With hundreds of billions of dollars in nuclear modernization efforts in the pipeline already, the February expiration of the New START treaty with Russia could cause the price tag to further balloon, experts told the Washington Examiner.
Meanwhile, with less than 90 days remaining to extend the treaty and talks stalled, the commander overseeing the nation’s three wings of ICBM missiles told the Washington Examiner that no operational changes have been ordered.
“Our nation hasn’t decided, and our policymakers haven’t decided,” Air Force Maj. Gen. Mike Lutton, commander of the 20th Air Force, said in a recent interview from F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming.
“Until those things are determined, there’s really not detail that we can do at this operational level,” said Lutton, who oversees some 400 ICBM missiles in silos spread over six Midwestern states.
Those missiles each carry one nuclear warhead, a treaty obligation that Russia must also abide by and certify with regular American inspections.
If the 2010 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty expires, however, Russia can add three warheads to each of its hundreds of nuclear missiles in just one of the many mutual caps that would be lifted.
“Certainly, I have concerns about actions the Russians might take if they are freed from the limitations under New START,” Center for Strategic and International Studies nuclear security expert Rebecca Hersman recently told the Washington Examiner.
“We really don’t want it to start a cycle of ratcheting up irrationally the numbers of nuclear weapons because we couldn’t manage to negotiate to continue a solid agreement that served as well,” she said. “I have concerns that we would feel pressured to expand our nuclear arsenal in some way.”
A new nuclear arms race would also be costly for America.
In an August report, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost of expanding and fielding America’s nuclear force could be three times the current cost, exceeding hundreds of billions of dollars.
If the Department of Defense purchased more delivery systems, one-time costs would total up to $439 billion, with annual operating costs of up to $28 billion to return to START I treaty numbers, the CBO found.
The Trump administration at first insisted that China be a part of any new nuclear negotiation even though its arsenal pales in comparison to those of Russia and the United States. When China demurred, negotiations with Russia began in June but yielded little progress with Russia’s Vladimir Putin demanding an unconditional extension and the U.S. calling for stricter verification measures.
Brookings Institution nuclear security expert Frank Rose told the Washington Examiner that the current level of access far exceeds anything that existed during the Cold War era.
“New START provides us with information on Russia’s strategic nuclear forces that we wouldn’t necessarily have without the treaty and therefore that allows us to plan militarily,” he said.
“If we did not have the treaty and the information provided by the treaty on Russian strategic forces, we would be to a certain extent flying blind,” he said. “New START allows us to kind of manage that stable deterrent relationship with Russia.”
‘A big if’
Lutton said military planners are creating what-if scenarios, but with just months remaining, nothing has changed on the windswept plains where silos are buried 80 feet underground.
“We’re doing prudent military planning,” said the former Pentagon Joint Staff official. “From my perspective, there’ll be stratas of what-ifs.”
President Trump had hoped for a pre-election victory by negotiating a five-year extension to New START more favorable to the U.S.
That hope fizzled and what remains is a possible one-year extension with new, unverifiable limitations on Russia’s weapons.
Rose agreed with the premise that China’s nuclear ambitions merit inclusion in a future treaty, but that should not preclude extending New START.
“The objective of New START, in my opinion, is to help the United States maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent,” he said. “We need to upgrade the arms control framework to deal with these new threats from China and emerging technologies, but we can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.”
Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden makes clear on his website that his foreign policy plan includes extending New START if elected president.
His potential defense secretary and current campaign national security adviser, Michele Flournoy, stated why in a July interview with the Arms Control Association.
“An easy win is to pursue an extension of the treaty as is,” she said. “It buys us predictability. It buys us transparency and verification measures. It buys us a lot that contributes to stability at a time when the other dimensions of the relationship with Russia are both in flux and under tremendous scrutiny.”
Lutton said until a decision is made, there are no operational changes to the aging land-based strategic deterrent he oversees.
“What does that mean then if — and this is a big if — we choose not to go this way, right?” he posed. “We still haven’t gotten that direction, and we’re not going to make any assumptions about what that means.”
He added: “February is a long time away right now.”
