There is a widely held notion that nuclear weapons are not central to American defense in the 21st century.
In my view, this is a misguided viewpoint and is built upon several assumptions which need to be carefully examined.
Assumption 1: “Nuclear weapons are a Cold War relic useless for defense purposes today.”
On the contrary, nuclear weapons are needed now more than ever.
By far the biggest, most lethal, and most pressing threats America and her allies are facing right now are the nuclear capabilities of Russia, China, and North Korea and Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
No other threat comes even close to being as grave as these four.
Russia alone has 8,500 nuclear weapons and is still growing its arsenal. It can target the Continental US with over 400 ICBMs (capable of delivering over 1,600 nuclear warheads), 13 ballistic missile subs capable of delivering between 1,200 and 1,400 warheads anywhere in the world, and 251 strategic bombers (Tu-95s, Tu-160s, Tu-22Ms). Russia’s 64 Tu-95 Bear bombers alone can deliver over 700 nuclear-armed cruise missiles right to America. In addition, Russia has 20 nuclear-powered submarines carrying nuclear-tipped cruise missiles – also deliverable anywhere in the US.
Russia is now growing, not cutting, all of these legs of its nuclear triad (essentially, quad) – and modernizing them rapidly. Old missiles and submarines are being replaced by newer, much more accurate, survivable, and lethal ones. Old, single-warhead Topol ICBMs are being replaced with 6-warhead Yars missiles; old, 4-warhead submarine-launched missiles are being replaced with ones that can carry 10-12 warheads – the Bulava and the Liner.
Russia’s tactical nuclear arsenal is even greater, consisting of several thousand warheads and a wide range of delivery systems: attack aircraft, medium bombers, short- and intermediate-range missiles (tested and deployed in violation of the INF Treaty), artillery pieces, submarines, surface ships, etc.
The Russian nuclear threat is not theoretical, it is very real.
In recent years, Russia has threatened to aim or even use nuclear weapons against the US and its allies on 15 occasions. It has repeatedly flown its nuclear-armed bombers close to, and sometimes into, US and allied airspace, and twice even into Swedish airspace (what has Sweden done to Russia?).
Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin has threatened the US with ICBMs and to fly to Transnistria in a Tu-160 bomber if Romania denies him use of its airspace the next time he goes there.
Indeed, Russia’s military doctrine reserves to Moscow the right to use nuclear weapons, even preemptively and against states that don’t have them.
And Russia is not the only serious nuclear threat to America’s security. China is another. It has between 1,600 and 3,000 nuclear warheads (not the mere 240-250 that American arms control afficionados claim) and can deliver them to any point on the globe.
China’s ICBM and ballistic missile submarine fleets are currently much smaller than America’s, and can deliver only hundreds of warheads to the US – not thousands like Russia.
But American “arms controllers” are already working hard to solve that problem for the Chinese – by advocating deep, unilateral, unreciprocated cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent, so that it can be destroyed by both the Russians and the Chinese in a preemptive first strike, if such were to happen.
The Chinese, for their part, are constantly growing their ICBM and ballistic missile submarine force – they are now deploying the new DF-41 ICBM capable of delivering 10 warheads to the US, while growing their arsenal of DF-31 ICBMs, and building submarines capable of carrying more missiles and warheads.
China and Russia are also developing a stealthy intercontinental bomber and hypersonic missiles that could reach the US with a nuclear payload in just 30 minutes.
In East Asia, China can unleash even more nuclear-armed missiles: 1,200-1,600 short-range and over 100 medium-range ballistic missiles, as well as hundreds of nuclear-capable cruise missiles launched from ground systems and aircraft (JH-7 and H-6).
Then there is North Korea, which already has ICBMs capable of reaching the US and has miniaturized warheads to put on them, and Iran, which is rapidly developing nuclear weapons, triggers for them, an ICBM, and expanding its nuclear fuel enrichment business. Iran’s Supreme Leader has recently said his nation “needs” more centrifuges to enrich more nuclear fuel. Iran also continues to develop a neutron initiator – a trigger for nuclear weapons.
The fact is that America needs a significant, effective, modernized multi-legged nuclear deterrent now more than ever.
Assumption 2: “The US has too many nuclear weapons and can afford to cut its arsenal deeply.”
America does not have too many nuclear weapons. It barely has enough.
As stated above, Russia alone has 8,500 nuclear weapons and is still growing its arsenal. It can target the Continental US with over 400 ICBMs (capable of delivering over 1,600 nuclear warheads), 13 ballistic missile subs capable of delivering between 1,200 and 1,400 warheads anywhere in the world, and 251 strategic bombers (Tu-95s, Tu-160s, Tu-22Ms). Russia’s 64 Tu-95 Bear bombers alone can deliver over 700 nuclear-armed cruise missiles right to America. Each of Russia’s Tu-160 bombers can deliver 12 nuclear-tipped missiles to the US. Each of Russia’s 171 Tu-22M bombers can deliver 10 nuclear weapons.
In addition, Russia has 20 nuclear-powered submarines carrying nuclear-tipped cruise missiles – also deliverable anywhere in the US.
Russia is now growing, not cutting, all of these legs of its nuclear triad (essentially, quad) – and modernizing them rapidly. Old missiles and submarines are being replaced by newer, much more accurate, survivable, and lethal ones. Old, single-warhead Topol ICBMs are being replaced with 6-warhead Yars missiles; old, 4-warhead submarine-launched missiles are being replaced with ones that can carry 10-12 warheads – the Bulava and the Liner.
So in the future, Russia will have even more nuclear weapons deliverable to the US than it does today, by replacing single- and 4-warhead missiles with ones carrying 6, 10, and even 12 warheads. Which will require even more American nuclear weapons to survive a potential first strike and then retaliate against Russian nuclear forces.
As the US Embassy in Moscow reported earlier this year, Russia is seeking nuclear superiority over the US; it is not content with nuclear parity.
China’s nuclear arsenal is not as big as Russia, but it’s working hard to dramatically increase the number of nuclear weapons it can deliver to the US by deploying multiple-warhead DF-31 and DF-41 ICBMs, more ballistic missile submarines (Jin and Tang class) with more JL-2 missiles, and developing a stealthy, intercontinental bomber.
North Korea also has ICBMs capable of reaching parts of the US and carrying miniaturized warheads. Iran is now working to acquire such ICBMs and, according to US intelligence, could flight-test such a missile next year.
America does not have too many nuclear weapons.
And if it doesn’t effectively modernize its arsenal, it will have too few.
The nuclear threats to America – from Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran – are growing, not shrinking. As they grow, so must the US nuclear arsenal be effectively modernized.
Assumption 3: “The nuclear triad is a Cold War relic; we can afford to cut it to a dyad or a monad.”
Only a nuclear triad (i.e. an arsenal based on submarines, land-based missiles, and bomber aircraft) is truly survivable; cutting it down to a dyad or, even worse, a monad (i.e. only one or two legs) would make it dramatically less survivable and thus invite a nuclear first strike.
With just a single leg or two remaining, an enemy wishing to attack the US would only have to eliminate that single leg, or those two remaining legs, to disarm the US forcibly and preemptively.
The intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) leg of the nuclear triad – often singled out for the axe by anti-nuclear hacks – costs only $1.1 bn to maintain; the bomber leg, about $2.5 bn.
For that modest sum, America gets two very powerful nuclear triad legs: 450 ICBMs in hardened silos and a mixed fleet of penetrating and standoff intercontinental bombers. Those 450 ICBMs, due to their large number and their hardened silos, can withstand even a massed enemy ICBM attack. Destroying all of them would require an enemy to use at least 900 nuclear warheads. Currently, only Russia could do that – and that would eliminate only one of the legs of the American nuclear triad.
Scrapping the triad’s ICBM leg would save close to nothing, while depriving America of a VERY valuable and INDISPENSABLE deterrence instrument capable of taking on and surviving even massive enemy strikes.
No wise, prudent person or nation puts all his/her eggs in one basket. One must rely on many simultaneous layers of defense. Never create too few problems for your enemy because if you do, he’ll solve them easily.
Assumption 4: “America’s nuclear arsenal is too expensive to maintain and modernize.”
On the contrary, the cost of America’s nuclear deterrent is a bargain – especially considering its vital mission and comparing it to the whole of the defense budget.
According to the Stimson Center, the US nuclear deterrent costs around $32 bn per annum to maintain, and the cost of modernizing it will increase that figure only to around $38 bn per year. The military budget for FY2015 will be $570 bn (based on the president’s request and legislation passed by Congress so far). $38 bn is just 6.6% out of that budget.
This is consistent with the Air Force Strategic Command’s report that the nuclear arsenal accounts for only 6% of the military budget.
The intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) leg of the nuclear triad – often singled out for the axe by anti-nuclear critics – costs only $1.1 bn to maintain; the bomber leg, about $2.5 bn. For that tiny sum, America gets two very powerful nuclear triad legs: 450 ICBMs in hardened silos and a mixed fleet of penetrating and standoff intercontinental bombers.
Those 450 ICBMs, due to their large number and their hardened siloes, can withstand even a massed enemy ICBM attack. Destroying all of them would require an enemy to use at least 900 nuclear warheads. Currently, only Russia could do that – and that would eliminate only one of the legs of the American nuclear triad.
Scrapping the triad’s ICBM leg would save close to nothing, while depriving America of a VERY valuable and INDISPENSABLE deterrence instrument capable of taking on and surviving even massive enemy strikes.
By comparison, for example, the US Postal Service costs taxpayers $15 bn, and thus generates only losses to the taxpayer – to the tune of $15 bn per year – providing services the private sector could perform much cheaper and better. And unlike the Postal Service, the military provides nuclear deterrence 7/7, 365 days per year – even on Saturdays and Sundays!
Assumption 5: “If America scraps, or at least deeply cuts, its nuclear arsenal, other nations will follow suit.”
On the contrary, nobody will follow suit.
The US has already deeply cut its nuclear arsenal – by over 75% since 1991.
Yet, that hasn’t impressed anyone.
No one else has scrapped their nuclear arsenal – not Russia, not China, not India and Pakistan.
On the contrary, since the Cold War’s end in 1991, two new countries have joined the nuclear club – aforementioned Pakistan and North Korea – and more countries are racing to join it, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran and Saudi Arabia.
All nuclear powers in the world except the US and Britain are currently modernizing their nuclear arsenals, and many – including Russia, China, India, Israel, and North Korea – are increasing their arsenals. Not to mention Iran’s development, and Saudi Arabia’s order in Pakistan, of nuclear weapons. (Saudi Arabia has also ordered DF-21 ballistic missiles in China to be able to deliver those weapons.)
There is ZERO chance that there will EVER be a world without nuclear weapons.
The need is to modernize and effective US nuclear arsenal and to shape ways to use to enhance deterrence.
Zbigniew Mazurak is a private defense analyst and the Defense Correspondent for Conservative Daily News. He has contributed over 20 articles to the American Thinker, over 190 articles to Conservative Daily News, and numerous articles to other conservative news sites, the vast majority of them dealing with America’s defense issues. He holds Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in History and is now working on his Ph.D. in the same field.
Leave a Reply