U.S. Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century: Getting it Right

III. THE NUCLEAR ENVIRONMENT TODAY

Today, more countries have nuclear arsenals than ever before, and still more are poised to acquire them.  By contrast, the United States has dramatically reduced its inventory of operational strategic and tactical weapons and exercised restraint to the point of neglect with respect to the myriad steps necessary to ensure the safety, reliability and effectiveness of its remaining nuclear stockpile.

A. What Others are Doing

Russia and China are  making significant investments in the modernization of their nuclear forces.³ There is reason to believe that some of these investments are going toward highly advanced, specialized-effects nuclear weapons (known as “fourth generation” weapons).⁴

As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates observed in October 2008, “…Russia ha[s] embarked on an ambitious path to design and field new weapons.”⁵ He added: “Ironically…Russia today…has neither the money nor the population to sustain its Cold War conventional force levels.  Instead, we have seen an increased reliance on its nuclear force with new ICBM and sea-based missiles, as well as a fully functional infrastructure that can manufacture a significant number of warheads each year.”⁶

A White Paper issued by the Departments of Energy and Defense  in September 2008 characterized the level of effort being mounted by the Kremlin in this area: “…Russia maintains a fully functional nuclear weapons design, development, test and manufacturing infrastructure capable of producing significant quantities of nuclear warheads per year.”⁷

The same increasingly appears to be true of China.⁸ Last October, Secretary Gates declared that: “China is also expanding its nuclear arsenal.  It has increased the number of short-, medium- and long-range missiles and pursued new land-, sea- and air-based systems that can deliver nuclear weapons.”⁹

While the other two founding members of the so-called “nuclear club” – Britain and France – are allies rather than threats to the United States, they too are upgrading their respective strategic arsenals.  Secretary Gates took note of this fact last year, observing: “The United Kingdom and France have programs to maintain their deterrent capabilities.”¹⁰  

In short, as members of the Strategic Posture Commission unanimously put it in their final report released in May 2009: “The other NPT recognized nuclear-weapon states have put in place comprehensive programs to modernize their forces to meet new international circumstances.”¹¹

Meanwhile, rogue and potential rogue nations such as North Korea, Iran, Syria and Pakistan have continued to pursue nuclear weapons technology at an accelerated pace.   Often this is done, at least initially, under the guise of civilian nuclear power activities – exploiting a loophole in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).  Such behavior calls into serious question the utility of arms control as a means of preventing nuclear proliferation among signatory states – let alone those that are non-signatories – unwilling to abide by the NPT and its associated verification regimes.¹²

Moreover, at least some of these actual or incipient nuclear powers appear willing to transfer, nuclear weapons-relevant technology to those with cash.  It is reasonable to assume that they are willing to consider as prospective clients terrorist organizations like al Qaeda known to be anxious to acquire—and, perhaps, even to  use—nuclear weapons.

In sum, more states today have active – although in some cases still covert – nuclear weapons programs than ever before, and all are diligently working to improve their nuclear capabilities.¹³