US ICBM replacement faces opposition
Nuclear weapons are experiencing a resurgence in interest. North Korea does not hide its aspirations of a nuclear arsenal as it continues to conduct tests of warheads and delivery systems. The Iran nuclear deal sits in tatters, largely due to the actions of former President Trump. Meanwhile, Russia continues to invest in both its strategic and tactical nuclear arsenal, perhaps most notoriously in the form of the Poseidon nuclear torpedo, stated to have an unlimited range and payload greater than a traditional ICBM. China has similarly demonstrated a dedication to its nuclear assets, reportedly planning to double its arsenal within the decade. There is a clear global trend towards nuclear rearmament.
The United States faces a tricky situation. It currently faces a massive and rapidly growing budget deficit and national debt, even as the challenges it faces grow. Covid-19, climate change, and economic instability weigh heavy on the minds of Americans and for good reason. But an outdated nuclear arsenal is yet another issue the US government faces.
At present, the US military plans to replace its Cold War-era LGM-30 Minuteman III ICBMs with what it calls the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD). Originally a product of the Obama administration, the program is slated to cost $264 billion across its lifetime. With that sum, critics estimate three million jobs could be created in alternative areas. While the Trump administration was willing to shower the US military in funding, whether the program will pass President Biden’s nuclear posture review and potential post-Covid budget cuts remain to be seen.
The Federation of American Scientists and ReThink Media conducted polling which indicates the GBSD may not receive the popular support it needs to as Congress looks for places to tighten its belt. A majority of respondents stated they preferred an alternative to a new ICBM, with extending the Minuteman III’s life being a popular option. Republicans were more likely to support the GBSD, but a majority of respondents from both parties indicated they prefer an alternative to the current replacement program.
Another blow to the GBSD came when defense contractor Boeing declined to compete for the contract, citing concerns that rival Northrop Grumman’s purchase of Orbital ATK, a company specializing in rocket propulsion systems, gave Northrop Grumman an unfair edge. Prior to its acquisition Orbital ATK was one of two companies in the US producing solid fuel rocket motors used in ICBMs. The US Air Force on 8 September 2020 handed Northrop Grumman a contract worth $13.3 billion to develop the GBSD. Critics argue that the lack of competition over the program will reduce the Pentagon’s bargaining leverage and increase the final price. The Pentagon has a deserved reputation for going over budget and schedule in its acquisitions, perhaps most famously in the cases of the F-35 or the USS Ford.
Head of US Strategic Command, Admiral Charles Richmond, argues that it is no longer financially feasible to extend the Minuteman III’s operational life any further. He states that the technical drawings, where they can be found, are decades behind industry specifications and qualified personnel are aging out. Given that the Minuteman’s control system (SACCS) relied on 1970s eight-inch floppy disks in 2019, technical relevance is a genuine concern for the platform. Richmond also claims that the GBSD will be more accurate and secure in its cyber architecture—an entirely more effective nuclear deterrent.
It remains open to debate whether a land-based nuclear is even necessary, particularly in the form of silo-bound ICBMs like the Minuteman II and the GBSD. Critics argue that silo-based ICBMs are the least effective arm of the nuclear triad of land, air, and sea. Such weapons act as a sponge, forcing would be nuclear attackers to expend hundreds of warheads on their silos or face reprisal. For these weapons to be used effectively either in the offense or counter-offense, they would have to be launched within the minutes of receiving warning of an attack. Critics argue that silo-based ICBMs merely encourage the reckless use of nuclear weapons. Submarine launched ballistic missiles are more survivable in the event of actual conflict, while aircraft borne systems offer greater flexibility. The advent of hypersonic missile systems also calls into the question the rationality for traditional ICBMs.
The Biden administration already faces numerous challenges of greater concern to the American public than nuclear rearmament. Biden has promised to conduct a review of the entirety of the US’s nuclear arsenal, as well as its strategy. He indicated on the campaign trail that he wanted the US to re-enter the Iran nuclear deal designed to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Moreover, Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin announced they had agreed to a five-year extension of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). While Biden is by no means a pacifist, he appears to favor arms control agreements more than his predecessor.
Image courtesy of US government, public domain.
