In recent months, voices on the left have argued that the United States should abandon the strategic “triad” of nuclear weapons systems – intercontinental ballistic missiles, ballistic missile submarines, and heavy bombers. Some cite economic reasons, others say that the United States does not need or should not have a full triad given President Obama’s nuclear abolition agenda, and still others argue that scarce resources would be better invested in more “usable” capabilities.  On October 11, for instance, Congressman Ed Markey and several dozen disarmament-inclined House members signed a letter to the supercommittee urging the panel to make major cuts to the triad. (Markey reportedly proposes eliminating at least one element of the triad altogether.)

This is nothing new. There have always been advocates against America’s nuclear weapons.  What is more ominous, however, is that doubts about whether the United States will or should maintain sufficient funds for the triad seem to be gaining traction. For instance, a nuclear expert at the White House has stated publicly that the United States has “reached the level in our forces where further reductions will raise questions about whether we retain the triad, or whether we go to a system that only is a dyad.” A respected Pentagon nuclear policymaker, meanwhile, said recently that it is a very real possibility that the Defense Department will not be able to sustain the triad in light of the bleak budgetary environment. And the commander of U.S. Strategic Command, General Robert Kehler, also raised the question this month whether budgetary pressures might force a move to a dyad of delivery systems. Additionally, the Obama administration is conducting a “mini-Nuclear Posture Review” to find ways to reduce U.S. nuclear forces further.