By Kris Osborn, President, Center for Military Modernization
Is it possible that the Pentagon’s nuclear-armed Submarine Launched Cruise Missile could re-emerge like a Phoenix from the ashes of destruction? Perhaps, because although the current Biden administration canceled plans to develop and deploy the weapon, there is still debate on the hill and throughout the military about whether such a weapon should be resurrected.
Despite the Biden administration’s decision not to request funding for an SLCM in 2024, reportedly due to budget considerations and an opinion that the weapon may have “limited utility,” prominent decision-makers on the hill continue to mount an argument that the low-yield weapon needs to exist.
Arms Control Today quotes Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s Strategic Forces Subcommittee, arguing that indeed the SLCM is needed because “the nuclear threat environment is changing rapidly.” The Arms Control Today essay also cites support for the SLCM also coming from Senators Deb Fischer (R-Neb) and Angus King (I-Maine), members who say the weapon “fills the gap.”
When it comes to lower-yield nuclear weapons, there are essential two competing schools of thought. Proponents cite the size of Russian’s tactical nuclear arsenal, China’s massive nuclear build up and the possibility that Putin could follow through on a nuclear threat should he be facing defeat and without other options. The concept is to offer a wide sphere of deterrence options to decision makers and, for example, remove the possibility that Russia or Putin might think a limited or “tactical” nuclear strike could be “winnable” without sparking a massive, catastrophic, full-scale nuclear war. Certainly the circumstances in Ukraine, coupled with Russian threats, have raised very serious concerns that Russia could indeed chose to launch some kind of nuclear attack.
Conversely, could building and adding new low-yield nuclear weapons increase the possibility of some kind of limited nuclear exchange and send a message to adversaries that the Pentagon considers that an acceptable possibility? While advocates are clear that the addition of an SLCM is only meant to strengthen deterrence to prevent adversaries from thinking they could succeed with some kind of tactical nuclear strike, detractors express concern that the arrival of more low-yield nuclear weapons quite dangerously lowers the barrier or threshold to nuclear war. Would adding an SLCM suggest that the Pentagon sees a tactical nuclear strike as an acceptable and legitimate operational option? For instance, to counter this kind of thinking, detractors opposed to an SLCM argue that any contemplation regarding the use of tactical nuclear weapons should be met with the promise of full and massive nuclear retaliation. Ensuring the most serious consequences imaginable in response to any use of nuclear weapons might be a stronger and less ambiguous deterrence posture.
At the same time, the Pentagon already operates low yield nuclear weapons in the form of a new, low-yield Trident II D5 nuclear missile, a weapon emerging from the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review. The Air Force also operates low-yield nuclear weapons in the form of some air dropped bombs and the emerging new, upgraded B-61 Mod 12 nuclear-bomb variant which integrates a number of otherwise separated nuclear explosion tactics and possibilities into a single round. The B-61 Mod 12, which has already been tested from a B-2 bomber, can attack as a lower-yield weapon, bunker buster or earth-penetrating nuclear weapon or “area” bomb programmed to explode just about the surface of the ground. The weapon is intended to offer the possibility of a more surgical nuclear strike or limited and contained blast effect. Added to this equation, the Air Force is also developing a nuclear-armed, air-launched cruise missile called the Long Range Stand-Off weapon. Overall, the thinking emerging from those in favor of the SLCM simply argue that a wide envelope of nuclear response options are likely to best strengthen and reinforce the US deterrence posture.
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.
