Could the US Survive With a “Dyad” Nuclear Deterrence — Without Ground-Fired ICBM?

Video Above:  How The Pentagon & CIA Align Efforts Improve Innovation, Train Leaders for Future War

By Kris Osborn – President, Center for Military Modernization 

(Washington D.C.) Could the US effectively achieve strategic nuclear deterrence with a “dyad” rather than a “triad,” a concept now being introduced by some members of Congress and advocates of varying degrees of nuclear disarmament or a simple reduction in the size and scope of the US nuclear arsenal?

The idea, while facing significant bi-partisan opposition in Congress and concern from Pentagon weapons developers, involves a suggestion to essentially “save money” by canceling the new US ICBM slated to emerge at the end of this decade. The thinking is that the Pentagon does not need to build 400 new ICBM land-fired nuclear weapons because the two other “legs” of the triad, air-and-sea, would be sufficient for needed strategic deterrence.

ICBM

A recent RAND study takes up this specific issue in depth and specifies reasons cited by those suggesting a cancellation of the Sentinel, a new ICBM slated to enter service by 2029.

“In the judgment of senior defense officials and military officers, replacing the Minuteman III with GBSD is essential to maintaining a viable land-based strategic deterrent,” the RAND report, called Modernizing the U.S. Nuclear Triad: The Rationale for a New Intercontinental Ballistic Missile | RAND.

Proponents of moving to a “dyad” point to added cost savings and risks of a possible miscalculation or accidental launch. Others favoring cancellation of the Sentinel cite the possibility of continued modernization of the 1960s-era Minuteman III, something which is widely dismissed as possible by Pentagon and Congressional decision makers.