Top Pentagon officials have revealed their support of a sea-launched cruise missile nuclear development program that will be axed in the latest budget proposal.
Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Tod Wolters, the commander of U.S. European Command, and others, have told lawmakers on the Hill in consecutive weeks that they believe the department should continue to fund the development of the missile.
Last week, the administration revealed its proposed budget of $773 billion for the Department of Defense to face “the acute threat of an aggressive Russia” and “the pacing challenge of China,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said.
Milley told the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday that his “position on SLCM-N has not changed” and, “My general view is that this president or any president deserves to have multiple options to deal with national security situations.”
The chairman argued in written answers during his 2019 confirmation that sea-launched ballistic missile warheads “are necessary to enable our flexible and tailored deterrence strategy as we modernize aging nuclear forces.”
Adm. Chas Richard, the head of U.S. Strategic Command, told lawmakers in a letter on Monday that he sees the lack of continued funding resulting in a “deterrence and assurance gap,” according to Defense News.
“While I am satisfied USSTRATCOM priorities are adequately addressed, the current situation in Ukraine and China’s nuclear trajectory convinces me a deterrence and assurance gap exists,” Richard wrote. “To address this gap, a low-yield, non-ballistic capability to deter and respond without visible generation is necessary to provide a persistent, survivable, regional capability to deter adversaries, assure allies, provide flexible options, as well as complement existing capabilities. I believe a capability with these attributes should be re-examined in the near future.”
Wolters, in his testimony in front of the House Strategic Forces Subcommittee last week, was asked if he agreed with Richard and said, “I do, congressman, and I know his words were attempting to drive home the fact that having multiple options exacerbates the challenge for the potential enemies against us.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Austin, meanwhile, downplayed the significance of ending the program, which senior officials revealed last month ahead of the rollout of the Nuclear Posture Review.
“The marginal capability that this provides is far outweighed by the cost,” the secretary explained at Tuesday’s hearing. “So, we had the ability to provide options to the president with a number of means.”
Some lawmakers have criticized the removal of this funding, while others have supported it, calling it too expensive.
