained constant. Biden is slated to stay the course, with the administration receiving funding increases for modernization in the recently passed defense budget. President Donald Trump increased the previous year’s budget request for NSE modernization by nearly 20 percent. ![]() arms control needs, emphasizing that these goals are not mutually exclusive. Such funding was predicated on balancing modernization and U.S. President Barack Obama backed a $348 billion investment in the nuclear weapons enterprise from 2015 to 2024-the largest such investment since the Cold War. There has been a constant drumbeat of modernization discussions since 2015, when then-U.S. The push for NSE investment and modernization has been a consistent, bipartisan national security theme of the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations, despite varying nuclear policy objectives. nuclear deterrence has focused on the arms themselves, not the infrastructure that supports it. Despite this, most of the attention and funding for U.S. It includes a range of scientific and technical programs that concentrate not only on the security and safety of the United States’ own nuclear stockpile but on nonproliferation and threat reduction worldwide. The state of the NSE is bleak, as a quarter of the infrastructure is older than the United Nations. policymakers and the broader public to acknowledge that the United States needs a modern, responsive nuclear enterprise regardless of who occupies the White House. While the Biden administration considers whether a nuclear sea-launched cruise missile is militarily necessary or how modernization will impact global strategic stability, it is time for U.S. Conversely, military officials point to rapidly advancing adversary capabilities in states like China and Russia as evidence that modernization is not only warranted but strategically necessary. defense strategy undermines the need for continued spending. President Joe Biden’s public commitment to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. Many outside of a niche nuclear security community argue that U.S. The Biden administration’s 2021 announcement that it would begin drafting its nuclear posture review, amid continued economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, has reignited debate on the necessity of nuclear modernization and the accompanying investment of billions of dollars into the nuclear security enterprise (NSE). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |