Brian Bradley
NS&D Monitor
7/10/2015
The U.S. should modernize the Energy Department’s nuclear weapons complex to have a “full range of capabilities” to produce components for National Nuclear Security Administration life extension programs, Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, President Barack Obama’s nominee to serve as the next Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated in Congressional testimony released by the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday. “To sustain a safe, secure, and effective stockpile, we must prudently manage our stockpile and related warhead Life Extension Programs,” stated Dunford, currently Commandant of the Marine Corps. “Our success in executing these programs will largely depend on our people and our infrastructure. We must recruit and retain our next-generation workforce capable of certifying the stockpile without underground testing.”
Restart Underground Testing If Stockpile Stewardship Fails?
Pressed by senators in advance policy questions whether he would support resumption of underground nuclear testing should the Stockpile Stewardship Program be ineffective in detecting the safety, security and credibility of nuclear weapons, Dunford said any decision to restart live tests “should not be taken lightly.” He added: “I would strongly consider recommendations from the Department of Energy and the National Laboratory Directors before making my recommendation to the Secretary and President. If confirmed, I am committed to working with the Department of Energy to maintain the critical skills, capabilities, and infrastructure needed to ensure the safety, reliability, and security of the stockpile without underground testing if practicable.”
Dunford Supports ‘Broader’ Funding Mechanism for OR
Without mentioning the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund, Dunford told senators during a SASC confirmation hearing yesterday he would support a “broader” funding mechanism for the roughly $100 billion Ohio-class Replacement (OR) outside of the Navy’s shipbuilding account. “I am very familiar with the budget implications of the Ohio-class Replacement on the Department of the Navy’s long-range shipbuilding plan, and I can tell you with a degree of surety is that if we were to fund the Ohio-class Replacement out of Department of the Navy money, it would have an adverse [effect] on the shipbuilding plan, and the estimates are [cuts of] between 2.5 and three ships a year.”
Dunford said he would focus on supporting a “balanced” Navy with adequate capabilities for things like forward presence and warfighting. [I]t would be difficult to balance those were the Ohio-class Replacement be paid for within the current projected resources,” he said. Last year, Congress created the Sea-Based Deterrence Fund to allow the Defense Secretary to put non-Navy money toward the program, but some lawmakers have opposed it because of possible resultant tradeoffs.
‘Nation’s Top Military Priority’
Calling the nuclear deterrent the “nation’s top military priority,” Dunford said he supports Obama’s plan for modernizing the weapons complex. Dunford said he would support maintaining the full triad of nuclear delivery vehicles, including incorporating both the B61 gravity bomb and long-range standoff capabilities. “[M]y understanding of the issue is it adds a degree of complexity for the threat and gives us a greater assurance of being able to deliver should that be required,” he said in response to a question by Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.).
‘Capability That’s Required’
Dunford cited a common question circulating around the Pentagon and Capitol Hill—how can the U.S. afford to finance its nuclear deterrent in a tight funding environment? He then reframed the question: “I’d probably flip that around and say I think we need to think about how we will fund it. It’s a capability that’s required. Again, we’ve identified that as the number one capability that we need to have to protect the nation and nuclear weapons certainly create an existential threat. So it’s a question for me. It’s a question more of how do we work together moving forward to fund this as opposed to whether or not we can afford to do it.”