WASHINGTON -- A top U.S. general yesterday predicted the United States will still need nuclear weapons 40 years into the future in order to bolster national security and provide protection for allies (see GSN, Nov. 9).
(Nov. 11) -
Technicians work on a U.S. W-76 nuclear warhead during a training exercise. The United States will continue to rely on its nuclear deterrent for at least four decades, the head of U.S. Strategic Command predicted yesterday (U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration photo).
"When looking into the future a basic question is ... will we still need nuclear weapons 40 years from now? I believe the answer to that question is yes," Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton, head of U.S. Strategic Command, said at a breakfast event on Capitol Hill.
The general's comments came just a month before the Obama administration is expected to release its eagerly anticipated Nuclear Posture Review. The Defense Department-led evaluation is expected to establish policies and strategies for the U.S. nuclear deterrent over the next five to 10 years.
In his widely noted April speech in Prague, U.S. President Barack Obama called for the elimination of all nuclear weapons but pledged the United States would maintain a sufficient strategic deterrent until that day arrived.
Chilton said his prediction was not inconsistent with the president's vision of a nuclear-free world.
"The president himself has said such a world will not be reached quickly and perhaps not in his lifetime and I agree with that," he told the audience.
The general later said the idea of a world without nuclear weapons "includes a vision of a different world order than what we have today."
"That's why most people who talk about that vision caveat it with 'I don't think it will happen in my lifetime.' It's not because we couldn't physically cut up every weapon in the world in 40 years. We could," Chilton said in response to a question. "The question is would it be a safer world if we did?"
He said his command must focus on "the president's confirmation that as long as nuclear weapons exist the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary and to guarantee that defense to our allies."
Chilton's statements come at a time when there are increased concerns about nuclear programs in North Korea, Iran and other nations (see GSN, Nov. 10). The United States has long extended what many have dubbed a "nuclear umbrella" to protect allies from potential nuclear attacks.
The 40-year time frame is "reasonable," said Heritage Foundation research fellow Baker Spring, who attended yesterday's event.
However, another analyst at the breakfast disagreed with the STRATCOM chief's prediction.
"It is very hard to plan for 40 years ahead in the arsenal now -- and there's no need to plan for 40 years ahead. It's excessive," Stephen Young, a senior analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a message. "In fact, while caution is appropriate, concentrating on that goal can easily undermine the president's parallel goal of reducing the role of nuclear weapons on the way toward a world free of these weapons."
Nuclear Maintenance
The U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration's Stockpile Stewardship Program -- which is responsible for ensuring the safety and reliability of the nation's nuclear arsenal -- must be sustained "for years" because of the increased age of some warheads, according to Chilton.
"Stockpile Stewardship must be adequately funded and supported to carry on because for sure we're going to be living for at least the next 20 years with some of these weapons that were designed during the Cold War," he said.
He credited the effort by the semiautonomous nuclear branch of the Energy Department as being a key reason why the United States has been able to observe a voluntary moratorium on nuclear bomb tests since 1992.
In the past, the country tested for “a variety of reasons,” including analysis of new warhead designs and, in some cases during the Cold War, for political reasons, the general said. He noted that checking for warhead reliability was a “small percentage” of the U.S. nuclear test effort.
"As I look forward, I don't anticipate we will [test]. That certainly will not be our desire," Chilton said. At the same time, the United States should retain the capability to test should it be considered a necessity for national security, he added.
The country should also preserve the ability to develop a nuclear weapon with a new military requirement should the need arise, according to Chilton. He did not specify what that capability might involve.
Admitting the future he predicted was "a bit opaque" other than the need for nuclear weapons, "I can say today that I need no new capabilities in the weapons we have today for the missions we're given today in today's world order," the STRATCOM chief said. "That could change in the future."
Spring said he fears the present lack of a new military mission for nuclear weapons could turn into permanent administration policy.
"I'm concerned that civilian people at the policy level will turn it into policy guidance and instruct the intelligence and military communities to put aside any inquiries about whether there needs to be a new military mission," said Spring, who also attended the event.
Another expert who heard the general's comments agreed with the sustainment approach he outlined.
"General Chilton put forward a ... pragmatic and informed view on how the United States can maintain its nuclear weapons arsenal into the future," Arms Control Association head Daryl Kimball said in a telephone interview.
That Chilton did not mention weapon modernization -- such as the Bush administration's controversial Reliable Replacement Warhead effort -- marks a "growing recognition" that "technically speaking" the United States can maintain its arsenal through a refurbishment program with investments in nuclear infrastructure, according to Kimball.
Any effort by the United States to design or test a new warhead would "clearly undermine our goal as a nation to reduce nuclear risks elsewhere," he added. "It would give other countries a cynical excuse to pursue new nuclear capabilities themselves."
Chilton also called for a robust nuclear complex budget, labeling most of today's infrastructure "inadequate." He did not provide a dollar figure.
The complex is generally understood to encompass the Energy Department's research laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, the Kansas City plant in Missouri, the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, the Pantex Plant in Texas and Y-12 National Security Complex in Tennessee.
Chilton cited the report by the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States which stated: "Existing facilities are genuinely decrepit and are maintained in a safe and secure manner only at high cost."
The analysis notes the Y-12 facility was constructed as part of the Manhattan Project, the 1940s scientific effort to develop the first atomic bomb.