The United States is currently in the process of implementing a three-year, $1.7 trillion program to modernize and expand its already substantial nuclear arsenal, following a multi-year inactivity in the design, production, and testing of new nuclear weapons following the Cold War. This program, which is already over budget and behind schedule—a situation that is common for most Pentagon weapons programs as a result of a non-competitive procurement environment—is also perceived as an overreaction to other nuclear powers. There are experts who recommend that it be substantially reduced.
The global nuclear buildup during the Cold War peaked in 1986, with an estimated 70,000 nuclear warheads in existence, compared to 7,500 in 1955. The worldwide total has decreased to approximately 12,000 as a consequence of the Cold War’s end and the implementation of arms control.
Currently, the US maintains an estimated 5,748 warheads in its nuclear arsenal, as opposed to Russia’s 5,580. Collectively, these arsenals comprise more than 90% of the world’s nuclear warheads.
The US is contemplating the addition of additional warheads to its arsenal when the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) expires in early 2026. This treaty restricts the number of long-range nuclear warheads and delivery systems.
China currently has approximately 500 warheads and intends to double this number by the end of the decade, with the potential to expand even further by 2035. Russia has also been upgrading its nuclear arsenal.
The Western media seems to agree that the size of the US nuclear arsenal should be influenced by the nuclear and conventional military activities of Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. Nevertheless, it expresses concern that the future of arms control appears grim in spite of forty years of progress in the reduction of nuclear warheads. The American public is still not well-informed about the nature of this program, which is estimated to cost nearly double the entire Manhattan Project of World War II annually (an estimated $57 billion), despite the fact that Congress determined over a decade ago that the US must modernize its nuclear arsenal.
Is it logical for the United States, which has a national debt of $26.3 trillion (approximately 98% of GDP), to continue to modernize or expand its nuclear capabilities on such a large scale, even if other countries do so?
At present, the US is in the process of modernizing (and potentially expanding) all three prongs, also called nuclear triad, of its Cold War-era nuclear triad. This triad is composed of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that are stored in silos in the western states, long-range bombers that are capable of delivering nuclear weapons, and stealthy, and therefore invulnerable, ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). These submarines are now capable of carrying nearly 1,000 powerful warheads. The US was able to justify such excesses in its enormous destructive capabilities during the Cold War. Currently, Americans should consider whether their country could implement a minimal deterrence strategy that is less expensive but still effective, as China has done in the past. This strategy would involve using the saved funds to stimulate economic development. The economy is a priority in the incoming Republican Donald Trump administration.
An adversary’s nuclear first strike poses a threat to two of the triad’s legs. It is uncertain that the new ICBMs (Sentinel) deployed in stationary and readily targeted land-based silos will be less susceptible to a first strike than the existing Minuteman III missiles. The B-21 Raider, a new American long-range bomber that is capable of carrying nuclear weapons, would be susceptible to a surprise attack on the ground before its departure. Alternatively, if airborne, it would be vulnerable when attempting to penetrate the formidable Russian or Chinese air defenses.
In order to prevent other major powers from initiating nuclear attacks against the US (and other major powers), it is realistically sufficient for nuclear forces to be capable of withstanding an adversary’s first strike and striking all critical targets in the attacking country. If Russia or China have about 500 critical targets and each target necessitates the use of two warheads, the US could achieve this by deploying approximately 1,000 warheads on twelve Columbia-class SSBNs that are both invulnerable and potent.
Consequently, the ICBM and bomber modernization programs may be terminated. According to a Times report, the cost of constructing only these twelve submarines would be $130 billion, as opposed to the $1.7 trillion required to modernize the entire triad.
Critics will refer to this nuclear “monad” as unilateral disarmament; however, it is merely the removal of the costly and wasteful excess in the current nuclear forces.