The head of Air Force Global Strike Command suggested late last week that the U.S. should approach further reductions to its nuclear stockpile cautiously and should take into account the impact of potential reductions on the knowledge base that underpins the nation’s nuclear deterrent. “I’m charged with organizing training and equipping a force,” Lt. Gen. James Kowalski said at a Sept. 13 symposium on the nuclear triad at the Reserve Officers Association in Washington, D.C. “So I not only have to keep those airmen motivated so that they understand that what they do is important, but I also have to think about how do I develop human capital, how do I make sure I have the intellectual infrastructure—Lawrence Livermore, Sandia, Los Alamos, et cetera—to continue to support us long term. And then how do I ensure that there’s enough business out there for industry?”
President Obama has signaled that the U.S. could pursue reductions beyond the 1,550-warhead cap set by the New START Treaty with Russia, and those cuts are expected to be outlined in a Nuclear Posture Review implementation study that is believed to be completed but has not yet received Obama’s approval. “Rightly so, most of the discussion has been about political implications and, you know, what’s the right level of weapons to ensure deterrence and assurance,” Kowalski said as he outlined “a list of things” that need to be taken into consideration at lower stockpile numbers. “While there has been talk of lower force structure numbers, the president has made it clear that as long as these weapons exist, we will have a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter potential adversaries and to assure our allies. I’m confident that we can do that at the New START Treaty limits,” Kowalski said. “But I am concerned that by pursuing a lower force structure, we could be on a course that would require us to be at least thoughtful and considerate of some factors that need to be out in the public arena. Such discussions need to be taken at a measured pace. They need to be informed by analysis, and they need to be bounded by the realpolitik of international relations.”