Minuteman III missiles form the U.S. ground-based element of the nuclear deterrent triad (the other two elements being nuclear ballistic submarines and Air Force bomber aircraft).
Announcing the cancellation of a planned Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile test on Wednesday, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby was clear. The move, he said, served to “demonstrate that we have no intention in engaging in any actions that can be misunderstood or misconstrued.”
Amid rising tensions over Ukraine and Vladimir Putin’s escalation of Russia’s nuclear alert posture, this action seems sensible. No one wants a nuclear war, so why not take a step to cool rather than fuel tensions?
Vladimir Putin is why not.
The fundamental tenet of strategic deterrence rests on an adversary’s understanding that the use of nuclear weapons comes with outsize cost to their own interests.
It is nonsensical to offer an olive branch in face of a sword being waved in your face. Putin, a leader inculcated by the KGB in the mastery of deception, manipulation, and brinkmanship, acts with and will not be disabused of this KGB mentality by American hesitation.
It would be one thing if President Joe Biden were otherwise clear about his nuclear deterrence strategy, the way former British Prime Minister Theresa May has been, that a nuclear attack would result in full retaliation. Unfortunately, Biden has been weak here, opposing the development of the Trump-authorized new nuclear warheads that are specifically designed to counter Russian tactical nuclear weapons strategy. Biden has also pledged to reduce the U.S. nuclear deterrent budget, even as China’s budget and weapons capabilities surge.
Shortly before leaving office as vice president, Biden made an even more alarming statement: “Given our non-nuclear capabilities and the nature of today’s threats, it’s hard to envision a plausible scenario in which the first use of nuclear weapons by the United States would be necessary.”
Biden has not yet formalized that no-first-use posture as president, but this statement was not unnoticed in Beijing or Moscow. The reasons for holding a first-use policy in reserve are clear, given the prospective need to degrade enemy nuclear forces in anticipation of a massive nuclear strike upon the U.S. or its allies. Such a preemptive strike might save hundreds of millions of lives. It thus represents both moral and strategic sense. It is something that U.S. nuclear forces under Strategic Command train hard for — not to annihilate foreign cities, but to hold at risk those cities and associated military forces in the crosshairs as a deterrent to protect U.S. cities.
The risk is that, taken alongside Biden’s broader nuclear posture, the president’s missile-test cancellation paints an appetizing picture for Beijing and Moscow. A picture of a president unsure about deterring the very significant nuclear threats that both of those nations are pursuing. Biden seems unwilling to take the action that the power of the U.S. military affords him: show confident and prudent mastery of America’s ownership of the nuclear escalation curve.
Presidential mastery of that dynamic has been instrumental to securing nuclear peace since 1945. Ukraine or no Ukraine, Biden makes a foolish mistake to undermine it now.
