Last month, news broke that a Chinese observation balloon was hovering at 60,000 feet above Montana. This prompted a national uproar.
Along with North Dakota and Wyoming, Montana is the home of America’s nuclear intercontinental missile (ICBM), silos. These 400 MinutemanIII ICBMs have a remarkable range and can carry three nuclear warheads.
They are also totally unnecessary for national security.
The United States began to develop a trio of ways to strike a nuclear blow on the Soviets in the 1960s. These included ground-based missiles (ground-based), submarine-launched missiles (submarine-launched), and heavy bombers. This basic nuclear position has not changed even though the Soviet Union fell over three decades ago.
Jasen Castillo is an expert on nuclear weapons at Defense Priorities.
The nuclear posture should be able to deter any nuclear attack against the United States and make the consequences of any American response so severe that no country would consider such an attack worthwhile.
Officials see ICBMs as a “missile sponge” within this context. A foe would need to strike every silo at least once if they wanted to avoid retaliation by any surviving missiles if there were hundreds of ICBMs.
Even if there were no nukes on the ground, such an attack is suicidal for any country.
The fourteen American nuclear-capable ballistic missile submarines that are capable of firing nuclear missiles can be found at sea. Each one is capable of launching enough nuclear missiles to eliminate twenty enemy cities. With the new B-21 Raiser, the Air Force’s 96 nuclear-capable bombers is set to receive the latest stealth bomber class.
ICBMs don’t serve a purpose other than deterrence. They pose a grave risk of strategic miscalculation.
Ground-based nukes are, as former Secretary of Defense William Perry pointed out, a “use-it-or lose-it” conundrum. U.S. ICBMs cannot be launched before incoming missiles destroy a country that has started a nuclear strike. The attack would be a false alarm and America would accidentally start a nuclear war. Missiles are not able to be recalled as bombers or subs.
This issue was also raised by James Mattis , former Secretary of Defense. He advised Congress to examine if it is time to reduce the triad into a dyad by “removing land-based missiles” in order to “reduce false-alarm danger.”
These expert warnings aside, plans for ground-based nukes continue to be made. Northrop Grumman will deliver the Minuteman III’s replacement missile to its customers in 2029. The upgrade is expected to cost around $100 Billion.
Their weak strategic justification, high miscalculation potential and exorbitant modernization cost make it time for America to abandon ground-based nukes and replace them with bombers and submarines. America can easily accomplish its mission of deterrence while avoiding the unnecessary costs and risks of ICBMs.
However, does dismantling ground-based nuclear weapons make sense when China is reportedly building more?
Castillo, Defense Priorities’ Director of Defense Priorities, explains that China is building ICBMs to ensure their survival in the event of a U.S. strike. They’re building missiles because their bombing force and submarine force are jokes.
China still has every reason to believe that American submarines and bombers would be able to evade crushing retaliation in the event of a first strike on the U.S.
What about Russia? What about Russia? Does the equation for fewer ICBMs shift after Russia’s withdrawal from the New START nuclear arms-control treaty. This isn’t a new situation.
In 2002, Russia withdrew its consent from New START’s predecessor treaty, the START II, The U.S. unilaterally reduced the ICBM force anyways. America canceled all 50 M.X. Both military and political leaders saw no need for peacekeeper ICBMs with their 500 nuclear warheads. There was no Russian first-strike effort.
American bombers and submarines can also be used to put Russia at greater risk, even if they are not restricted by the New START limits on how many nuclear warheads or launchers they may carry.
Sign up today
Receive weekly emails to your inbox
Even if Russia increases its nuclear stockpile, America is able to achieve enough deterrence without having to rely on delivery mechanisms that are subjected to pressure. In 1979 and 1980, four distinct incidents of computer glitches gave rise to a false alarm about a Soviet missile attack. The White House was forced to consider in a matter of minutes whether it would be irretrievable to launch ICBMs before the missiles were destroyed.
Washington’s message to a paranoid Moscow, and jittery Beijing is to retire its mistake-prone ICBMs. This sends a clear message that Washington wants to avoid a devastating escalation. A more measured grand strategy, which excludes any first strike, would help to clarify America’s inherently defensive nuclear posture.
America can eliminate ICBMs and gain a nuclear force that’s just as deadly, but also more manageable, more resilient, and more effective. It’s time to get rid these Cold War relics. This will prevent both disastrous miscalculations as well as a huge waste of taxpayer dollars. They will make America and the rest of the world safer.
