Todd Jacobson
NS&D Monitor
2/28/2014
Faced with a barrage of questions from Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee about modernizing the nation’s nuclear deterrent, new Strategic Command chief Adm. Cecil Haney this week signaled that investing in the nation’s nuclear deterrent should remain a priority for the Obama Administration. Haney appeared before the committee Feb. 27 in his first public appearance on Capitol Hill since taking over as the head of StratCom late last year, fielding a handful of questions from Republicans frustrated at the pace of modernization. “I remain deeply concerned that those commitments are not there at the level or resources that they should be, making sure that we have the modernization that needs to be done to our nuclear deterrent,” Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) said.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said “we really have got to get serious” about modernization, and Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking member of the committee, even used props. During his questioning of Haney, he displayed a chart that indicated the funding history for the nation’s nuclear deterrent and funding needs for modernization before ticking off a series of delays on major projects like the replacement ballistic missile submarine, a follow-on intercontinental ballistic missile, the B61 life extension program, the W78/W88 interoperable warhead, and plutonium and uranium facilities at Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Y-12 National Security Complex, respectively.
Inhofe: ‘I See This as Affordable’
He also noted that funding for the NNSA’s weapons program had fallen short of the commitments made during debate on the New START Treaty by $2 billion. To reverse the trend in modernization, Inhofe said spending on the nuclear deterrent would have to increase from about 3 percent of defense spending to about 5 percent. “So I see this as affordable,” he said. Haney, for his part, voiced support for modernization, singling out the Ohio class replacement submarine program, the B61 life extension program, and the Administration’s ‘3+2’ warhead modernization strategy as priorities. “I would say to not continue the modernization of the triad is not an option,” he said, adding that spending 5 percent of defense spending on the nuclear deterrent “is a significant investment but a necessary investment.”
Inhofe noted that Congress has come around to support modernization, with the Fiscal Year 2014 omnibus spending bill matching the President’s request for modernization activities. “Energy Department funding for nuclear weapons activities over the past three years is about $2 billion short, and virtually every nuclear weapon life extension program is behind schedule now,” he said. “The follow-on nuclear ballistic missile submarine replacement of the air-launched cruise missile are both two years behind schedule, and a decision on a follow-on ICBM has not been made. This needs to be addressed.”
‘A Prioritization of Efforts’
Haney acknowledged that the Administration has had to prioritize certain modernization efforts because of budgetary pressure. For instance, the Administration is believed to be preparing to delay the W78/W88 interoperable warhead program, in part because of costs but also because it has determined it can wait longer to refurbish the warheads that would be involved in the program. “The modernization efforts, some of which are definitely in progress and in a good place, some of the work that has been ongoing in terms of the ‘3+2’ strategy associated with warheads is moving forward,” Haney said. “Clearly, there’s had to be a prioritization of efforts and a relook at certain efforts to ensure affordability and cost effectiveness. And that piece is ongoing as well.”
Haney Pressed by GOP on Nuclear Reductions
Haney also faced pressure from another Republican, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, on the Administration’s plans to further reduce the size of the operationally deployed stockpile. Last summer, President Obama suggested the nation could decrease the size of the stockpile to about 1,000 warheads, down from the 1,550-warhead cap established by the New START Treaty, though Russia has not been receptive to U.S. overtures for another round of arms control talks.
Lee questioned the impact that decreasing the size of the U.S. stockpile might have on adversaries around the world, especially on countries other than Russia. “In recent years, we have drawn ours down,” Lee said. “And so on what basis could we conclude that continuing to draw ours down below the New START levels would likely deter other countries from continuing to move forward with their systems?”
Haney Defends Deterrent
Haney said the U.S. stockpile still serves to deter other countries and assure U.S. allies. “It’s very important from my perspective that we continue to work to have a credible, safe, secure and effective deterrent,” he said. “And those actions within themselves are what we are about and what we are on the journey of doing, including our own modernization programs. … As [other countries] look at us today, they see us working very hard to ensure each part of our strategic deterrent is being cared for and that they are being operated in a proper manner.”
He said that remained true for the size of the stockpile under New START and beyond. “Even as we go down to the agreed-upon treaty limits for the New START treaty, each warhead to system to systems of systems that are associated with that continue to remain a very effective arsenal to support our deterrence needs for the future,” he said. “Going beyond those limits will require negotiations and verification mechanisms. And we’ll have to look at the whole thing, including tactical nukes.”
Lee: ‘I Am Very Concerned’
Lee remained unconvinced. “I am very concerned, and I believe I’m not alone in this in saying that it’s distressing to me that we could be talking seriously about drawing down our potential in this area even below New START levels without evidence that doing so is going to deter other countries from developing, increasing, modernizing their own forces,” he said. “I really would like to see some evidence as to why we should believe that. And that evidence certainly should extend beyond an indication that there has been some reduction by Russia, especially when Russia tends not to comply with its own obligations.”
