DOCSLIB.ORG

Outside Perspectives on Nuclear Deterrence Policy and Posture Update

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Outside Perspectives on Nuclear Deterrence Policy and Posture Update i [H.A.S.C. No. 116–9] OUTSIDE PERSPECTIVES ON NUCLEAR DETERRENCE POLICY AND POSTURE UPDATE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION HEARING HELD MARCH 6, 2019 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 36–235 WASHINGTON : 2019 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS ADAM SMITH, Washington, Chairman SUSAN A. DAVIS, California WILLIAM M. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Texas JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island JOE WILSON, South Carolina RICK LARSEN, Washington ROB BISHOP, Utah JIM COOPER, Tennessee MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut MIKE ROGERS, Alabama JOHN GARAMENDI, California K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas JACKIE SPEIER, California DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts MO BROOKS, Alabama SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California PAUL COOK, California ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland, Vice BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama Chair SAM GRAVES, Missouri RO KHANNA, California ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee FILEMON VELA, Texas RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana ANDY KIM, New Jersey TRENT KELLY, Mississippi KENDRA S. HORN, Oklahoma MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin GILBERT RAY CISNEROS, Jr., California MATT GAETZ, Florida CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania DON BACON, Nebraska JASON CROW, Colorado JIM BANKS, Indiana XOCHITL TORRES SMALL, New Mexico LIZ CHENEY, Wyoming ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey JACK BERGMAN, Michigan KATIE HILL, California MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas DEBRA A. HAALAND, New Mexico JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia PAUL ARCANGELI, Staff Director LEONOR TOMERO, Counsel SARAH MINEIRO, Professional Staff Member JUSTIN LYNCH, Clerk (II) C O N T E N T S Page STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services ................................................................................................ 1 Thornberry, Hon. William M. ‘‘Mac,’’ a Representative from Texas, Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services ............................................................ 4 WITNESSES Blair, Bruce G., Research Scholar, Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University ............................................................................................ 7 Miller, Hon. Franklin C., Principal, The Scowcroft Group ................................... 9 Rohlfing, Joan, President and Chief Operating Officer, Nuclear Threat Initia- tive ......................................................................................................................... 5 APPENDIX PREPARED STATEMENTS: Blair, Bruce G. .................................................................................................. 69 Miller, Hon. Franklin C. .................................................................................. 87 Rohlfing, Joan ................................................................................................... 57 DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: [There were no Documents submitted.] WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: [There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.] QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: Mrs. Davis ......................................................................................................... 113 Mr. Kim ............................................................................................................. 113 (III) OUTSIDE PERSPECTIVES ON NUCLEAR DETERRENCE POLICY AND POSTURE UPDATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, Wednesday, March 6, 2019. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Adam Smith (chairman of the committee) presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTA- TIVE FROM WASHINGTON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, and I want to welcome our witnesses, members of the audience, members of the committee. We are here today to discuss the Nuclear Posture Review and nuclear policy going forward, in terms of our nuclear weapons. Before we get to that, a couple of housekeeping issues. For the hearing today, as I understand it, the witnesses don’t have a hard stop. I do at 12:30. If there are still members around that want to ask questions at that point, I will have somebody else on the Democratic side take the chair to get through those ques- tions, and we will go from there. We will stop at 12:30. And tomorrow, when we have our first posture hearing, we are going to, for questioning purposes—and you should have gotten no- tice on this—go from the bottom up. So we will start with Mrs. Luria and work our way up for questioning. So just in terms of your planning tomorrow, we are going to try and do it—no, we are actually going to succeed, we are going to do it that way—have the more junior members get to go first, because we have so many members of committee, frequently we have hearings and they don’t get an opportunity to ask their questions. With that, we will start this hearing. I want to start by wel- coming our witnesses: Ms. Joan Rohlfing, president and COO [chief operating officer] of the Nuclear Threat Initiative; Dr. Bruce Blair, who is research scholar, program on science and global security at Princeton University; and the Honorable Franklin C. Miller, prin- cipal at The Scowcroft Group. I think this is an incredibly important topic to discuss. Two things I want to make clear at the start. I completely support a strong and robust nuclear deterrent. We need nuclear weapons in the world that we live in today in order to deter our adversaries and meet our national security objectives as a country. Personally, I don’t think that is debatable. We have, certainly, Russia, with their nuclear weapons; China, as well; rising threats from North Korea and Iran. And the best and most straightforward (1) 2 way to deter people from using nuclear weapons is if you are in a position to assure that they will be destroyed if they do. So having a nuclear deterrent is incredibly important. Second, our nuclear weapons have been around for a long time, and I have no question that we need to update and upgrade those weapons, look at what is working, what isn’t working. We need to recapitalize our nuclear structure. What I question is whether or not we need to do it to the tune of more than $1.2 trillion, as both the 2010 and the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review has called into question. And this hearing, I hope, will help us answer that question. Do we have to have absolutely everything that we have had be- fore, plus some of the weapons systems that the Trump administra- tion is now talking about adding, including a new, long-range stand-off missile, which was requested before the Trump adminis- tration, and a new low-yield nuclear weapon, launchable from our submarines, which is new to the Trump administration? The Congressional Budget Office just recently went through and analyzed all that is in the Nuclear Posture Review, and gave some options, in terms of we could not do that and here is how much money we would save. And I think those are questions that need to be asked, for several reasons. First of all, we have a $22 trillion debt that is going up by about $1 trillion. In fact, it increased dramatically in the first quarter of this year over the first quarter of last year. We also have a large number of needs within the national secu- rity environment. Forget for the moment everything else that the Federal Government does. Just within national security we have had a number of studies that have come out. We have heard the Secretary of the Air Force say that she needs 25 percent more air- craft for the Air Force. We just had a review of our missile defense program, which also said we need a dramatic increase. The Navy still says they need a 355-ship Navy, which is significantly more than we have now. The Army would like to build towards an end strength that is substantially larger than it is right now. And the question I have is—well, not the question. The state- ment is, that math doesn’t work. We are not going to have enough money to do all of that. So what we have to, at least in part, think about is what can we not do. Where can we save money? And within the nuclear weapons area, I believe that a credible deterrent can be presented for less than is called for in the Nuclear Posture Review. Now, I understand that a bipartisan group of peo- ple disagree with me on that. But a bipartisan group of people to some degree agree with me. So we are here to have that discussion and that debate. So number one is, you know, can we save money in here and still meet our national security objectives, still deter our adversaries? Because if we can, it is something we should talk about. And these are things that many people have contemplated. Former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, you know, when asked about whether or not the triad was necessary, said he wasn’t sure, and talked about, well, if we had a dyad and didn’t have the ICBMs [intercontinental ballistic missiles], then we would have a much smaller risk of mis- calculation, based on a false alarm. 3 You know, very, very hawkish people have contemplated the no- tion that we don’t need as many nuclear weapons as are con- templated in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Portsmouth, NH Calling on the US Government to Lead a Global Effort to Prevent Nuclear War
    A resolution of Portsmouth, NH calling on the US government to lead a global effort to prevent nuclear war WHEREAS, global arsenals have over 14,000 nuclear weapons, and most are far more destructive than those that killed hundreds of thousands of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, in 1945; WHEREAS, the detonation of even a small number of these weapons anywhere in the world could have catastrophic human, environmental, and economic consequences that could affect everyone on the planet including in Portsmouth, New Hampshire; WHEREAS, a large-scale nuclear war could kill hundreds of millions of people directly and cause unimaginable environmental damage, producing conditions wherein billions of people could die from starvation or disease; WHEREAS, the United States maintains nuclear missiles in prompt launch status, capable of being launched within minutes, which greatly increases the risk of an accidental, mistaken or unauthorized launch; WHEREAS, the United States, as well as Britain, China, France and Russia, are obligated under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to take concrete steps toward eliminating their nuclear arsenals; WHEREAS, in July 2017, 122 nations approved the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons which makes it illegal under international law to develop, test, produce, manufacture, or otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Portsmouth, New Hampshire calls on the United States government to lead a global effort to prevent nuclear war by: • renouncing the option of using nuclear weapons first; • ending the sole, unchecked authority of any president to launch a nuclear attack; • taking U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The End of Nuclear Warfighting: Moving to a Deterrence-Only Posture
    THE END OF NUCLEAR WARFIGHTING MOVING TO A W E I DETERRENCE-ONLY V E R POSTURE E R U T S O P R A E L C U N . S . U E V I T A N September 2018 R E T L A Dr. Bruce G. Blair N Jessica Sleight A Emma Claire Foley In Collaboration with the Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University The End of Nuclear Warfighting: Moving to a Deterrence-Only Posture an alternative u.s. nuclear posture review Bruce G. Blair with Jessica Sleight and Emma Claire Foley Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University Global Zero, Washington, DC September 2018 Copyright © 2018 Bruce G. Blair published by the program on science and global security, princeton university This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License; to view a copy of this license, visit www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 typesetting in LATEX with tufte document class First printing, September 2018 Contents Abstract 5 Executive Summary 6 I. Introduction 15 II. The Value of U.S. Nuclear Capabilities and Enduring National Objectives 21 III. Maximizing Strategic Stability 23 IV. U.S. Objectives if Deterrence Fails 32 V. Modernization of Nuclear C3 40 VI. Near-Term Guidance for Reducing the Risks of Prompt Launch 49 VII. Moving the U.S. Strategic Force Toward a Deterrence-Only Strategy 53 VIII.Nuclear Modernization Program 70 IX. Nuclear-Weapon Infrastructure: The “Complex” 86 X. Countering Nuclear Terrorism 89 XI. Nonproliferation and Strategic-Arms Control 91 XII. Conclusion 106 Authors 109 Abstract The United States should adopt a deterrence-only policy based on no first use of nuclear weapons, no counterforce against opposing nuclear forces in second use, and no hair-trigger response.
    [Show full text]
  • A Roadmap for America's Nuclear Policy and Posture
    NTI Paper MARCH 2018 A Roadmap for America’s Nuclear Policy and Posture SUMMARY NTI co-chairs Ernest J. Moniz and Sam Nunn call on the United States and the other states with nuclear weapons to take immediate action to reduce the risk of a nuclear accident, mistake, or miscalculation. In six related policy papers, NTI provides an alternative vision and roadmap for America’s nuclear policy and posture, as well as a template for Congress and the American people to evaluate the Trump administration’s 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). Introduction by Ernest J. Moniz and Sam Nunn Papers by Steve Andreasen, Samantha Pitts-Kiefer, Leon Ratz, Brian Rose, and Lynn Rusten Contents Three Steps to Avert an Accidental Nuclear War ........................................1 Preventing Nuclear Use ............................................................3 Engaging in Nuclear Dialogue .......................................................5 Increasing Warning and Decision Time ...............................................7 Moving to a Safer, More Secure, More Credible Nuclear Posture in Europe. 9 Arms Control—Extending New START, Preserving INF, Supporting Further Reductions, and Strengthening Verification .......................................... 11 Securing Nuclear Weapons and Materials ........................................... 14 About the Authors ............................................................... 16 “Three Steps to Avert an Accidental Nuclear War” Copyright © 2018 by Bloomberg L.P. Roadmap for America’s Nuclear Policy and Posture policy papers Copyright © 2018 by the Nuclear Threat Initiative All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of the copyright holder. For permissions, send an e-mail request to [email protected]. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the NTI Board of Directors or institutions with which they are associated.
    [Show full text]
  • Joan Rohlfing, President, Nuclear Threat Initiative
    JOAN ROHLFING, PRESIDENT, NUCLEAR THREAT INITIATIVE WRITTEN STATEMENT FOR HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE HEARING ON OUTSIDE PERSPECTIVES ON NUCLEAR DETERRENCE POLICY AND POSTURE MARCH 6, 2019 Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Thornberry, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on an issue that affects the lives of every American and indeed the security of our world. I serve as President and Chief Operating Officer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a non-partisan non-profit global security organization dedicated to reducing risks from weapons of mass destruction and disruption. Today, we face the highest risk of use of a nuclear weapon since the Cold War, but, in contrast to that dangerous period in our history, today, this risk is not front and center in the minds of most Americans or their leaders. We live in an era where a fateful error or miscalculation -- rather than an intentional act -- is the most likely catalyst to nuclear catastrophe. Reducing this risk demands the priority focus of those who are entrusted to represent the American people and ensure their security. I commend you for your leadership on these issues and thank you for the opportunity to share my views. As a former staff member of this committee, I know the important role this committee and the congress play in shaping our nation’s nuclear policies to reduce nuclear risks and ensure a safer, more credible nuclear policy and posture that is responsive to today’s threats. In this testimony I urge Congress, and in particular, this committee to focus on action in four areas: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Reducing the Risk of Nuclear War Taking Nuclear Weapons Off High Alert
    Reducing the Risk of Nuclear War Taking Nuclear Weapons Off High Alert Twenty-five years after the end of the Cold War, the United States and Russia continue to keep many hundreds of nuclear weapons on high alert, ready to be launched in minutes. This alert status—frequently called “hair-trigger alert,” “launch on warning” status, or other synonyms1—allows both countries to launch missiles quickly in response to warning of an incoming nuclear attack, before the attacking missiles hit their targets. This Cold War–era policy is dangerous because it increases the chance of an accidental, unauthorized, or mistaken launch of nuclear weapons, as historical examples of false warning and other mistakes demonstrate. Growing tensions between the United States and Russia make it even more important to ensure that should a crisis develop—increasing the time pressure on decision makers and opportunities for misunderstandings—high alert status does not lead to a mistake that sparks an unintended nuclear exchange. In addition, the Chinese military has recently begun to argue that China should put its nuclear weapons on alert for the first time and build an early warn- ing system to detect an incoming attack. These steps would also increase the risk U.S. Air Force/Josh Aycock Air Force/Josh U.S. One of 15 missile launch control centers at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana. Under high alert, military personnel have only three or four minutes to decide if warnings of foreign launches are genuine. 1 The U.S. military refers to this status as “high alert,” “ready alert,” “day-to-day alert,” “launch under attack” status, or “prompt-launch” status.
    [Show full text]
  • US Nuclear Deterrence Policy and Japan's Nuclear Policy
    www.fas.org US Nuclear Deterrence Policy and Japan’s Nuclear Policy Hans M. Kristensen Director, Nuclear Informaon Project Federaon of American Sciensts [email protected] | 202-454-4695 Briefing to GENSUIKIN Tokyo March 6, 2015 www.fas.org History and Status More than 125,000 warheads produced since 1945 Peak of 64,500 stockpiled warheads in 1986 (70,300 if including rered warheads) • US stockpile peaked early (1967) • Russian stockpile peaked late (1986) Enormous reducons since 1986 peak: • ~54,000 warhead stockpile reducon • ~47,000+ warheads dismantled ~10,000 warheads in stockpiles (~16,000 if counng rered warheads awaing dismantlement) US and Russia possess 90% of global inventory (94% if counng rered warheads); each has more than 4 mes more warheads than rest of world combined; 15 mes more than third-largest stockpile (France) Decreasing: US, Russia, Britain, France Increasing: China, Pakistan, India Israel relavely steady; North Korea trying Hans M. Kristensen, Federation of American Scientists, 2015 | Slide 2 www.fas.org With more than 90% of world inventory, US and Russia have US-Russian Arsenals special responsibility to reduce Reducon of deployed strategic warheads from some 23,000 in 1989 to 3,500 in 2014 (New START counts 3,285) Readiness level of remaining strategic forces is high: about 1,800 warheads on prompt alert No official de-alerng, but significant reducon of overall alert numbers: heavy bombers de-alerted, US ICBMs and SLBMs downloaded, non-strategic forces de-alerted Trend: pace of reduc3on is slowing Note: rered, but sll intact, warheads awaing dismantlement are not shown US cut only 309 warheads in 2009-2013, compared with 3,287 warheads cut in 2004-2008 Russia cut an esmated 1,000 warheads in 2009-2013, compared with 2,500 in 2004-2008 Instead of connuing pace or increasing reducons, US and Russian stockpiles appear to be leveling out for the long haul; new emphasis on modernizaon New iniaves needed to prevent stalling of arms control Hans M.
    [Show full text]
  • The US Nuclear Launch Decision Process (On Warning of Incoming Russian Missile)
    Bruce G. Blair October 2019 The U.S. Nuclear Launch Decision Process (on warning of incoming Russian missile) Acronyms ANMCC Alternate National Military Command Center BMEWS Ballistic Missile Early Warning System CJSC Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff CONUS Continental United States EAM Emergency Action Message ICBM Intercontinental Ballistic Missile NMCC National Military Command Center, Pentagon NAOC National Airborne Operations Center NORAD North American Aerospace Defense Command POTUS President of the United States SLBM Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles SSBN Strategic Ballistic Missile Submarine STRATCOM U.S. Strategic Command VCJCS Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Timeline H Russian missile launch H+1 min U.S. infra-red satellite detects hot plume from Russian ballistic missile during the 4-7 minute long boost phase of flight. Satellites instantly transmit the detection data to early warning teams at NORAD, STRATCOM, NMCC, ANMCC, and other facilities. Russian stealthy cruise missiles launched from stealthy submarines patrolling off the U.S. coasts likely elude detection throughout their flight to targets. H+4 min NORAD and STRATCOM early-warning teams must report initial confidence (no, medium or high) of nuclear missile threat to North America. NORAD and STRATCOM Commanders are notified and briefed on the apparent threat. H+4 to +9 min If confidence is medium or high, POTUS is notified and reachable advisors are dialed into teleconference or video conference.1 H+9 to +10 min STRATCOM Commander briefs POTUS on the threat and response options along with their consequences (mainly civilian casualties in Russia), and makes recommendation.2 1 NORAD's superior is the Secretary of Defense, whom the NMCC may contact in an emergency to ask for approval to notify POTUS and initiate an emergency conference.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement Is Issued in the Names of the Signatories and Not on Behalf of the ELN Organisation As a Whole
    Tuesday 17 December 2013 European Leaders Call for a New Approach to Security Context: As members of the European Leadership Network (ELN), we have committed ourselves to working toward a world without nuclear weapons. Such a world will only come about as a result of a joint enterprise involving leaders and peoples from every continent. It will only be achievable if the practical steps required to reach this goal are seen as contributing to every country’s national security as well as to global security. And it will only come about if leaders in every country and region take their share of the responsibility to act. The Euro-Atlantic region, which includes the United States, all the countries of Europe, and Russia is home to more than 95 percent of all the nuclear weapons on earth, four of the five declared nuclear weapon states in the NPT, and nine of the fourteen states in the world with nuclear weapons on their territory (namely the US, Russia, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Belgium and the Netherlands). While the likelihood of a devastating conventional or nuclear conflict in the Euro- Atlantic region has dramatically declined, it is a region still scarred by the experience of 20th century conflict and by a deep and persisting legacy of Cold War mistrust. Cold War–era security concepts and many of their associated weapons and military postures continue to dominate. In particular, the currency of nuclear deterrence and mutual assured destruction continues in circulation. Large strategic nuclear forces remain deployed on prompt launch, ready to be fired in minutes; thousands of tactical nuclear weapons are still stockpiled in Europe; and a decades-old missile defence debate remains stuck in neutral.
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting US Deterrence Requirements: Toward a Sustainable National Consensus
    Meeting U.S. Deterrence Requirements Toward a Sustainable National Consensus A WORKING GROUP REPORT Robert Einhorn Steven Pifer Study Coordinators September 2017 Acknowledgments We would like to express our deep gratitude to the signatories of this study for taking the time to review and comment on it and its conclusions and, in many cases, for participating in the workshops that shaped the study. We would also like to thank Anthony Yazaki for his help in the production of this paper. Support for this publication was generously provided by the Ploughshares Fund and the Carnegie Corporation of New York. — Robert Einhorn and Steven Pifer The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit organization devoted to indepen- dent research and policy solutions. Its mission is to conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations for policymakers and the public. The conclu- sions and recommendations of a Brookings publication are solely those of its author(s), and do not reflect the views of the Institution, its man- agement, or its other scholars. Brookings recognizes that the value it provides is in its absolute commit- ment to quality, independence, and impact. Activities supported by its donors reflect this commitment. M EETING U.S. D ETERRENCE R EQ U IRE M ENTS : Toward a Sustainable National Consensus FOREIGN POLICY AT BROOKINGS i Table of Contents Introductory Note . iii Executive Summary . iv 1 . The Challenges to U .S . Deterrence . 1 2 . The Role of U .S . Central Strategic Systems . 14 3 . Nuclear Weapon Employment Policies . 18 4 . Missile Defense . 23 5 .
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Notes Volume 2, Issue 2
    a report of the csis project on nuclear issues Nuclear Notes Volume 2, Issue 2 Editors Stephanie Spies Eli Jacobs Authors Jonathan Bergner Nathan Donohue Matthew Fargo David Slungaard Sarah Weiner February 2013 CHARTING our future a report of the csis project on nuclear issues Nuclear Notes Volume 2, Issue 2 Editors Stephanie Spies Eli Jacobs Authors Jonathan Bergner Nathan Donohue Matthew Fargo David Slungaard Sarah Weiner February 2013 CHARTING our future About CSIS—50th Anniversary Year For 50 years, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has developed solutions to the world’s greatest policy challenges. As we celebrate this milestone, CSIS scholars are developing strategic in- sights and bipartisan policy solutions to help decisionmakers chart a course toward a better world. CSIS is a nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Center’s 220 full-time staff and large network of affiliated scholars conduct research and analysis and develop policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change. Founded at the height of the Cold War by David M. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke, CSIS was dedicated to finding ways to sustain American prominence and prosperity as a force for good in the world. Since 1962, CSIS has become one of the world’s preeminent international institutions focused on defense and security; regional stability; and transnational challenges ranging from energy and climate to global health and economic integration. Former U.S. senator Sam Nunn has chaired the CSIS Board of Trustees since 1999. Former deputy sec- retary of defense John J. Hamre became the Center’s president and chief executive officer in April 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Taking the Lead: Russia, the United States, and Nuclear Nonproliferation After Bush
    AIR UNIVERSITY CURTIS E. LEMAY CENTER FOR DOCTRINE DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION Taking the Lead Russia, the United States, and Nuclear Nonproliferation after Bush STEPHEN J. CIMBALA Research Paper 2008-2 Air Force Research Institute Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 36112-6026 December 2008 Disclaimer Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Curtis E. LeMay Center for Doctrine Development and Education, Air University, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other US Government agency. Cleared for public release: distribution unlimited. Air Force Research Institute (AFRI) papers and Air Uni- versity monographs are occasional studies written by Air Force researchers at large and military defense ana- lysts assigned to the Curtis E. LeMay Center for Doc- trine Development and Education at Air University and beyond. The purpose of the AFRI papers is to provide useful ideas and independent analysis of issues of cur- rent or potential importance to Air Force commanders and their staffs. This monograph and others in the series are also available electronically at the Air Univer- sity Research Web site https://research.maxwell.af .mil/ and the Air and Space Power Journal Web site http://www.airpower.au.af.mil. ii Contents Page DISCLAIMER . ii FOREWORD . v ABOUT THE AUTHOR . vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . ix TAKING THE LEAD: RUSSIA, THE UNITED STATES, AND NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION AFTER BUSH . 1 Arms Control—A Large Menu . 1 Context Is All—And History Still Matters . 4 Approach and Method . 8 Conclusion . 23 NOTES . 23 Illustrations Figure 1 Total strategic weapons, United States–Russia, 1,000 limit .
    [Show full text]
  • The End of Nuclear Warfighting: Moving to a Deterrence-Only Posture
    The End of Nuclear Warfighting: Moving to a Deterrence-Only Posture an alternative u.s. nuclear posture review Bruce G. Blair with Jessica Sleight and Emma Claire Foley Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University Global Zero, Washington, DC September 2018 Copyright © 2018 Bruce G. Blair published by the program on science and global security, princeton university This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License; to view a copy of this license, visit www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 typesetting in LATEX with tufte document class First printing, September 2018 Contents Abstract 5 Executive Summary 6 I. Introduction 15 II. The Value of U.S. Nuclear Capabilities and Enduring National Objectives 21 III. Maximizing Strategic Stability 23 IV. U.S. Objectives if Deterrence Fails 32 V. Modernization of Nuclear C3 40 VI. Near-Term Guidance for Reducing the Risks of Prompt Launch 49 VII. Moving the U.S. Strategic Force Toward a Deterrence-Only Strategy 53 VIII.Nuclear Modernization Program 70 IX. Nuclear-Weapon Infrastructure: The “Complex” 86 X. Countering Nuclear Terrorism 89 XI. Nonproliferation and Strategic-Arms Control 91 XII. Conclusion 106 Authors 109 Abstract The United States should adopt a deterrence-only policy based on no first use of nuclear weapons, no counterforce against opposing nuclear forces in second use, and no hair-trigger response. This pol- icy requires only a small highly survivable second-strike force and resilient nuclear command, control, and communications (C3). Five new strategic submarines (SSBNs) backed by a small reserve fleet of 40 strategic bombers would fully support the policy, which requires a robust capability to destroy a nuclear aggressor’s key elements of state control and sources of its power and wealth.
    [Show full text]