The U.S. is building new nuclear weapons, including a massive missile called the Sentinel.
They鈥檙e up to 20 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
The program could cost more than $130 billion.
Today, On Point: Why does America need new nuclear weapons?
Guests
, senior Washington representative for the Global Security program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The Honorable Madelyn Creedon, principal deputy administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration from 2014 to 2017.
Also Featured
Jeremy Murray, manager, Air Force Global Strike Command ICBM Policy.
Sarah Scoles, freelance science journalist. Author of the book 鈥溾��
Transcript
Part I
ASSOCIATION OF AIR FORCE MISSILEERS: A new ICBM baseline design, which will deploy 400 new missiles, update 450 silos, and modernize more than 600 facilities across almost 40,000 square miles of U.S. territory, which spans over six states, three operational wings, and a test location.
MEGHNA CHAKRABARTI: That is from a video produced by the Association of Air Force Missileers.
It鈥檚 describing a massive new nuclear missile called the Sentinel. The Sentinel program would replace America鈥檚 400 existing land-based Minuteman III nuclear missiles. And the project has a price tag north of 130 billion. The U.S. Air Force says the United States鈥� existing nuclear arsenal is decades old and in need of modernization.
Here鈥檚 Lt. Gen. Richard Moore, Jr., the Air Force鈥檚 Deputy Chief of Staff for plans and programs earlier this year.
MOORE, JR.: There is not a viable service life extension program that we can foresee for Minuteman III. It was fielded in the 70s as a 10-year weapon. And we will do everything we can to keep it in the field. It will remain safe, secure and reliable. But extending it for some lengthy period of time, that鈥檚 not a viable option. And so Sentinel will be funded. We鈥檒l make the trades that it takes to make that happen.
CHAKRABARTI: The 130 billion outlay was not the Air Force鈥檚 original estimated cost. In January, the Air Force revealed that the Sentinel program likely would exceed its projected budgeted costs by 37%.
And that cost breach triggered a mandatory investigation of the program by the Pentagon. Some in Congress, like Massachusetts Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, are deeply troubled by Sentinel鈥檚 growing price tag. At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in February, Warren pressed General Anthony Cotton, commander of the Air Force鈥檚 Strategic Command, on just how much higher Sentinel鈥檚 budget overrun would go, even as the Air Force is having trouble delivering on the project.
Even before this latest cost breach, there were bright blinking warnings that this program was not on track. We got to have a plan here that is actually going to work. We can鈥檛 just keep burning money.
CHAKRABARTI: While Sentinel鈥檚 ballooning budget is the target of public scrutiny now, the truth is, the United States is on a nuclear spending spree.
This nation is on track to spend more than a trillion dollars on a nuclear modernization program that spans multiple presidential administrations. New silos, new bombers, new, more devastating, nuclear weapons. And while the recent political outcry has been over dollars and cents, another important question is, what is the sense behind doubling down on nuclear weapons and the fear of mutually assured destruction as the centerpiece of not just U.S., but global security?
Joining us now is Stephen Young. He鈥檚 Senior Washington Representative for the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. Stephen, welcome to On Point.
STEPHEN YOUNG: Thank you, Meghna. I wish I could say I鈥檓 happy to be here, but I鈥檓 actually not happy to be here because this is a scary topic.
CHAKRABARTI: Yeah.
YOUNG: But it鈥檚 a very important one, and we need to talk about it.
CHAKRABARTI: So let鈥檚 talk about it in detail, because you鈥檝e written quite extensively on the overall plans and expansions of America鈥檚 nuclear arsenal. I鈥檇 like first to learn more from you about Sentinel. These are missiles that haven鈥檛 yet fully been constructed, because obviously there鈥檚 an issue about the delivery of the program.
But what is the Sentinel missile? How would it ostensibly work? It is a land based, long range nuclear armed missile.
YOUNG: Each missile would carry one to two or three warheads potentially, and each warhead would likely be about 20 times more powerful than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the Japanese war.
So these are massively powerful weapons that have about a 30-minute flight time from the U.S. to almost anywhere in the world. We鈥檝e had these systems like this for decades, but in reality, we don鈥檛 need them at all. We actually have no need for land-based missiles. We can be perfectly safe without them.
CHAKRABARTI: Okay. So when we say that there are orders many times the strength of, or the devastation power of the bombs that landed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you鈥檙e talking about then therefore bombs that could kill millions and millions of people, should they be used.
YOUNG: That鈥檚 correct. Absolutely.
CHAKRABARTI: Okay. Now, their land base, which is the key thing here. You鈥檝e also written about other weapons systems, for example and, there鈥檚 a lot of, we鈥檙e talking about the Defense Department, so there鈥檚 a lot of acronyms and numbers here, help me keep them straight. Is this, is Sentinel the same thing or something different as the proposed gravity bomb that has been discussed before.
YOUNG: So the U.S. maintains what鈥檚 called a triad of nuclear systems, the land-based weapons are one leg of that triad. Another leg is the air based weapons delivered by jet fighters and bombers. That鈥檚 what uses gravity bombs. And the third leg are missiles launched from submarines at sea.
The third leg of the triad. So we have navy, ICBMs, bombers, and nuclear armed submarines, are the three legs of the nuclear triad. I would argue we could get rid of one, if not two of those legs of the triad and still have a very strong deterrent to keep us safe.
CHAKRABARTI: Okay, so the gravity bomb then is the one that鈥檚 also, it鈥檚 flown in by a bomber.
And there鈥檚 one at least that you鈥檝e written about called the B61-12, which as you report, would cost more than its weight in gold. Is it in production though?
YOUNG: It is. It鈥檚 taken a very long time and cost far more than initially estimated. But yes, it鈥檚 in production now. And they will complete production in the next two to three years, probably. And it will be deployed in the United States and also about a hundred U.S. weapons are actually deployed in Europe, and four or five European countries maintain U.S. nuclear weapons. And should a war happen, those weapons would be handed over to those countries for nuclear war fighting.
It鈥檚 a scary thought.
CHAKRABARTI: So that鈥檚 gravity bombs. And then Sentinel falls under the land-based missiles that you talked about a bit earlier.
YOUNG: Yes.
CHAKRABARTI: Are there other land based missiles that are in development, or new types of warheads? We only have the one land based missile currently deployed, the Minuteman III, and the one to replace that is the Sentinel.
Minuteman III, as we mentioned in the previous discussion, was deployed first in the 鈥�70s. It鈥檚 been updated and upgraded many times since then, so it鈥檚 not still a 70-year-old missile but it definitely needs to be refurbished again, or simply retired. I would argue we should retire it.
But yes the Sentinel Missile is the only missile we will have, if it is indeed built, despite the cost increases it鈥檚 going through. And then again, the third leg is the nuclear armed submarines. 鈥� 20 or so nuclear armed missiles that have mini warheads on those.
CHAKRABARTI: Okay. And so are there new sea based or submarine based ballistic missiles in development? Because I think you鈥檝e written about a new warhead. Is that different than the quote, low yield warhead that the Trump administration deployed?
YOUNG: So the submarines can carry, each submarine has currently 20 missiles on it, and they can carry multiple warheads, and some of those warheads, most of those warheads are very high yield weapons.
Again, ones that are 20 to 30 times the size of the bomb dropped in Hiroshima. But under the Trump administration, the U.S. has had to deploy a few weapons that are lower yield, only a third of the size of the bomb dropped in Hiroshima. But still, if you drop it in a big city, that would kill tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people in minutes.
CHAKRABARTI: Okay.
YOUNG: Still, massive destruction.
CHAKRABARTI: But Stephen, I just want to be sure that I hear you clearly. So the low yield ones are a third of the size of Hiroshima, which is still very devastating. And then you say the other regular yield submarine based nuclear weapons, I want to be sure I鈥檓 not mishearing you, were 20 to 30 times the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima?
YOUNG: That鈥檚 correct. And in total, if you add up all the explosive yield of all the bombs on U.S. submarines, one submarine has seven times the destructive power of all the bombs used in World War II. And we have 12 of those submarines. So one submarine, again, has seven times destructive power of all the bombs used in World War II.
And we have 12 of those.
CHAKRABARTI: All the bombs, including conventional artillery and yes, fire bombs, et cetera. Not just nuclears bombs.
YOUNG: Yeah, that鈥檚 correct.
CHAKRABARTI: All the bombs of all types, including nuclear bombs in World War II.
YOUNG: It鈥檚 just incalculable the level of obstruction we have at our fingertips.
CHAKRABARTI: And yet, this is an effort to modernize and even expand America鈥檚 nuclear might, is an effort that has been consistent over several administrations, both Republican and Democratic. We鈥檒l talk in a little bit more detail about what happened under Obama, what happened under Trump and what may be going on under Biden.
But what鈥檚 your conclusion from that, that there鈥檚 a consistency from the White House and also the Pentagon, in the belief that this massive modernization and expansion of America鈥檚 nuclear power is essential for U.S. security?
YOUNG: Yes. And there is a bipartisan consensus at one level that the U.S. needs to maintain a nuclear deterrent. If you actually have a vote in the U.S. Congress, most Democrats actually would support getting rid of the Sentinel Missile Program, but not enough of them. So if the President called for cancelling the Sentinel Missile, he probably would lose a vote in Congress because enough Democrats agree with Republicans that they think this is a valuable contribution.
But the reality is the military simulations they play out are just so terrifying, that people worry, oh, we have to be just sure that we鈥檙e going to be safe by having more of this destructive capability. But the reality is we have still far more than we need. And I think the argument to me is pretty clear that the risk is simply not worth it.
We don鈥檛 need this massive nuclear arsenal. We don鈥檛 need redundancy upon redundancy. We don鈥檛 need to have every target covered multiple times with multiple yield warheads that are massively destructive. It鈥檚 simply overkill, again and again.
This article was originally published on
Copyright 2024 NPR
