by Kris Osborn, President, Center for Military Modernization
The US Air Force plans to buy as many as 1,000 nuclear-capable air launched cruise missile intended to give commanders a wider range of deterrence options by introducing a stand-off, air-fired nuclear weapons capability.
In development for many years now, the Long Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO) is a nuclear-capable cruise missile intended to replace the long-serving Boeing AGM-86 Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) which has armed the B-52 for many years. The Air Force’s 2024 budget requested $978 million for continued LRSO procurement as a critical step toward deploying a large arsenal of 1,000-LRSOs.
The concept is clear in the realm of strategic nuclear deterrence, as a stand-off range nuclear armed cruise missile could offer a nuclear response option in the event that air defenses are too advanced for stand-in fighters and bombers to operate. An LRSO cruise missile can be fired from much greater stand-off ranges should Russian-built S-400s or S-500s or adversary air power make attack operations too risky for closer in platforms. Should stealth aircraft be unable to fly within direct striking range, yet a tactical nuclear response is what a commander needs, an LRSO nuclear-armed cruise missile may offer the best and only option.
The arrival of the LRSO is not uncomplicated, however, as some critics and members of Congress have raised the concern that such a lower-yield, stand-off nuclear weapon could “lower the threshold” to nuclear engagement and make it seem more realistic, possible or advantageous. Critics further maintain that introducing such a weapon could potentially confuse adversaries who might mistake a conventional cruise missile attack for a nuclear one, only to respond with escalatory measures using nuclear weapons. Finally, there is a policy debate about low-yield nuclear weapons overall, as some argue it make the prospect of actually using nuclear weapons in combat more likely, feasible and realistic. Could a hostile actor somehow think a limited nuclear engagement could be won because the attacked country would not launch a full-scale nuclear response. Some argue the deterrence message should clearly state that any use of nuclear weapons, in any capacity and to any extent, will generate a massive, catastrophic large-scale nuclear response. This stance would be designed to deter potential actors from considering a lower-yield or tactical nuclear strike.
However, nuclear deterrence involves a complex set of variables and concepts, and proponents of the need for some lower-yield options argue that commanders need a wide range of options through which to pursue its deterrence posture. Years ago, when asked about the Pentagon’s rationale for adding low-yield nuclear weapons, former Defense Secretary James Mattis told Congress it is designed to give commanders more options and, for instance, bring Russia back to the negotiating table after its violation of the INF Treaty. Perhaps the existence of a range of US Lower-yield nuclear attack options could deter Russia from thinking it might be able to launch some kind of tactical nuclear attack without incurring a nuclear response.
Overall, the Pentagon and Congressional consensus clearly leans in favor of the need to develop and introduce lower-yield, stand-off nuclear weapons such as the LRSO.
Kris Osborn is the President of Warrior Maven – Center for Military Modernization and Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.
