The top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) criticized the Trump administration’s nearly completed nuclear posture review (NPR) Jan. 24, saying its call for more weapons is unaffordable and unnecessary and would fuel an arms race.
“This review is a missed opportunity to introduce realism into our nuclear weapons planning, enhance our security and reassure our allies,” Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said in a statement.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that current plans to modernize, operate and sustain U.S. nuclear forces will cost about $1.2 trillion over the next three decades (Defense Daily, Oct. 31, 2017). A draft of the NPR document reportedly calls for increasing that sum by launching the development of low-yield nuclear warheads and a sea-launched nuclear cruise missile.
“It is clear to anyone observing the budget process that the current price tag of at least $1.2 trillion is completely unrealistic, and that adding to it would further draw resources away from capabilities and training that we need to most effectively counter our near-peer adversaries,” Smith said. “How President Trump plans to pay for these programs remains a mystery.”
Current modernization efforts include the Navy’s new Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine, the Air Force’s new B-21 Raider bomber, the Air Force’s new intercontinental ballistic missile, known as the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, a new air-launched cruise missile for Air Force bombers, a new ballistic missile for Navy submarines, and a series of life extensions for bombs and warheads.
“The United States has an extremely robust, highly credible nuclear deterrent that is capable of responding to any attack and defending our allies with decisive force,” Smith said. “We are currently in the process of upgrading that deterrent in an effort that will cost some $40 billion per year.”
A draft of the NPR document reportedly contends that developing new weapons would enhance deterrence by giving military planners more options. By contrast, arms control groups argue that expanding the nuclear arsenal would increase the chances that such weapons would be used.
DoD announced in April that it had formally begun the review. It is expected to publicly unveil a report in February.