Todd Jacobson
NS&D Monitor
3/07/2014
The Obama Administration’s Fiscal Year 2015 budget request includes $8.3 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration’s weapons program, and plans to modernize the nation’s nuclear deterrent are beginning to win over one of the staunchest critics of nuclear funding lapses. Speaking at a Senate Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing this week, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the ranking member of the panel, credited the Administration for a budget that is “pretty close to where we need to go.” Sessions has opposed the President’s push for a world free of nuclear weapons and has criticized the Administration in years passed for not living up to its New START Treaty modernization commitments. “This is a right step, in my view,” he said. “Particularly in this time of the Ukraine and China’s aggressiveness, we don’t need to be sending any signal that somehow we’re not willing to modernize or utilize even, God forbid, the weapons that we have.”
He suggested that raising and sustaining nuclear weapons spending at 5 percent of the Pentagon budget, up from around 3 percent, is necessary as modernization of the nation’s arsenal, weapons complex and nuclear delivery vehicles gets in full swing in the coming decades. “If we need to accelerate some of this, it’s a relatively small part of the budget overall and I think we have to do it,” Sessions said. “And at a time where the will of the United States is being questioned, I think it may be even more significant that we stay on track to leave no doubt that we are going to have an arsenal, we’re going to use it only, only, only if we have to, but we have the will to defend ourselves if need be, and you don’t want to launch a nuclear attack on us because that would be a grave mistake.”
Almost an ‘A’
Delays on many modernization projects, however, remained a worry, Sessions said, citing slips in the timelines for the Ohio class replacement submarine, a follow-on ICBM as well as the air launched cruise missile warhead, the B61 and the interoperable warhead, which has been deferred for at least five years. “I’d give you an ‘A’ but it’s delaying things,” Sessions said.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy Elaine Bunn defended the modernization plan. “I think we have a good path that we’re on for modernization. And while we’ve had a few slips because of budget concerns, we are on the path,” Bunn said. “And I think the key question is: Are we on the path to get where we need to be in the time we need to be there? And I believe the answer is yes.”
Funding Predictability Key
She said funding stability is key to the health of the modernization plan, and suggested that if sequestration cuts were to return, the plan might be significantly impacted. “If there is sequestration after ‘15, Senator, it will hurt this a lot,” she said. “So what we would love to see stability and predictability in the funding for that recapitalization so we can do it most effectively and efficiently.”
The Administration might need to plan for that, Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) said. “We’ve got to be realistic,” he said. “I mean, everybody around here hates sequestration but it has a way of rearing its ugly head continuously. So this is going to have to be part of your long-term planning in the department because I’m just afraid this might be a lower priority than readiness or personnel costs and those kinds of things. This is important investment.”
Vitter: Modernization Still Lacking
However, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) was less pleased with the health of the modernization plan, criticizing the Administration for considering a new round of arms control talks with Russia while not living up to its modernization commitments. “I want to express concern with the fact that the funding and the modernization that New START was premised on is not happening,” he said. “So to me that calls into question the New START reductions to begin with. And yet we’re discussing, at least theoretically, further reductions.”
Bunn emphasized that nuclear employment guidance released last summer by the President suggested the U.S. could reduce the size of its operationally deployed nuclear stockpile to around 1,000 warheads, down from the 1,550 cap established by the New START Treaty, but acknowledged that Russia has shown little interest in pursuing new reductions. “They say that they are focused on implementing New START by February of 2018,” she said. “And so I don’t foresee that happening anytime soon.”
Recent allegations that the Russians violated the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty and disagreements between the U.S. and Russia over Ukraine raise questions about even pursuing a new arms control agreement, Vitter said. “Since the ratification of New START, our relationship and trust level with the Russians has taken a nosedive,” he said. “So I just think all that should add up to extreme caution about further nuclear reductions and further agreements with the Russians.”