Brian Bradley
NS&D Monitor
2/20/2015
As the nuclear weapons complex moves from a period of sustainment to modernization, Congressional backing of the funding and strategy of the nuclear enterprise is higher than it has been in previous years, staffers from the House and Senate Armed Services committees said this week at the Seventh Annual Nuclear Deterrence Summit, held in Washington. “There is a huge consensus on what to do,” said Rob Soofer, a majority staffer on the Senate Armed Services Committee. “Imagine that six years ago, the Administration came in with the objective of reducing the role of nuclear weapons, and here we are after six years of internal policy review … going forward with a very robust, consensual nuclear policy.”
Would Not Modernizing Equate to ‘Petering Out?’
Soofer added that, at this point, not proceeding with nuclear modernization would constitute a "petering out" of the triad. Recently completed Defense Department reviews of the nuclear enterprise uncovered aging facilities, neglect, and low force morale, among other troubled areas. Drew Walter, a majority staffer on the House Armed Services Committee, said his committee is dedicated to implementing the reviews. Soofer said there has not yet been much Senate discussion about the reviews, yet noted that he would be shocked if any Senator opposed funding the Force Improvement Program-related reforms. “I, personally, think it’s just another indication of decades of decline,” Soofer said. “I applaud the Administration on its self-critical assessment of the situation.”
The SASC Subcommittee on Strategic Forces is holding two upcoming nuclear-related hearings—one on Feb. 25 during which members will hear testimony from four think tank experts about Regional Nuclear Dynamics and one on March 4 during which four DoD officials and National Nuclear Security Administrator Frank Klotz will testify. The hearings come weeks after Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) said at a recent SASC hearing that the classified internal nuclear enterprise review included some “sobering” information, and after Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said at another SASC hearing examining the impacts of sequestration that budget caps could limit much needed investments in the DoD infrastructure of the nuclear enterprise.
FY 2016 Budget Request Shows Administration Triad Support
Walter noted that the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review illustrated the dichotomy of the Obama Administration’s nuclear strategy. He said the review showed solid near-term fundamentals, but noted that it drew backlash from the Republicans because of President Barack Obama’s long-term vision of Global Zero. Since 2010, though, Obama has increasingly emphasized nuclear deterrence as a top U.S. priority, and the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2016 budget request appears to reflect that, Walter said.
Near term, planned nuclear enterprise investments include $5 billion in research and development and another $5 billion in advanced procurement for the Ohio-Class Replacement—including $1.4 billion for R&D in FY 2016. Other slated investments for FY 2016 include $36.6 million for R&D on the Long-Range Standoff Weapon, a $33.2 million increase over the FY 2015-encated level; $142.6 million for R&D on intercontinental ballistic missile fuze modernization, up from the FY 2015-enacted $59.8 million; and $178.9 million for Minuteman squadrons, up from the current appropriated amount of $139.1 million.
The Administration also said it will pour billions into the nation’s weapons complex, accelerating work on warhead life extension programs for the W80-4 cruise missile warhead and the W88 Alt 370 while also moving out on the Uranium Processing Facility project at the Y-12 National Security Complex and a project at Los Alamos National Laboratory to sustain the lab’s plutonium capabilities.
How Will Ohio-Class Replacement Be Funded?
Although the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act established a Sea-Based Deterrence Fund and gave appropriators the go-ahead to transfer up to $3.5 billion in unobligated balances from FYs 2014-2016 into that account, no money has been pushed into it yet. Soofer said while there is broad Administration and Congressional support to spend money in addition to the Navy’s shipbuilding budget on the Ohio-Class Replacement, it is unclear where the money will come from, he said. “It’s a mission that the Department of Defense will have to grapple with,” he said. “Where [the funding] is going to come from, that’s a hard choice.”
Threat of Sequestration Looms
Although support for funding the nuclear enterprise abounds in SASC and HASC, Soofer said appropriators might have trouble inserting all the requested nuclear enterprise funding into upcoming defense budgets, as the prospect of sequestration looms over the $534 billion FY 2016 discretionary defense funding request, which exceeds the Budget Control Act cap level by about $35 billion. DoD is estimated to spend about 3.6 percent of its budget on nuclear forces in the coming years, and 1.3 percent of its budget on modernization, Soofer said.
For more coverage of the Seventh Annual Nuclear Deterrence Summit, please see next week’s edition of NS&D Monitor.
