Choices For U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy

Similar documents
US Nuclear Policy: A Mixed Message

Challenges of a New Capability-Based Defense Strategy: Transforming US Strategic Forces. J.D. Crouch II March 5, 2003

Policy Responses to Nuclear Threats: Nuclear Posturing After the Cold War

Nuclear dependency. John Ainslie

U.S. Nuclear Strategy After the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review

What if the Obama Administration Changes US Nuclear Policy? Potential Effects on the Strategic Nuclear War Plan

NATO's Nuclear Forces in the New Security Environment

Reducing the waste in nuclear weapons modernization

Perspectives on the 2013 Budget Request and President Obama s Guidance on the Future of the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program

Nuclear Force Posture and Alert Rates: Issues and Options*

Issue Briefs. Nuclear Weapons: Less Is More. Nuclear Weapons: Less Is More Published on Arms Control Association (

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY. National Missile Defense: Why? And Why Now?

Beyond Trident: A Civil Society Perspective on WMD Proliferation

SEEKING A RESPONSIVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS INFRASTRUCTURE AND STOCKPILE TRANSFORMATION. John R. Harvey National Nuclear Security Administration

US-Russian Nuclear Disarmament: Current Record and Possible Further Steps 1. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov

Nuclear Forces: Restore the Primacy of Deterrence

Nuclear Command and Control for the 21 st Century 1

Nuclear Weapons Status and Options Under a START Follow-On Agreement

OHIO Replacement. Meeting America s Enduring Requirement for Sea-Based Strategic Deterrence

Setting Priorities for Nuclear Modernization. By Lawrence J. Korb and Adam Mount February

NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN Steven Pifer Senior Fellow Director, Arms Control Initiative October 10, 2012

Defense Support Program Celebrating 40 Years of Service

Reducing Nuclear Tensions: How Russia and the United States Can Go Beyond Mutual Assured Destruction (1/19/05)

Also this week, we celebrate the signing of the New START Treaty, which was ratified and entered into force in 2011.

Americ a s Strategic Posture

Issue Briefs. NNSA's '3+2' Nuclear Warhead Plan Does Not Add Up

DETENTE Détente: an ending of unfriendly or hostile relations between countries. How? Use flexible approaches when dealing with communist countries

1 Nuclear Posture Review Report

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE PROGRAM GUIDELINES. for FY 2011 and beyond

The Nuclear Powers and Disarmament Prospects and Possibilities 1. William F. Burns

Differences Between House and Senate FY 2019 NDAA on Major Nuclear Provisions

Banning Ballistic Missiles? Missile Control for a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World

9. Guidance to the NATO Military Authorities from the Defence Planning Committee 1967

THE FUTURE OF U.S.-RUSSIAN ARMS CONTROL

China s Strategic Force Modernization: Issues and Implications

HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE-4. Subject: National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction

2018 Annual Missile Defense Small Business Programs Conference

North Korea's Nuclear Programme and Ballistic Missile Capabilities: An Assessment

Why Japan Should Support No First Use

Main article published in Science & Global Security Volume 21, No. 2 (2013), Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

U.S. Nuclear Policy and World Nuclear Situation

MATCHING: Match the term with its description.

Defending the Record on US Nuclear Deterrence

SALT I TEXT. The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, hereinafter referred to as the Parties,

Strategic. Defense. Initiative UNCLASSIFIED Report to the Congress on the. January 1993 UNCLASSIFIED

The Next Round: The United States and Nuclear Arms Reductions After

The Need for a Strong U.S. Nuclear Deterrent In the 21 st Century. A White Paper By Franklin C. Miller

CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web

Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons

Issue No. 405 May 12, Summaries of the 1994, 2001, and 2010 Nuclear Posture Reviews

Remarks by President Bill Clinton On National Missile Defense

Arms Control Today. U.S. Missile Defense Programs at a Glance

Chapter 11 DIVERSITY OF U.S. STRATEGIC FORCES

NATIONAL DEFENSE PROGRAM GUIDELINES, FY 2005-

An Interview with Gen John E. Hyten

Russia s New Conventional Capability

Missile Defense: Time to Go Big

Triad, Dyad, Monad? Shaping U.S. Nuclear Forces for the Future. Presentation to the Air Force Association Mitchell Institute for Airpower Studies

For More Information

Nuclear Capabilities

Tactical nuclear weapons 'are an anachronism'

Rethinking the Foundations of the National Security Strategy and the QDR Seminar Series 20 May 2009 Dr. Lewis A. Dunn

SUB Hamburg A/ Nuclear Armament. GREENHAVEN PRESS A part of Gale, Cengage Learning. GALE CENGAGE Learning-

This page left intentionally blank

POINTS OF GENERAL AGREEMENT

Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons

Ballistic Missile Defense: Historical Overview

TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS ON THE LIMITATION OF ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE SYSTEMS

Department of Defense DIRECTIVE. SUBJECT: Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (ASD(ISP))

Défense nationale, July US National Security Strategy and pre-emption. Hans M. KRISTENSEN

Strategic Deterrence for the Future

Less than a year after the first atomic

ARMS CONTROL, SECURITY COOPERATION AND U.S. RUSSIAN RELATIONS

THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON. December 16, 2002

How did the way Truman handled the Korean War affect the powers of the presidency? What were some of the long-term effects of the Korean war?

CHINA S WHITE PAPER ON MILITARY STRATEGY

Missile Defense Program Overview For The European Union, Committee On Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee On Security And Defence

U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues

Statement and Recommendations of the Co-Chairs of the 3 rd Panel on Peace and Security of Northeast Asia (PSNA) Workshop

The U.S. Nuclear Posture in Korea

Media Backgrounder: Nuclear Weapons and the Foreign Policy Debate

October 2017 SWIM CALL

Th. d.,."""~,,.,,,,",~ awolaaily." "1119'" l"'lid!q.one_'i~fie",_ ~qf 1"'/ll'll'_1)I"wa,

The Logic of American Nuclear Strategy: Why Strategic Superiority Matters

Section 6. South Asia

THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON. December 11, 1993

Future Russian Strategic Challenges Mark B.Schneider

NATO s New Guided Standoff Nuclear Bomb

CRS Report for Con. The Bush Administration's Proposal For ICBM Modernization, SDI, and the B-2 Bomber

StratCom in Context: The Hidden Architecture of U.S. Militarism

UNIDIR RESOURCES IDEAS FOR PEACE AND SECURITY. Practical Steps towards Transparency of Nuclear Arsenals January Introduction

PREPARED TESTIMONY OF DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PAUL D. WOLFOWITZ SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE THURSDAY, JULY 12, 2001

Arms Control and Nonproliferation: A Catalog of Treaties and Agreements

Nuclear Warfare. PHYSICS Michael Wiescher

U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues

Missile Defense Agency Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) /

THE NUCLEAR WORLD IN THE EARLY 21 ST CENTURY

th Street, NW Sixth Floor Washington, DC

Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons

The best days in this job are when I have the privilege of visiting our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen,

Transcription:

Choices For U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy David Mosher RAND August 11, 2004 1 RAND

The Role of Nuclear Weapons in U.S. Foreign Policy 1. Manage transition to normal relations with Russia 2. Manage transition of U.S.-China relationship to avoid nuclearization 3. Deter use of nuclear weapons against U.S. and allies 4. Reduce threat of proliferation 5. Reduce threat of accidental or unauthorized use 6. Maintain hedge against serious setbacks in international relations or reliability and safety of the stockpile 2 RAND

Achieving Foreign Policy Goals Do not need a large force structure But it needs to be safe, secure, reliable, and sustainable Should avoid provocative postures Moscow Treaty addressed only numbers, not how forces are operated Posture is more important than numbers today New types of weapons are unlikely to be necessary Utility of nuclear weapons is very limited in future conflicts Hedge should be designed to account for long lead times U.S. will have a decade or more to respond to significant changes and new challenges 3 RAND

Beyond The Nuclear Shadow: A Phased Approach for Improving Nuclear Safety and U.S. Russian Relations David Mosher RAND August 11, 2004 4 RAND

Twin Problems The risk of accidental and unauthorized use of nuclear weapons continues today despite the end of the Cold War The nuclear dimension of the U.S.-Russian relationship is out of step with political realities, which undercuts foundation for further improvements 5 RAND

Risks of Accidental and Unauthorized Launch Remain U.S. and Russia still operate and posture their nuclear forces much as they did during the Cold War Forces smaller, but constantly on alert and driven by the forces of the other Russia s economic troubles have created new problems Increased reliance on nuclear weapons Size and readiness of forces plummeting Significant holes in its early-warning system Concerns about personnel reliability and command and control system U.S. posture accentuates Russia s concerns Hard target capability threatens Russian forces and command and control nodes Trident submarines close to Russia could attack within about 10 minutes 6 RAND

Russia s s Early-Warning System Has Decayed Significantly 100 80 Status of Russian Early-Warning Systems (1989-2002) 60 40 1989 2002 20 0 Satellite Coverage of U.S. ICBM Fields Radar Coverage of National Perimeter Russia Russia has has no no satellite coverage of of oceans or or other other regions 7 RAND

Striking the Right Balance Between Deterrence and Safety Tension has always existed between deterrence and safety Cold War posture originated in climate of ideological conflict and direct military confrontation Climate has changed dramatically, but balance is still skewed toward deterrence Should re-establish the balance between deterrence and safety in a manner that is appropriate for evolving U.S./Russian relationship Presidents Putin and and Bush have taken some important first first steps, but but have focused on on numbers of of forces and and not not how how they they are are postured or or operated 8 RAND

RAND Approach Studied the underlying factors that could lead to accidental or unauthorized nuclear use Explored a wide range of steps that might address those causes Unilateral and cooperative Reduce technical risks, improve relations, make forces match political realities Examined in detail 10 potential options Goal was to create concrete options Applied a consistent set of criteria encompassing broad range of issues Explored variations with and without verification 9 RAND

Options RAND Analyzed 1. Provide assistance for improving Russia s early-warning radars or satellites 2. Establish a joint, redundant early-warning system by placing sensors outside U.S.-Russian missile silos 3. Immediately stand down all nuclear forces to be eliminated under the 2002 Moscow Treaty 4. Pull U.S. strategic ballistic missile submarines away from Russia 5. Keep U.S attack submarines away from Russia 6. Remove W-88 warheads from Trident missiles 7. Reduce day-to-day launch readiness of 150 ICBMs in silos 8. Reduce day-to-day launch readiness of all nuclear forces 9. Install Destruct After Launch mechanisms (DALs) on nuclear weapons 10. Deploy limited missile defenses of the United States 10 RAND

Findings Several steps have promise No one step would eliminate dangers by itself Some steps would upend decades of orthodoxy about operations and doctrine Nuclear safety and U.S. Russian relations inextricably linked Solutions must pay attention to both 11 RAND

A Phased Approach to Improving Nuclear Safety Immediate unilateral steps Near-term unilateral and cooperative steps Mediumterm steps Strength of U.S./Russian Relationship Nuclear Risks Today 2010 End State 12 RAND

A Phased Approach to Improving Nuclear Safety (2003-2010) 6 months to 1 year 2 to 3 years 5 to 7 years Immediate Unilateral Steps Stand down forces to Moscow Treaty levels Pull SSBNs away from Russia Pull attack subs back Reduce launch readiness of 1/3 of silo-based ICBMs Commit to: Put EW sensors on silos Fund Russian EW radar Continue RAMOS program Near-Term Unilateral Steps Eliminate Moscow Treaty forces Put EW sensors on silos Remove W-88 warheads Begin Consultations on: Further improving Russian EW systems Destruct after launch systems Reducing launch readiness Medium-Term Steps Take an equal number of silo-based ICBMs off alert Install sensors on silos to monitor reductions in launch readiness Adopt a new deterrence strategy Deploy limited missile defense Deploy DAL system (midcourse) Continue negotiations on further steps to reduce launch readiness 2003 2006 2010 13 RAND

A Phased Approach to Improving Nuclear Safety Beyond 2010 10 to 15 years End States Intermediate to Long-Term Steps Reduce number of SSBNs at sea Provide global EW Build joint US-Russian missile defense Begin negotiations on verification measures for reducing launch readiness of subs, mobile missiles, and bombers Possible End States Extensive monitoring significantly reduces launch readiness of nuclear forces in all nuclear states OR Some U.S. and Russian nuclear forces remain on low level alert; others taken off alert with modest monitoring; and political relations between U.S. and Russia are similar to those between Britain and France. (allies with no concerns about nuclear forces) 2018 End State 14 RAND

RAND s Approach: Nuclear Safety Initiative Recognize that nuclear safety and U.S./Russian relations are strongly coupled Steps that improve relations can improve safety; steps that improve safety can improve relations Need to consider implications of nuclear safety options across a broad range of issues Build a pragmatic, phased approach to achieve vision Begins with immediate steps, then mid- and long-term steps Steps can be unilateral, cooperative, or negotiated Steps can improve safety, relations, or both, set tone, signal intentions, increase decision time Long term vision: Remove nuclear dimension of U.S./Russian relations (de-nuclearize the relationship) Like U.K. and France Best way to improve nuclear safety 15 RAND

Conclusions Risks of accidental and unauthorized nuclear use are real and should not be ignored Opportunity to address this major risk right now Progress closely linked to U.S. Russian relations Can not be done quickly or easily Will require President to take it on directly 16 RAND

Backup Slides 17 RAND

Russia s s Survivable Force Likely to Be Very Small Russian and U.S. Forces, 2002 8000 6000 4000 Russia U.S. 2000 0 Deployed Forces At-the-Ready Forces Survivable Forces (Day-to-Day) 18 RAND

Understanding the Problem: Possible Scenarios for Accidental or Unauthorized Nuclear Use Type I: Unauthorized Use Intentional launch without authorization by rogue commander or terrorist Type II: Missile Launched by Mistake Training accident System malfunction Type III: Intentional Launch Based on Incorrect Information Malfunctioning early-warning system Incorrect interpretation of a non-threatening event Misperception of a nuclear attack by a third country or terrorists Misperception of an accidental nuclear detonation on its own territory Simulated training attack misinterpreted as a real attack 19 RAND

Early-Warning Sensors on Silos Antenna Telephone line Sensors Data collection module ICBM Silo Possible Sensors Seismic Temperature Infrared Smoke Video Optical fiber loop Door switches Data Transmission Direct wire Radio Satellite Land lines 20 RAND

Russian Oko Satellite Ground Tracks on January 25, 1995 21 RAND

Russian Oko Satellite Ground Tracks in 2001 22 RAND

Molniya Satellites Viewing US ICBM Fields (August 1998) Molniya Satellites Viewing US ICBM Fields (August 1998) 4 Number of Satellites 3 2 1 0 0:00 2:30 5:00 7:30 10:00 12:30 15:00 17:30 20:00 22:30 Time 23 RAND

Gaps in Russia s s Early-Warning Radar System Pacific Ocean Atlantic Ocean 24 RAND

Russia Molniya (Oko)) and Geosynchronous (Prognos( Prognos) ) Early Warning Satellites 25 RAND