Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin offered a clue at his nomination hearing on where he stands on liberal Democrats’ efforts to curtail nuclear modernization, questioning the current pace of modernization even though military commanders have said any further delays would undermine America’s ability to retain all three legs of the nuclear triad.
“I look forward to getting on board, if confirmed, and having an ability to kind of look under the hood and see exactly what we’re doing with our nuclear forces,” Austin said at his Jan. 19 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
The response dodged a question by Nebraska Republican Sen. Deb Fischer on whether Austin would support unilaterally reducing America’s nuclear forces.
While Austin later won 93-2 Senate confirmation, the refusal to respond directly to Fischer marked a rare moment of obfuscation by the 41-year Army veteran at his otherwise smooth hearing.
It was also a signal of a battle to come as liberal Democrats intent on reducing America’s nuclear stockpile and slowing long-overdue nuclear modernization efforts appear to have the backing of the Secretary of Defense.
“Nuclear modernization cannot be delayed any further,” insisted Fischer, citing Obama and Trump-era civilian and military officials.
Fischer then quoted Adm. Charles Richard, the commander of America’s Nebraska-based nuclear arsenal at U.S. Strategic Command.
“Many of the modernization and sustainment efforts necessary to ensure that deterrence viability have zero schedule margin and are late to need,” Richard had said in a February 2020 posture statement.
Again, Austin hedged.
“I really look forward to getting into the details of the nuclear modernization program,” he said. “And, you know, I really would like to say, to be able to look at the details of exactly what we’re choosing to invest in and the timelines associated with that.”
Fischer was less than satisfied: “I guess I’m kind of surprised by your answer, General.”
Austin’s avoidance of a promise not to reduce America’s arsenal or delay modernization was a win for liberal Democrats like House Armed Services Chairman Adam Smith, who have long argued for the moves as cost-saving measures.
“I think we can meet our deterrence needs for less, and currently, I’m losing that argument,” Smith told reporters in a December conference call. “So we need to build the political support so that we get to the point where we start winning that argument.”
President Biden already appears to side with liberals on the issue.
In December, Biden transition officials reportedly panned Trump’s desire for new nuclear weaponry and said the president-elect will be looking for ways to reduce the Pentagon budget.
But military officials responsible for the land-based leg of the triad told the Washington Examiner that any change would effectively make their leg obsolete.
“The shot clock is over,” the 20th Air Force commander, Maj. Gen. Mike Lutton recently told the Washington Examiner via Zoom from F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming.
The commander oversees some 400 ICBM silos spread across six western states. Each of the 1970s-era Minuteman III missiles has undergone numerous life extensions already.
Brig. Gen. Anthony Genatempo, commander of the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center, recently told the Washington Examiner that further life extensions, if possible, would be equivalent to throwing away taxpayer dollars.
“It basically came down to spend the same amount of money to keep a 1950s capability in the field longer, or put that money towards a 21st-century capability that is going to be more adaptable to what our adversaries are putting in the field today,” he said of the decision to upgrade.
In September, Northrup Grumman won a $13 billion contract to overhaul the 50-year-old weapons, part of a program called Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, that would reach its conclusion in 2036 and add 30-40 more years of life.
In a January Defense Writers Group virtual discussion, Richard told journalists that “any changes” to the long-overdue upgrade would limit U.S. military options to deter and defend against a nuclear attack.
“Basically, it’s going to drive you to have to reexamine your strategy,” he said. “If there’s a change in the capabilities that the commander of STRATCOM has available, I’m obligated to go back and then report what I can and can’t do relative to the tasks that I have been given.”
North Dakota Republican Kevin Cramer warned Austin at his hearing that, as Defense Secretary, he would be pressured by Senate and House Armed Services Committee members keen to alter the modernization timeline.
“You’re going to get a lot of pressure from organizations, good folks, some members of Congress, maybe some on an Armed Services Committee, either here or on the other side of the Capitol, to delay the ground based strategy deterrent, the replacement of Minuteman III, and maybe even shrink it,” Cramer said.
Seeking to protect his state’s ICBMs, Cramer then posed: “Do you think that we can extend the life of Minuteman III, even if that means unilaterally decreasing our nuclear deterrent?”
“In order to really answer this question, I really need to sit down with not only the STRATCOM commander but also sit down and take a look at where we are in that modernization effort and what choices are being proposed and the rationale for that,” Austin said. “When I do, I would love to have that discussion with you.”
