A Change for U.S. Nuclear Strategy

Hans Kristensen heads the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, a group founded by some of the scientists who built the first atomic bomb in 1945. FAS keeps a running public tally of the world's nuclear arsenals. All told, nine nations now have a combined total of more than 22,000 nuclear weapons. This week, President Obama hosts more than 45 foreign leaders at a nuclear security summit in Washington, D.C., and last week, he traveled to Prague to sign a treaty cutting the combined U.S.-Russian arsenals by about one third. Kristensen spoke with U.S. News about the new nuclear status quo and what's being done to change it. Excerpts:

What should we make of the administration's new nuclear weapon strategy document, the so-called Nuclear Posture Review, which was issued this week?

It's a mixed bag; modest and cautious. This is the first time an NPR elevates the policy of non-proliferation to the same level as nuclear war planning. There are now two pillars in our nuclear policy. Past NPRs have focused on nuclear forces planning, maintenance, modernization, strategy, and weapons. This one looks much more broadly at nuclear policy and for the first time acknowledges that the goal of the United States is nuclear disarmament.

Does the new strategy reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our defense?

I don't think it does, but it's unclear. There are hints of a change at the beginning of the document. It says that the "fundamental purpose" of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter solely a nuclear attack. In the past two administrations, the strategy has been to use nukes to deter chemical, biological, and nuclear attacks. The new NPR indicates an important reduction in the mission of nuclear weapons. But read a little further into the document and it becomes clear that there are still some nuclear missions against chemical and biological weapons.

What does all this mean, say, for a commander of a nuclear submarine or missile silo?

Nothing. We essentially continue our current nuclear posture. There are no restrictions about what we can plan for in terms of nuclear weapons use—though there are fewer deliverable weapons as a result of the new treaty with Russia. The key part of all this is that the documents say that in the not-too-distant future, we'll transition to a policy where we only have nuclear weapons to deter other nuclear weapons. It's an important commitment, but one that does not go into effect now. The Pentagon can now begin planning for that future.

In his Prague speech last year, the president said he wanted to end "Cold War thinking" about nuclear weapons. Has he done that?

At the end of the Cold War, when we abandoned chemical and biological weapons, we just relied on a greater range of uses for nuclear weapons instead, say, against regional enemies. After 9-11, we just included nuclear weapons into conventional war planning. That kind of thinking is what the Obama administration is ending, but that's not Cold War thinking, it's post-Cold War thinking. The latest treaty, while it reduces the number of weapons, preserves the strategy and nuclear force structure. That means we still have ICBMs [intercontinental ballistic missiles], nuclear-capable submarines, and bomber-delivered gravity bombs. And the Russians have this too. The core strategy continues the Cold War thinking.

How many nuclear weapons does President Obama have at his command?

The DOD stockpile is about 5,000 weapons. There are 500 land-based warheads on missiles, which can fly in three to four minutes after the order is given. There are 1,000 warheads at sea, mostly on missile submarines. Those launch in about 12 minutes. We also have a large pool of reserve warheads that were taken offline due to arms control agreements, but are just in storage and can be reactivated quickly. There are about 2,500 of those. Then, there are non-strategic weapons—bombs delivered by fighter jets and nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.

What would happen if the United States shrank its arsenal to the level of China, around 300 weapons?

The weapons would have to be secure: scattered around the prairies, buried in the mountains, that sort of thing. It would be a much more defensive strategy, and one that reduces the tensions on all sides. When you have an arsenal capable of massive offensive action, it makes your enemies much more nervous to a level that is counterproductive. Of course, all this would depend on Russia taking the same steps.

Will there be any immediate impacts of a retooling for the nuclear weapons industry?

In some places in the Midwest, it will mean an announcement in a few months that 50 missile silos will be closed and that will mean lost jobs. The nuclear weapons labs, on the other hand, are in a very sweet spot. It's been apparent for a long time that there is a grand bargain with the labs in terms of arms reduction. The labs are very, very well connected in Congress. The labs—and the Congressmen they support—will only back arms reduction if there is continued business for the labs, re-engineering weapons and so forth. As the nuclear arsenal shrinks, each weapon actually becomes dramatically more expensive.