New Strategy Could Presage Smaller US Nuclear Arsenal

President Barack Obama's new defense strategy, which raises the prospect of shrinking the U.S. strategic arsenal, has left American commanders and NATO allies wondering what that could mean for the future of the nuclear forces.

Defense officials will examine high-priced modernization programs and forward deployments of nuclear forces in European countries as the White House and Congress try to flatten defense spending.

The strategy wasn't the first time Obama's administration has broached the idea of fielding fewer nuclear weapons: Obama announced his intentions in Prague in 2009.

"Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies -- including the Czech Republic. But we will begin the work of reducing our arsenal," he said.

Those words marry closely to the phrases in the new defense strategy released earlier this month.

"It is possible that our deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force, which would reduce the number of nuclear weapons in our inventory as well as their role in U.S. national security strategy," it said.

The key question for the coming defense build-down is how the Pentagon will square that goal with its existing plans to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on strategic hardware. Gen. Robert Kehler, the head of U.S. Strategic Command, said the upcoming fiscal austerity puts future nuclear modernization programs in jeopardy.

The Navy wants to spend $110 billion on a new nuclear submarine fleet to replace its Ohio-class submarines. Air Force officials plan to build a nuclear-capable bomber at a price tag of $55 billion. The U.S. also plans to start life extension programs for its nuclear warhead arsenal such as the B-61 and W-67. A top Navy admiral also has mused that the Navy and Air Force could even collaborate on a new, joint ballistic missile.

Defense analysts said they don't see these programs getting cut. Instead, the Defense Department may choose to pare down or shelve certain modernization programs in order to meet budget goals.

Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, points to the Navy's future nuclear submarines as an example. Even though the submarine force has an "untouchable aura," Kristensen said he could see the Defense Department trimming the number of new submarines from 12 to 10 or as few as eight.

If the number of submarines is cut, the Navy may have no choice but to increase the number of missiles carried aboard each ship.

"If they go to a low number of submarines then Congress will insist that they have 20 instead of 16," Kristensen said.

The Air Force also remains committed to building its next-generation bomber. But the past five years have seen a major shakeup in the nuclear bomber fleet since the mishap in 2007 when a B-52 mistakenly flew six nuclear warheads from North Dakota to Louisiana.

Problems in the Air Force even caused some to question if it still made sense to keep the bomber fleet in the nuclear triad.

Air Force officials have since stood up Global Strike Command to place its nuclear mission under one command and a separate B-52 squadron solely dedicated to the nuclear mission. Service leaders insist they have their gotten their nuclear house in order.

Delivering a new bomber, though, might have more to do with whether the service has straightened out its acquisition process following the problems it faced landing a new tanker.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz has already had to make decisions to limit the bomber because of cost concerns. Engineers will design the bomber to carry both nuclear and conventional weapons, but the service will delay the aircraft's nuclear certification to cut costs.

Air Force officials plan to trim the bomber's price tag by delaying the expensive nuclear certification tests and introduce the aircraft as a conventional strike platform.

"We simply won't do the tests and certification which is quite elaborate and includes electromagnetic pulse and so on until a little bit later in the sequence and we think that's the prudential thing to do to bring in this platform on cost and on time," Schwartz told the House Armed Services Committee on Nov. 2.

Schwartz said he remained committed to upgrading the nuclear missiles the next-generation bomber will hold in its weapons bays. He told Congress a life extension program for the B-61 nuclear bomb is essential.

"The reality is, is that that weapon is the item that's paired with our bombers. And it needs to be updated," Scwartz told the House Armed Services Committee.

How many different types of aircraft deliver the B-61, or any other nuclear warhead, could come up for debate, Kristensen said. The F-15, F-16, B-2, B-52 and Tornado can all deliver a nuclear missile.

Each aircraft must maintain those expensive certification tests highlighted by Schwartz. Kristensen said he expects budget experts to look at the redundancies found in having five aircraft deliver nuclear weapons to find savings.

"Why do we need five different aircraft to drop nuclear weapons?" he asked.

Eventually the number of aircraft could shrink to two once the F-35 Lightning II and the next-generation bomber make up most of the Air Force fleet. That fleet remains years away, though, as the F-35 experiences delays and the bomber starts its design phase.

The location of the fighters stationed with nuclear missiles will also come into question as the Defense Department examines its nuclear force. The U.S. has many fighters forward deployed to Europe with nuclear missiles.

Pulling those nuclear missiles out of Europe could save the U.S. money, but it would also cause serious political ramifications within NATO. U.S. diplomats also see tactical nuclear weapons deployed to Europe as bargaining chips that encourage the Russians to pull back their own tactical nuclear missiles.

"There are officials in some countries who can't envision a NATO without forward-deployed nuclear forces," Kristensen said.

Some defense analysts argue the U.S. can depend solely on long-range deterrence with its intercontinental ballistic missile fleet. However, even that force could face cuts.

Congress could order the Air Force to reduce the tally of ICBMs disbursed amongst its three wings from 450 to 400 or fewer.

Critics argue that potential cuts to long range deterrence don't fall in line with the pivot to the Pacific found in the president's new defense strategy. A renewed focus on the Pacific, with nuclear-armed countries such as China and North Korea, demand investments in nuclear capabilities, said Rep. Michael Turner, an Ohio Republican who chairs the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee.

"Deeper nuclear cuts will actually undermine the president's stated shift of focus to the Pacific," Turner said.