Nuclear modernization and arms control are often analyzed as if they were exclusive policy choices leading to different outcomes. Such a bifurcation of the nuclear debate can distort the way policy choices are portrayed to American officials.
Very often, arms control proposals are laid out as the antithesis of weapons acquisition, with a choice being put forward of either building more weapons by modernization or pursuing fewer weapons through arms control. To build more weapons is often described as engendering a “bad” arms race while pursuing arms reductions through arms control is often described as a “good”, leading to an end to arms racing.
To better grasp this history, we created a graphic illustration of arms control and modernization for the United States in a collaborate effort with SAIC and Geostrategic Analysis with support from OSD.
Nuclear Modernization
Between 1955 and projected through 2042, the United States will have gone through four cycles of nuclear modernization and concluded seven key nuclear arms control deals.
The Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations built and deployed the first nuclear Triad of Polaris sea-launched ballistic missile submarines, Atlas, Titan, and Minuteman land-based missiles and the B-52 strategic bomber.
This was followed by the Nixon-Ford-Carter modernization effort where MM III and Poseidon missiles emerged.
The next or third Triad modernization primarily took place during the Reagan and Bush administrations, with the deployment from 1981-1991 of the B1 and B2 bombers along with their respective cruise missiles, the Peacekeeper ICBM, the Ohio-class submarine, and the C-4/D-5 missiles.
