TOPICS
TOPICS
Commander urges production of new nuclear warheads
Predicting that the nation would need a nuclear deterrent for the rest of the century, the head of the U.S. Strategic Command argued Tuesday in favor of the controversial Reliable Replacement Warhead and revitalized nuclear weapons production facilities.
"As long as there are other countries with enough nuclear weapons to destroy the United States of America, we'll need to deter them," Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton said at a defense writers' breakfast. "I'm not in favor of unilateral disarmament."
Chilton said he was comfortable with the 1,700 to 2,200 deployed nuclear weapons permitted under the Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty signed in 2002 by President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin. He said to ensure the United States had that number of ready weapons, the nation had to maintain a very large inventory of nuclear warheads.
"I think what we need is a modernized warhead to go with our modern delivery platforms, one with higher reliability," Chilton said. He also called for a "more responsive infrastructure to produce and maintain" those weapons.
A more reliable warhead and production facilities able to respond to "strategic uncertainty" would allow a cut in the number of warheads in storage, Chilton said.
Bush has proposed funding for the RRW and new nuclear weapons production facilities several times but has been blocked by bipartisan opposition in Congress. Money was provided for a detailed study on the nuclear deterrence required for current threats.
Chilton, who is based at Offut Air Force Base in Nebraska, discussed options for the so-called prompt strike initiative that would enable a conventional weapons attack anywhere in the world in a matter of minutes. This capability has been presented as an alternative to a nuclear attack in some situations.
That concept no longer includes the proposal to put conventionally armed Trident intercontinental missiles on the same ballistic missile submarines that carry nuclear-tipped ICBMs, he said. Members of Congress strongly opposed that idea because Russia might mistake the launch of the conventional missile with a nuclear attack.
Chilton said "a sea-based option has not been ruled out." That could mean using the four former ballistic missile submarines that have been converted to carry special operations forces and conventional missiles.
Chilton said the analysis of alternatives for prompt strike was looking at a land-based option, possibly using a conventional ICBM; a forward deployed capability, and an "air-breathing" platform, probably a hypersonic bomber. He said the analysis was being briefed to leaders and a proposal could come this summer.
He said Strategic Command was providing its requirements to the Air Force for the new long-range bomber that is supposed to be fielded by 2018. The command wants some of those bombers to have a nuclear-delivery capability but may not need to have all of them nuclear-capable.
COMMENTS
- Oops, I almost forgot! Could someone tell me which war it was that we had time (after the war started) to begin manufacturing war materials to prevent a devastating attack. I really think that if we don't have the nuclear warheads BEFORE are on the receiving end of nuclear attack, we aren't going to have the industrial capacity (we probably don't have anyway) to start building any AFTER the attack. Larry R. Doane Posted August 20, 2008 3:01 PM
- I would hope that the (very) recent dust-up between Georgia and Russia that showed the impotence of the United States would get through to our (so-called) leaders. Is there anyone in the world who thinks that the United States could have done anything besides talk? Take a look at our new force structure! It is designed strictly and solely to fight an insurgency-type warfare, NOT a conventional force such as Russia would be bringing to bear. When will our leaders understand that, although we are fighting an Iraq war now, there are still enemies out there who have big, hairy conventional forces with Infantry Divisions, Armored Divisions, etc. What do WE have? Light, easily deployed Brigades without the firepower or armor weight to challenge the conventional forces of a Russia or a China. Not to mention that the so-called 'peace dividend' that the Clinton and the Bush administrations were so eager to spend by reducing the size of our armed forces has left us without any credible deterent beyond our nuclear forces. Larry R. Doane Posted August 20, 2008 2:57 PM
- Why not waste a few hundred billion $$ building more nukes we can never use? Dr. Strangelove Posted March 6, 2008 5:46 AM
