Peter R. Huessy

Captainarmageddon@WarMav

Copied to clipboard

Senior Fellow, NIDS

Senior Fellow, National Institute for Deterrence Studies (NIDS). Founder and President of GeoStrategic Analysis and specialist in nuclear deterrent, arms control, modernization and proliferation, as well as threats from China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.

Posts

0Followers

1Following

The Iranian Rush to Armageddon

The Iranian Rush to Armageddon   by Peter Huessy For more than half a century, the US has bought into the idea of a “Middle East Peace Process” where finally in return for the creation of a Palestinian state, the terrorism flowing from that grievance would largely disappear. It’s a fairy tale. The actual danger is the Iranian pursuit of Armageddon and the destruction of Israel and the United States. To understand this, we have to go back to the beginning. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and the idea of a Palestinian state or land stolen by Israel and the Jews was invented by the Soviet Union in 1965. Moscow wanted a lever to help secure power in the Middle East. Two-thirds of the conventional hydrocarbons are in the region, control over which would enable Russia to be the world’s hegemon. Russia sought to grab Iran’s oil supplies as early as 1953 in cooperation with Iran Prime Minister Mosaddegh. He seized the British owned oil resources and was negotiating to form a strategic partnership giving Moscow critical access to the region. Fortunately, the Shah of Iran fired Mosaddegh, which was legal under Iran constitutional law. Unfortunately, urban legend turned this restoration of constitutional rule into a US led “coup.” This is turn has animated radical progressives in the US to support the Islamic Republic of Iran and its IRGC terrorism, despite Tehran ‘s key role in the attacks of 9-11 and subsequent killing of over 1000 American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The USSR was not deterred for long. A decade after being frozen out of Iran, the KGB and Yasir Arafat (the head of Fatah) created the Palestinian Liberation Organization.  Zahir Nuhsein of the PLO Executive Committee admitted in 1977 that the PLO was invented for political reasons--to lead the struggle against Israel with the objective of destroying the Jewish homeland, as well as uprooting US influence in the Middle East. The PLO  established a clever framework of blackmail: European nations highly dependent upon Persian Gulf oil and gas exporters would support the PLO financially while “winking” at the organization’s terrorist enterprise. The oil would continue to flow and Arafat would not kidnap Europe’s officials nor hijack their airplanes—as long as the big checks for the “Palestinians” kept rolling in. A neat arrangement: PLO terrorism against Israel, and other US Allies gets a sanctuary from rollback, while Arafat and the PLO rake in billions. With the compliance of regional oil and gas exporters that wanted their energy infrastructure to be free from PLO terror attacks. With the 1979 fall of constitutional government in Iran, the jihadis took over and have copied the PLO playbook now for nearly half a century, becoming the world’s top terrorist regime.   The US has been drawn into this game as well. First, it was shuttle diplomacy seeking a long elusive land for peace deal, where Israel would give land needed for a Palestinian state in return for not being attacked. The big problem is that the PLO would never delineate what land they had in mind for a Palestinian state—except occasionally information would leak out that what the PLO had in mind was land from the “river to the sea,” meaning all land between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea would comprise a Palestinian state, obviously eliminating Israel in the bargain. Arafat was asked point blank by the host of CBS television news to actually draw a map of what a Palestinian state would look like. Arafat refused.  Second, eventually this led to a 1993 agreement at “Oslo” where Israel itself established a process to negotiate with the PLO or Palestinian National Authority to which it morphed in 1994. The result was not peace, but another series of PLO inspired intifadas or uprisings attacking Israel.   Third, a narrative emerged that the entirety of the “conflict in the Middle East” as it was often described, could easily be resolved if Israel simply conceded the right amount of land to the Palestinian Authority, even with complicated “land swaps” and promises of peaceful coexistence. The late Middle East and Israel expert Shoshana Bryen found a 2014 quote from former President Clinton—if the Palestinians were granted a state, most terrorism would disappear.  Fourth, the idea of a Palestinian state was never a serious objective. For example, while the West Bank and Gaza were ruled by Jordan and Egypt for years, the land was never turned over for the establishment of a Palestinian state. And especially Gaza, while fully turned over by Israel to the Palestinian National Authority in 1993, saw Hamas come to rule in 2006, and with it massive increases in terrorism, including tens of thousands of rocket, drone and missile attacks against Israel. Fifth, Israel, fully under its right to prevent the re-arming of Hamas in Gaza, installed a blockade. Then a flotilla supported by associated UN agencies tried to run the blockade. Humanitarian aid including lumber must be allowed the media demanded. Only later was it determined to have been used to shore-up tunnelling beneath Israel which were access points for terrorist attacks on schools and hospitals. Sixth, the US has for decades bought into the fairy tale that Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad even ISIS and Al Qaeda, are all just aiming for a Palestinian state, when they are in fact the terrorist machinery built to tear down the state of Israel and propel the US out of the Middle East. We now have dozens of recently selected Democratic and Democratic Socialist candidates for office supporting Hamas and describing Israel’s defense of its homeland as “genocide.” Seventh, an amendment offered in the Senate by Senator Sanders received 40 votes to ban all military assistance to Israel. Support came from 39 of 45 Senate democrats plus “Independent” Sanders. An early 2025 similar amendment received only 16 votes. Eighth, the Democratic party has moved from protecting Israel as America’s ally, to now some 60 years later, supporting its destruction and marching with its enemies. And implementing exactly what Moscow and the KGB envisioned when in 1965 they created the PLO.  Missing from much of the conversation is that there never was a “Palestinian” state. A fiction continues to be supported. But historically there was a state or kingdom of Israel. After World War I and the breakup of the Ottoman empire, the British were given a mandate to temporarily control what is now Jordan and Israel, including the West Bank and Gaza. The previous ruling Ottoman empire described the area as the “district of Damascus.” England termed the area “Palestine” based on the Roman use of the term some 2000 years ago but not on the basis of any nation once named “Palestine.” As Jerry Seinfeld quipped recently, as for Palestine, “there is no such thing.” On the other hand, in the 9th and 10th centuries BC the Kingdom of Israel was created, with the Jewish people subsequently expelled by the king of Babylon in 598 BC and then again from the region by the Roman authorities in the 1st and 2nd centuries. The creation of Israel in 1948 was recreating a kingdom that thrived some three thousand years ago.   While the Soviets and now Russia have geostrategic ambitions for their alliance with Iran and the Palestinian Authority, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and their Islamist allies are motivated by a central tenet of Islam which is the destruction of the West and any faith other than Islam. The Iranians are guided by the rules of what are known as “Twelvers” which foresees the return of the 12th Imam or Mahdi, to judge all and send humankind either to Heaven or Hell. But more important is Iranian eschatology believes the Mahdi doesn’t return until after Armageddon. And what better way to usher in the end of times than through nuclear war. For example, when the founder of the Islamic Republic was asked wouldn’t Iran be destroyed should the Israelis know that Iran had launched nuclear weapons at Tel Aviv, Khomeini said he didn’t care that Iran would be decimated as a result, because “all the Jews would be dead.” As the “moderate” former Iran President Rafsanjani once quipped, “Israel is a one bomb country.” Thus, to fail to destroy Israel and the West, Iran’s mullahs and IRGC would be disobeying Allah. And there is no clause in the Koran that allows Muslims to take a break from Jihad or postpone the war against the unbelievers. Thus, Iranian IRGC leaders have an incentive to initiate Armageddon and that can probably only be accomplished through the use of atomic bombs. Sort of a “rush to Armageddon.” The challenge? Creating within Iran those seeking, like the US, to avoid Armageddon and celebrate “the right to life.” _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________  Peter Huessy is President of GeoStrategic AnalysisJul 27, 2026

Warrior Maven

The Nuclear Abolition Trilogy: Bad Ideas for a Dangerous World

By Peter Huessy, Senior Fellow, the National Institute for Deterrence Studies Dynamite is a new movie about a single nuclear tipped missile attack against the United States. The attacker is not identified. It is not a terrorist group like Al Qaeda. It is not necessarily North Korea or Iran. And apparently not the real bad guys, Russia or China. The United States finds itself in this nuclear pickle because a lot of things we might do in response to or prevent such an attack are not available. The movie producers rigged the story so the US ends up helpless only knowing one thing: our satellite systems are tracking a missile streaking over the Pacific and headed right for Chicago. But we have no idea where the missile came from. A lot of questions immediately come to mind. Why would an enemy launch just one missile at the United States, knowing that our DSP—Defense Support Program—satellites would in all likelihood immediately know from where the missile was launched? And knowing this, the US Strategic Command in Omaha or the United States Air Force Global Strike Command in Barksdale, Louisiana would be able to retaliate at the command of the American President and take out the bad guys that launched the missile in the first place. That is called deterrence and in the nuclear deterrent business has operated perfectly for 80 years, preventing any such missile launch against the continental United States. But the movie assumes the satellite system magically fails to work just as the attacking missile is launched so the United States has no idea what country or government or terror group launched the missile in the first place. Implicitly letting the audience know that maybe this might happen in the real world. And thus, deterrence could easily breakdown because some attacker might roll the dice and could assume the US won’t retaliate against an enemy the US can’t identify because our DSP technology failed to detect the launch in the first place. The second question would be why doesn’t the United States missile defense command shoot down the one missile flying high over the Pacific ocean? The United States has intercepted such ballistic missiles nearly 20 times in demanding tests, including the last four in a row. The US and its allies, especially Ukraine and Israel, have also in the real world, successfully intercepted literally tens of thousands of drones, missiles and rockets with missile defenses and air defenses such as Patriot, THAAD, Aegis, Iron Dome, Arrow and David’s Sling. Israel’s military alone has knocked down and destroyed some 95% of the nearly 30,000 rockets and missiles launched by Iran, the Houthis, Hamas and Hezbollah at their country in the past two years. Well, here is where the narrative takes another “rigged direction.” The two interceptors launched from our missile defense system in Fort Greely, Alaska don’t work—one fails to launch and the other interceptor fails to hit the incoming warhead. Even though the movie writer claims he understood that long range missile defense tests have worked 61% of the time, experts supposedly informed him the tests to date are scripted or rigged and thus not realistic. But there is another reason for the script making sure the interceptors do not work. The movie guides published by various nuclear abolition groups in synthesis with the movie folks gave the story away: they all emphasize that while it is rationale to think missile defenses would be the right thing for the United States to deploy---like Golden Dome—such systems are too expensive, won’t work, will start an arms race, and will upset the strategic balance between the United States, Russia and China. Thus, the deterrent Americans have built to prevent a nuclear attack on the United States, and the insurance plan of missile defense built to take down an attack should deterrence fail, both don’t work, and for the first time ever in the real world. The US has for decades known when a ballistic missile has been launched at the US or its allies. And the US has at least had some capability to intercept incoming missiles. But Dynamite—Hollywood---assumes nothing works. So, what is the United States left with? A sense of dread and helplessness. As the US cannot do anything to stop a nuclear bomb from detonating over the city of Chicago. Depending upon one’s assumptions, some millions of people will perish or be casualties. The movie was written by a veteran Hollywood movie maker, who has received many awards. She and the script writer recommended, when asked, that the United States should work on denuclearization, or the abolition of nuclear weapons. What first steps should be taken are not disclosed, or how to abolition nuclear weapons in even one nation let alone the nine now with such weapons. And during the time in which the abolition process takes place, the movie and its producers make no suggestions how we sustain deterrence in the meantime. In a not dissimilar scenario, writer Annie Jacobsen in her 2023 book Nuclear War: A Scenario calls US nuclear deterrence strategy “mad” and “crazy.” In interviews, Jacobsen also appears to recommend abolition. This theme of abolition was also the theme of the July 2023 movie Oppenheimer, which was the first of this anti-nuclear trilogy of movie, book and movie. The Oppenheimer movie theme was that some of the top creators [such as Robert Oppenheimer] of the US nuclear bomb under the Manhattan Project subsequently were determined to get rid of all such weapons. But were not allowed to do so because of war mongers like Dr. Edward Teller who are blamed for developing the H-Bomb [1952] and thus starting an arms race that has left the United States in the helpless position as portrayed by Dynamite. Not explained and left out of the movie is that the H-Bomb allowed the US to build a nuclear bomb small enough to be placed on a ballistic missile in an invulnerable submarine that while at sea gave the United States an assured second strike capability that ungirded US nuclear deterrent strategy since at least 1958 when the first Polaris submarine went to sea. And prevented nuclear war.Nov 17, 2025

Warrior Maven

A Review of Kathryn Bigelow’s new film, A House of Dynamite.

By Peter Huessy, Senior Fellow, NIDS and President, Geostrategic Analysis The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) describes the movie “Dynamite” as having “rallied the nuclear threat reduction field together.” The story? A nuclear armed missile is heading toward Chicago with one warhead, now streaking across the middle of the Pacific. The sensors failed to work that would have identified the missiles origin but then began to track its path. Attempts to intercept the missile warhead fail, and the US is left without recourse. The film repeatedly ridicules the current nuclear deterrent strategy of the United States, claiming the US military thinks too simply, either believing “I always thought just being ready is the point” or “If they see how prepared we are, no one starts a nuclear war” would keep deterrence from breaking down.  This follows a similar narrative in the 2023 film “Oppenheimer” which depicted the war mongering Dr. Edward Teller seeking to test the H bomb while Dr. Oppenheimer tries to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle. The Oppenheimer movie forgot to tell the audience that the H-Bomb allowed the US to build small, high yield warheads and thus missiles small enough to fit into a submarine, allowing the US not to rely solely on strategic bombers and relatively dangerous very large liquid fueled missiles. Having submarine launched missiles allowed the US to have a very secure retaliatory capability as part of a nuclear deterrent Triad. And keep the nuclear peace. Unfortunately, there are two very clear messages from the movie. First, missile defense is a dangerous illusion as noted earlier the two attempted intercepts of the warhead fail. The second is that current deterrent strategy is worthless, as there is no solution if deterrence breaks down, on top of their being very little time to make any rational decision, and that the breakdown in deterrence could happen at any time. In the view of the movie’s narrative, an assured retaliatory strike or what is the core requirement of the US nuclear deterrent is considered of no value. What is the alternative? The movie producer and writer both urge President Trump to take steps toward reducing weapons or “denuclearization” otherwise known as abolition or “global zero.” But as for stopping the warhead from hitting Chicago and killing millions, nothing is possible. Now reducing US and USSR/Russian nuclear weapons has been accomplished since 1987, 1991, 2002 and 2010 in the INF and START series of treaties Initiated by President Reagan. Russia and the United States are down a collective tens of thousands of fewer warheads of all kinds, and roughly an 80-90% reduction in deployed, in the field, long-range strategic weapons. But the authors of the movie say the world is still more dangerous despite these reductions. So why would further reductions—the only concrete idea the film’s writer and producer propose---end the threat laid out in the movie? The missile strike is from an unknown source—no country or launch point is identified. Of course, nothing could be done in retaliation when the United States has no idea who launched the missile in the first place. The film assumes our space-based satellites that would track the missile threat didn’t initially work.   For years the abolition corner assured us that since all missiles have a recognized return address, they will not be launched in the first place. And thus, no need for crazy ideas like missile defense. That idea is placed in the historical dumpster by the movie, implicitly making a case for missile defenses. But just to cover their bases, the movie authors rig the movie to make sure missile defense fails---so ridicule of Presidents Reagan and Trump and their support for missile defense can be go forward. Left unmentioned is President Clinton’s 1993 decision to kill all national missile defense research and development which further undercut US deterrent capability by delaying an important deterrent development. The movie also appears ignorant that if deterrence beaks down, the US has only one other choice other than intercepting such weapons. Our retaliatory policy is to stop any further attacks by taking out the bad guy’s nuclear weapons. It is not, however, designed to destroy an attacking country, contrary to what the movie implies. The only other proposed action is for the US to do nothing. And not surprisingly, the script is so rigged that it is basically all the US can do. This then makes everyone feel helpless and thus turn against the entire concept of nuclear deterrence, which is precisely what Annie Jacobsen called for in her recent book and which the movie Dynamite repeats. While the movie doesn’t explicit call for abolition, most of those relied upon for expert advice favor such a path. But left unaddressed is what is to be done on the way to abolition? We cannot even get NK to abandon its weapons and have gotten snookered all the way through the process by which Pyongyang joined the NPT (1986) and then tested a bomb (2006). We could of course take out an emerging nuclear program. But none of the “experts” relied upon for the movie supported the Israeli and US strikes against Iran. The movie “companion notes or guides”—falsely-- that President Trump is “recklessly” putting INF missiles back into Europe. While failing to explain the INF treaty was being serially violated by the Russians. The movie seems confused that while Congress has approved funding for the SLCM-Nuclear cruise missile--to be deployed at sea—it simply helps balance the Russian very large current 20/1 advantage in theater nuclear forces in Europe, not seeding a new arms race.  Most importantly, “Dynamite” completely ignores that since at least 1999, Putin has adopted an escalate to win strategy of using nuclear weapons for coercion and blackmail. China has joined that bandwagon, too. While US nuclear deterrent strategy has kept the peace now for 80 years, Hollywood apparently seeks to take that one successful strategy and throw it away, and replace it with platitudes and slogans, even as our enemies build up their nuclear arsenals with which to cause us harm.Oct 31, 2025

Warrior Maven

The 2028 Election: Lame Ducks and Dead Ducks

By Peter Huessy, Senior Fellow, NIDS The future of nuclear deterrence has at least four major challenges as we move toward the 2028 Presidential election. And US nuclear policy might significantly change as the incumbent President will not be running. If you take into account an incumbent President or Vice President running in each Presidential election year, an incumbent has always run from 1972-2024 or a period of 52 years or greater than half a century. Except twice--2008 and 2016. And each time, the party not in power won, as over half the people believed the country was going in the wrong direction. In 2028 a lot will be determined by what happens in 2026 in the midterm elections. Going forward, in the next election, the US will face four nuclear challenges: (1) maintaining the pace of nuclear force recapitalization/modernization; (2) ending the Iranian nuclear proliferation threat; (3) securing and enhancing for our allies extended strategic nuclear deterrence; and (4) deterring and keeping in check the behavior of North Korea, China, Russia and Iran, or the “Four Brothers Mayhem.” Presidential elections are not complicated. Take the starkest foreign policy and domestic policy reality. As Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) explained, there is no chance for the incumbent or a candidate of the same party to win if the party policies simply “suck.” So, policy can switch and switch big time, as Americans say out with the old and in with the new. But its hard to run against the incumbent where you are the incumbent or the incumbent party. In late 1980, Carter couldn’t get our diplomats released from Iran. And gasoline prices were up along with overall 14% inflation. He was thus a dead duck. In 1992, Bush had raised taxes and repudiated Reagan’s successful economic policies in favor of kinder and gentler stuff, and the Democrats sand bagged him into raising taxes in a late 1990 budget deal linked to having to fight a war against Iraq in Kuwait. Another dead duck. In 2000 Bush the son won because Gore refused to run on the Clinton-Gingrich success of tax cuts, welfare reform, a strong defense, and refused to continue to restrain spending and balance the budget. Gore was a dead duck. In fact, Florida would not have been close if Dan Rather doesn’t call the state for Gore before the polls closed in the panhandle. The early call flipped other midwestern states to Gore as well.  Otherwise, in Florida Bush wins by 50,000 votes. In 2016, Hillary also never even touched the Bill Clinton/Gingrich success but embraced a weak foreign policy and Obamacare tax and spend  type domestic policy including Obamacare. A very dead duck. In 2024, an incoherent Harris shot herself dead when she wouldn’t change a thing in the Biden 4 years—including 19.6% increase in prices, weak foreign policy, and a wide open border with escalating crime. Completely dead duck. The choices in both 2026 and 2028 may be between some very different nuclear policy options despite the current relatively strong Congressional bipartisan agreement on nuclear modernization and enhanced defense spending. The recent votes in the HASC may give some indication of future troubles. While almost by a 3 to 1 margin HASC members supported Sentinel, there were narrow party line votes on killing NNSA warhead production (26-29); eliminating space based missile defense (25-30) and stop funding theater nuclear forces (26-29). It is clear the policy changes brought on by the elections of 1980, 1992, 2000, 2008, 2016 and most recently 2024 were huge. Just imagine, socialist Labor winning in 1979 in England, a liberation theologian in 1978 wins in the Vatican, and Carter is re-elected in 1980. Compared to Pope John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. All over two years and two weeks, October 16, 1978 through November 4, 1980. What could the US and its allies be facing if things change for the worse in 2026 and 2028? If there re-emerges another diplomacy and trust-centric JCPOA type proliferation agenda, the US could very well see an Iranian nuclear breakout which would lead to a cascade of nuclear proliferation throughout the greater Middle East. Adopting an amalgamation of limited deterrent forces, a No First Use strategy and significantly reducing reliance on extended nuclear forces, the US and its allies could easily be facing not one Ukraine type conflict but multiple aggressions—even simultaneous-- including over the Korean peninsula, Taiwan and the Baltics. The nuclear bomb abolition lobby has been pushing to jettison nuclear deterrence itself but particularly to killing the Sentinel and Minuteman III ICBM force. Doing so would make it impossible to maintain a hedge force until well after 2045. The US would be stuck at the 2010 New START force which the 2023 Strategic Posture Commission unanimously concluded was not sufficient to secure deterrence. And have to increase nuclear expenditures by $200 billion. Finally, the US might also keep only the most rudimentary national missile defense and retreat from any space based elements. This would give our enemies a free initial “punch” whether an accidental, unauthorized or deliberate attack. And cede the initiative to our enemies seeking to escalate a crisis or conflict. On the other hand, the current administration has helped restore deterrence with the successful strikes on Iran’s nuclear forces, as Iran has now admitted that they have no access to their previous nuclear centrifuges and cannot restart the program at this time. And the administration has deftly reduced even stopped some deadly serious conflicts, such as the Congo-Rwanda conflict that to date has killed 5.4 million people and now has a cease fire in Gaza with the Israeli hostages freed. NATO will now push to spend 5% of its GDP on defense which is a sea-change from the less than 2% average of some 8 years ago. A significant and long term deal appears to be ready to be established with Congressional agreement to help Ukraine to stop Russian aggression and restore Ukraine sovereignty. And Congress has passed and the administration signed into law a long term defense, conventional and nuclear modernization program, for the entire US nuclear Triad, missile defense, NNSA warhead production and enhancing our theater nuclear deterrent. In addition, funds for the enhancement of nuclear deterrent was also approved to take into account the “breathtaking” expansion of China’s nuclear forces and the US deficit in theater nuclear forces. If by 2028 these accomplishments hold, the added deterrence accomplished may continue and add to success including a major expansion of the Abraham Accords, the restoration of Ukraine sovereignty and the end to the Iranian nuclear weapons program. But a change in the party that controls the House or Senate in 2026 risks breaking up the success of the past half-year, significant as that has been. Trade deals bringing in literally $2 trillion in investment to the United States, including significant enhancements to US energy production, artificial intelligence technology, steel and auto production has a chance to so help the US economy that our twin annual and overall debt begin to move markedly in the right direction. The President may technically be a “lame duck’ going into the 2028 Presidential election. But if in 2026 the American people like the direction of the country and wish to sustain the current accomplishments --closing the border, taken down the Iranian nuclear threat, moving toward peace in the Middle East, restoring needed defense spending, laying out a plan for national missile defense, getting NATO to adopt 5%, extending permanently the tax rate cuts, dumping unnecessary and deep state favored funding, boom energy production, end child transgender cruelty, keep women safe in sports, regain our nation’s physical health, mine some of the multiple trillions of minerals under our feet, restore trade balances and bringing back jobs to America—then the President will go into 2028 as a soaring American eagle, “Making America Great Again.”Oct 15, 2025

Warrior Maven

Choke Point Straits and the Arctic: Light at the End of the Iceberg

By Peter Huessy The United States relies upon ocean borne shipping to trade with the world. Especially important is the Panama Canal in moving goods from and between the Pacific and the Atlantic. However the fresh water sources that feed the canal are declining due to serious drought, deforestation, and competing urban uses. Eventually the Panama Canal will be less usable. Already shipping this year is down a third and alternate truck or train options across the isthmus are slow and costly. Another canal but in the Middle East is also having trouble. The Iran and China backed terror group the Houthis interdict traffic through the Suez and in the Red Sea, affecting indirectly some 25% of all ocean borne commerce to and from Europe. And finally, China has established island military outposts throughout the South China Sea especially near the approach to the Straits of Malacca, a key choke point through which passes $3.5 trillion or 30% of global ocean borne trade. These three factors make it imperative that the US and its allies work cooperatively to ensure that ocean going trade remains free from unfriendly forces. A key development is that the Alaskan and Arctic glaciers are receding and at a growing pace. The insurance folks that watch ocean borne shipping point out that the Arctic waterway known as the Northwest Passage is becoming increasingly available for shipping. To get from the Atlantic to the Pacific one can now go through the open Northwest Passage saving on average 7000 kilometers, some $200,000-300,000 in tolls and $500,000 in bunker fuel oil-- per trip. Passage through the Panama canal costs at least $150,000 with larger ships paying upwards of $450,000. Shippers annually pay $4.3 billion to the Canal authority. But due to congestion, a new auction system increases costs as canal traffic capacity is shrinking. Now daily an average of 22 ships get through regularly compared to a previous high capacity of 36 a day or 13,000 annually. . Although travel through the Suez Canal with a mega bulk carrier can cost $500,000-$600,000, it reduces travel time to and from Europe by 15 days and 5000 miles, The Houthis terrorist attacks in the Red Sea and on the approach to Suez add $1 million to one ships alternative route going around Africa. Is there help on the way? Yes. Though as recently as 2019 one needed an icebreaker escort through the Northwest Passage (NWP) that is changing as the ice recedes. And the passage will be very inexpensive. And be available for 5-9 months of the year. Thankfully, the NWP route does not have to be dredged, although rescue, safety and maintenance ports/facilities will need to established. And the three internationally recognized Arctic adjacent nations—Canada, the United States and Denmark/Greenland—can do that job. There is however a serious possible complication. Although not adjacent to the Arctic, nevertheless China claims status as an “Arctic” nation and is working with Russia to control passing commercial ocean going traffic. The concern is China and Russia will surreptitiously place “military” bases throughout the Arctic. Like the Houthis, China wants to eventually control the area and charge a toll for shipping but only for the “right” kind of ships. That outcome is what the US and its allies have to deter and prevent. The good news is that the US administration understands this. Canada, Denmark and Greenland can now also be key actors in protecting the Arctic. All could be part of a NATO initiative to be partners while enhancing international ocean shipping, and acquiring the necessary Arctic deterrence against military bad actors. There is precedent for defending the Arctic. The US has a key radar base in Tule, Greenland already thanks to Denmark’s previous cooperation on missile defense. NATO nations can now spend some of the pledged 5% defense investment to protect the eastern access to the Arctic and thus the northwest passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific The US can deploy naval assets to Alaska and protect the western access of the Northwest Passage. There may be concern that the US would be “militarizing” the oceans in this case the Arctic. But in fact, the US Navy protected the oceans over the past many decades to where ocean borne commerce grew from $125 billion in 1960 to close to $10 trillion today. Contrary to the worries of anti-military hand wringers, the USA Navy for over 200 years has made the oceans safe for ocean borne commerce. Think the Barbary Pirates and the “shores of Tripoli.” Just recently, Iran threatened to close the straits of Hormuz through which must pass 20 million barrels of oil a day, some 20% of world oil consumption. The US Navy kept the straits open so critical supplies of both crude oil and natural gas reached the rest of the world, including China, Japan, Israel and Europe. Making the Arctic safe for commerce will require a military presence (called deterrence). Also included should be a significant fleet of icebreakers which Canada builds very competently. They can help along with Denmark. Greenland, the USA and the rest of NATO working cooperatively. The objective is to keep the militaries of China and Russia out, the free world ocean commerce in, and other bad actors down. That’s a deal worth doing.Oct 15, 2025

Warrior Maven

Huessy: Report on Global Warming

By Peter Huessy, Senior Fellow, NIDS 1. CIA Opens Center on Climate Change and National Security September 25, 2009 The Central Intelligence Agency is launching The Center on Climate Change and National Security as the focal point for its work on the subject. The Center is a small unit led by senior specialists from the Directorate of Intelligence and the Directorate of Science and Technology. Its charter is not the science of climate change, but the national security impact of phenomena such as desertification, rising sea levels, population shifts, and heightened competition for natural resources. The Center will provide support to American policymakers as they negotiate, implement, and verify international agreements on environmental issues. That is something the CIA has done for years. “Decision makers need information and analysis on the effects climate change can have on security. The CIA is well positioned to deliver that intelligence,” said Director Leon Panetta. The Center will assume responsibility for coordinating with Intelligence Community partners on the review and declassification of imagery and other data that could be of use to scientists in their own climate-related research. This effort draws on imagery and other information that is collected in any event, assisting the US scientific community without a large commitment of resources. The new Center does more than bring together in a single place expertise on an important national security topic—the effect environmental factors can have on political, economic, and social stability overseas. It will also be aggressive in outreach to academics and think tanks working the issue. The goal is a powerful asset recognized throughout our government, and beyond, for its knowledge and insight. 2. THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER For instance, The United Nations climate change panel “admitted that the melting Himalayas prediction was not based on science but on a 1999 media interview given by one scientist,” Charen observed.  “They said they regretted the error. Now, a study in nature, based on satellite imagery, has shown that some melting of lower altitude glaciers is taking place but that higher glaciers have been adding ice.” 3. PELOSI; 1995 HSCI HEARING; GLTB HIRING AND MEASURING ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES BY DIVERTING SATELLITES, TERRORIST AND COLD WAR THREATS ARE OVER..... 4. Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S. Security By JOHN M. BRODER WASHINGTON — The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics, military and intelligence analysts say. Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies who for the first time are taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate change. Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response. An exercise last December at the National Defense University, an educational institute that is overseen by the military, explored the potential impact of a destructive flood in Bangladesh that sent hundreds of thousands of refugees streaming into neighboring India, touching off religious conflict, the spread of contagious diseases and vast damage to infrastructure. “It gets real complicated real quickly,” said Amanda J. Dory, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy, who is working with a Pentagon group assigned to incorporate climate change into national security strategy planning. Much of the public and political debate on global warming has focused on finding substitutes for fossil fuels, reducing emissions that contribute to greenhouse gases and furthering negotiations toward an international climate treaty — not potential security challenges. But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address. This argument could prove a fulcrum for debate in the Senate next month when it takes up climate and energy legislation passed in June by the House. Lawmakers leading the debate before Congress are only now beginning to make the national security argument for approving the legislation. Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and a leading advocate for the climate legislation, said he hoped to sway Senate skeptics by pressing that issue to pass a meaningful bill. Mr. Kerry said he did not know whether he would succeed but had spoken with 30 undecided senators on the matter. He did not identify those senators, but the list of undecided includes many from coal and manufacturing states and from the South and Southeast, which will face the sharpest energy price increases from any carbon emissions control program. “I’ve been making this argument for a number of years,” Mr. Kerry said, “but it has not been a focus because a lot of people had not connected the dots.” He said he had urged President Obama to make the case, too. Mr. Kerry said the continuing conflict in southern Sudan, which has killed and displaced tens of thousands of people, is a result of drought and expansion of deserts in the north. “That is going to be repeated many times over and on a much larger scale,” he said. The Department of Defense’s assessment of the security issue came about after prodding by Congress to include climate issues in its strategic plans — specifically, in 2008 budget authorizations by Hillary Rodham Clinton and John W. Warner, then senators. The department’s climate modeling is based on sophisticated Navy and Air Force weather programs and other government climate research programs at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Pentagon and the State Department have studied issues arising from dependence on foreign sources of energy for years but are only now considering the effects of global warming in their long-term planning documents. The Pentagon will include a climate section in the Quadrennial Defense Review, due in February; the State Department will address the issue in its new Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review. “The sense that climate change poses security and geopolitical challenges is central to the thinking of the State Department and the climate office,” said Peter Ogden, chief of staff to Todd Stern, the State Department’s top climate negotiator. Although military and intelligence planners have been aware of the challenge posed by climate changes for some years, the Obama administration has made it a central policy focus. A changing climate presents a range of challenges for the military. Many of its critical installations are vulnerable to rising seas and storm surges. In Florida, Homestead Air Force Base was essentially destroyed by Hurricane Andrew in 1992, and Hurricane Ivan badly damaged Naval Air Station Pensacola in 2004. Military planners are studying ways to protect the major naval stations in Norfolk, Va., and San Diego from climate-induced rising seas and severe storms. Another vulnerable installation is Diego Garcia, an atoll in the Indian Ocean that serves as a logistics hub for American and British forces in the Middle East and sits a few feet above sea level. Arctic melting also presents new problems for the military. The shrinking of the ice cap, which is proceeding faster than anticipated only a few years ago, opens a shipping channel that must be defended and undersea resources that are already the focus of international competition. Ms. Dory, who has held senior Pentagon posts since the Clinton administration, said she had seen a “sea change” in the military’s thinking about climate change in the past year. “These issues now have to be included and wrestled with” in drafting national security strategy, she said. The National Intelligence Council, which produces government-wide intelligence analyses, finished the first assessment of the national security implications of climate change just last year. It concluded that climate change by itself would have significant geopolitical impacts around the world and would contribute to a host of problems, including poverty, environmental degradation and the weakening of national governments. The assessment warned that the storms, droughts and food shortages that might result from a warming planet in coming decades would create numerous relief emergencies. “The demands of these potential humanitarian responses may significantly tax U.S. military transportation and support force structures, resulting in a strained readiness posture and decreased strategic depth for combat operations,” the report said. The intelligence community is preparing a series of reports on the impacts of climate change on individual countries like China and India, a study of alternative fuels and a look at how major power relations could be strained by a changing climate. “We will pay for this one way or another,” Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, a retired Marine and the former head of the Central Command, wrote recently in a report he prepared as a member of a military advisory board on energy and climate at CNA, a private group that does research for the Navy. “We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind. “Or we will pay the price later in military terms,” he warned. “And that will involve human lives.” 5. ERIC ECKHOLM LOSING GROUND 1979 World Watch Book: The Consequences of a Failed Energy Policy The single most important reason for poverty, migration and related flooding and deforestation is the lack of affordable and plentiful energy US policy on Kyoto has been to dramatically increase prices of energy making fuel unaffordable in third world countries unless significantly subsidized by the governments. Congressman Fred Richmond, Egypt 1976 Speech, Food, Fuel and Population 6. During the era of Global Cooling and the Coming Ice Age, (1973-79); fuel use was primarily dung and wood; resulting loss of soil fertility and massive water erosion, forced massive migration into the urban centers of the third world; this was when fuel was $1.80 barrel in 1970 and then $3.29 in 1983, from $35 in 1980, then $13 in 1997. There is a consistent line between low oil prices and high economic growth, reduction in poverty. Implementing the restrictions on energy production, not climate change, will trigger the effects so worrisome to the global warming mafia. 7. As recently as 2010, a global warming bill called for enhanced oil and gas development, nuclear power plant construction and clean coal technology subsidies while taxing oil and gas industry an additional $3.7 billion. (Graham, Kerry, Lieberman). Today, EPA is closing down coal power plants and refineries, the administration is opposing clean coal technology, the Sierra Club is calling for beyond natural gas as they once called for beyond coal, and nuclear power has 2 plant permits in the past half century. Kyoto is nothing more than a battering ram to fleece American consumers and enrich a cadre of global warming enthusiasts, their Wall Street and Corporate partners and give enormous power to both the US Government and OPEC. There has also been a shift from saving our planet to stop buying oil, the revenue from which ends up in the pockets of terrorists. “Some of the money goes to Al Qaeda, goes to Hezbollah...." Senator John Kerry, 2010 in introducing the legislation. 8. Climate Change and National Security is a must-read for undergraduates, graduate students, and research professionals alike. This book provides a careful guide to how climate change will affect specific countries and geographical regions. Unlike so many works that lose credibility by either exaggerating or downplaying the issue, the authors in this volume present the issues with military efficiency in a manner that can serve as a guide to practical action. If you read just one book on climate change this year, this should be it." -- Richard B. Andres, professor of national security strategy, National War College and Energy and Environment Security Policy Chair, Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University (even our military are misleading themselves!) Climate Change and National Security: A Country-Level Analysis by Daniel Moran (Editor) Daniel Moran is a professor of national security affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. He is coeditor of Energy Security and Global Politics: The Militarization of Resource Management. Peter Huessy, Comments and Notes: Energy poverty, mass migration, urbanization are key environmental challenges long identified with population growth, low energy production, corrupt and top-heavy socialist governments, and lack of free markets and infrastructure needed for sound business environment. They are occurring not due to climate change but primarily from geostrategic facts of life: A 7 billion population grafted upon terrible socialist governments, lack of free enterprise and effective infrastructure. The resulting humanitarian crises do often require the US of the US military, primarily the Navy rescue craft and the USAF airlift command. Whether the demand for such help will increase or decrease is a function of the four factors I mentioned above and the extent to which hurricanes and other storms displace people. The Arctic is becoming increasingly accessible and this requires more US Coast Guard capabilities as well as a revamped US Navy irrespective of climate change. The most serious issue are claims to the gas and oil resources within the Arctic fueled by aggressive Russian policies; but these conflicts are also in the South China Sea which is claimed in its entirety by the PRC due to the gas and oil resources there, That involves Naval and USAF capabilities but is not driven by climate change but PRC aggression. The LOST may indeed give us a say at the table where the rules of oil and gas exploration are determined; it of course gives us simply a front row seat to being outvoted by the rest of the Treaty signatories. Look at the Landsat photos of Haiti and the Dominican Republic--the disparity is not due to global warming or climate changes but primarily energy and wood poverty: The global warming and Kyoto enthusiasts are making far worse the factors that contribute to mass migration, desertification, erosion, and rural poverty in the third world than any global warming factors. Same as when Silent Spring led to the ban on DDT. Millions of children have died as a result of malaria. The military implications are serious from the spread of socialism, bankrupt crony government, lack of infrastructure investment and lack of affordable energy, all with the resultant mass unemployment and social instability in many US allies--Egypt, Pakistan. What is behind this push to see climate change everywhere is a nearly $20 billion worldwide industry of research and scare stories. LOST is part of that, as is Green energy. It is a very well crafted shake down of the US taxpayer. In 2006 CNA convened a Military Advisory Board (MAB) of eleven retired three-star and four-star admirals and generals to assess the impact of global climate change on key matters of national security, and to lay the groundwork for mounting responses to the threats found. In April 2007, CNA released the MAB's landmark report, National Security and the Threat of Climate Change, that articulates the concept of climate change acting as a “threat multiplier” for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world and identifies key challenges that must be planned for now if they are to be met effectively in the future. The report includes several formal findings: - Projected climate change poses a serious threat to America's national security. - Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world. - Projected climate change will add to tensions even in stable regions of the world. - Climate change, national security and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges. The report also made several specific recommendations: - The national security consequences of climate change should be fully integrated into national security and national defense strategies. - The U.S. should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate changes at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability. - The U.S. should commit to global partnerships that help less developed nations build the capacity and resiliency to better manage climate impacts. - The Department of Defense should enhance its operational capability by accelerating the adoption of improved business processes and innovative technologies that result in improved U.S. combat power through energy efficiency. - DoD should conduct an assessment of the impact on U.S. military installations worldwide of rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and other possible climate change impacts over the next 30 to 40 years.Oct 13, 2025

Warrior Maven

The US Plays Nuclear Catch-Up

By Peter Huessy, Senior Fellow, NIDS Introduction: Over the next two decades the US is planning to fully modernize its nuclear capable deterrent. From 2025-2045 most of this will be completed, including a new bomber, submarine and land based missile Triad elements as well as upgrading our nuclear command and control and replacing aging and legacy warheads. The force modernization will be the first comprehensive upgrade in nearly four decades as US legacy systems range from 40-70 years when they are planned to be replaced. The US is often accused of starting an unnecessary “arms race” and if shown sufficient restraint would be able to provide incentives for both China and Russia to similarly reduce their planned nuclear force modernization. This is untrue as the US has shown restraint a number of times in the past and both Russia and China continue to build. In particular there was no increase in US strategic forces that caused China’s “breath-taking” strategic nuclear force expansion. Opponents of missile defense often site US missile defense deployments as the rationale particularly for China’s nuclear build-up, while other nuclear critics have repeatedly proposed to eliminate the Sentinel ICBM and LRSO programs within the USAF. The ICBM Ear is producing the following charts to illustrate the scope of the US nuclear force upgrades and modernization, compared to that of Russia and China. Background: The Air Force has stated that it is planning to replace the aging AGM-86B ALCMs with a new advanced AGM-181 Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) cruise missile. The Air Force is in the midst of two B-52 upgrade projects. The B-52 Commercial Engine Replacement Program (CERP) seeks to create a new version of the aircraft—the B-52J—with eight Rolls Royce F-130 engines. The service anticipates modernizing 51 B-52s by FY2032 and the remaining 23 aircraft in FY2033. The US Air Force currently operates a fleet of 19 B-2A bombers (all of which are nuclear-capable) and 76 B-52H bombers (46 of which are nuclear-capable) and a total of no more than 60 bombers operate within the parameters of the 2010 New START agreement. An estimated 780 nuclear weapons, including approximately 500 air-launched cruise missiles, are assigned to the bombers, but only about 300 weapons are thought to be deployed at bomber bases. Each bomber is assumed to carry 8-24 weapons including cruise missiles or gravity bombers. B-52s only carry nuclear cruise missiles—8-20. Twenty B21 new bombers will replace the B-2 bombers and are assumed to be placed into the nuclear role consistent with the New START agreement. The USA will build and deploy 600 ICBM and SLBM missiles (400 Sentinel and 192 D-5 missiles). The Sentinel can carry upwards of 3 warheads while the Life Extended D-5 can carry as many as eight warheads. The Columbia class submarine carries 16 missiles while the current Ohio class submarine can carry as many as 20 missiles. This analysis assumed the US will have 60 bombers with no more than 780 cruise missiles and gravity bombs in the nuclear inventory. That implies an average of three nuclear strategic bombers a year over the next two decades and nearly 40 nuclear weapons a year available, including new LRSO cruise missiles replacing the legacy ALCMs. Although the deployed cruise missiles are estimated to be roughly 528 in total. The Ohio class submarine has 20 missiles each while the new twelve Columbia class submarine will carry 16 missiles. Added together the US is thus building roughly 70 new SNDVs or Strategic Nuclear Delivery Vehicles annually but only 30 long range intercontinental ballistic missiles for deployment. Actual deployments of the ICBMs and SLBMs/Submarines don’t actually occur until the 2030s while the new strategic bomber is undergoing test flights this decade with an estimated 2027 IOC. So far, the administration’s force structure goal remains at New START and 2022 NPR numbers of around 1800-2200 strategic nuclear warheads on land based missiles, sea based missiles and strategic bombers. What are Russia and China doing? Russia has deployed nearly 90% of its planned modernized nuclear force. If that build was spread out over twenty years it would average the deployment of an average of 65 strategic range and nuclear armed cruise missiles per year or SNDVs and in the range of 200+ warheads a year also each year for 20 years. China is building to a total of 92 SLBM and 700 ICBM missiles and as many as 2332-7000 ICBM and SLBM warheads by 2035-45 or implying a build of nearly 40 a year for strategic range missiles and upwards of 350 warheads a year. Conclusion: The United States has the goal of deploying (in the field and ready to be operational) 1550-1800 warheads, exactly the number we deploy today under the terms of the 2010 New START treaty. However one wishes to characterize such an effort, it is not arms racing. Russia and China appear to be deploying or have deployed in some cases at least 105-135 new long range missiles annually compared to 33 for the USA and some 350 warheads annually compared to 90 warheads for the USA.  The “arms race” has Russia and China building 400+% more nuclear capable platforms per year than the United States and 389% more warheads per year—on average if spread out over the period 2025-45. With that perspective the answer to the question of who is doing the arms racing and to where becomes obvious. Throughout the year, the US bomber force provides the US a signaling device to where we demonstrate the US commitment to allied extended deterrent.  Here the US air breathing deployments are in some cases greater than for Russia and China. However, when comparing the deployment of ICBM and SLBM “fast flyers” as Ambassador Ron Lehman calls them, the US is certainly not leading any arms race but has shown over the past near four decades remarkable restraint in US nuclear sustainment and modernization. If anything, the US is now arms catching-up as opposed to arms racing. As former Secretary of Defense Harold Brown explained: “We build, they build. We stop; they build.”Oct 12, 2025

Warrior Maven

Triad Costly Alternatives

By Peter Huessy, Senior Fellow, NIDS THE THREAT Admiral Charles Richard when commander of the US strategic Command explained that every time he received another briefing on China’s nuclear buildup, the previous estimates had doubled while the time it was taking China to build had been cut in half. The nuclear opponents and the abolitionists ignored these warnings and concluded such projections were highly exaggerated. But in fact, the Admiral nailed it. A new Pentagon report warns China will reach 1500 nuclear warheads not in 2035 as previously thought but now in 2030. Air Force Gen. Kenneth F. Wilsbach warned China’s “nuclear modernization and expansion will increase its ability to target our homeland with longer-range systems that can reach the continental United States, a primary reason to invest in Golden Dome.” Wilsbach further explained that China’s diverse nuclear arsenal gives the CCP leaders “options at every rung of the conflict” the key being warheads. And huge new missile fields in China have room for 300 missiles and potentially thousands of warheads. As the Strategic Posture Commission explained, the current US force structure “effectively accounts” for the current nuclear threat environment but is not sufficient for the future. While the US is rebuilding its own nuclear Triad of bombers, land based and submarine launched missiles, some opponents of US nuclear modernization have called for alternative strategies, including eliminating all our land based ICBMs or our submarines and submarine missiles. The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) for example believes submarine based warheads at sea are hard to count and should thus be eliminated, while the Arms Control Association wants to kill all American land based missiles because the silos in which they are deployed can be targeted. If the US were to take down either of these Triad legs, deterrence would still require the United States to maintain the current level of missile warheads. And what would be the impact of such strategies if the US nuclear forces needed to expand? In short if we adopted the FAS or ACA idea of deterrence and maintained only what their new force structure allows, how does the US sustain the status quo or an uploaded force? America’s 400 new Sentinel missiles could deploy from 400-1200 warheads. Ninety-nine percent would be on alert at any one time. The cost of this system is projected to cost $141 billion including new missiles, silos, cabling and other infrastructure, plus the $15 billion for the warheads. The 12 new Columbia submarines will each hold 16 D-5 missiles and each missile could hold as many as 8 warheads. The cost of the submarines is $130 billion plus $30 billion for upgrading the D-5 missiles and $18 billion for the warheads. Both planned systems are projected to remain in the US nuclear deterrent until 2080, costing an average of some $6.6 billion a year. THE NEW START STATUS QUO To deploy 1490 New START Treaty Allowed (NSTA) warheads but only with ICBMs, and assuming each missile would deploy 1-3 warheads, requires 100-1090 more ICBMs or from $35B-$420 billion. This plan would save the full cost of the Columbia class submarine and D-5 missiles of $160 billion but for a net cost as high as $260 billion. Now, nearly all such missiles would be on alert, but without submarines, not a highly survivable force. Even if the least expensive path were followed, the US would have a zero upload capability as the US would be stuck at the 2010 New START arms treaty, leaving the US on the short end of the international strategic warhead balance by a factor of 3/1 to 6/1. On top of which the US would be one technology failure away from unilateral nuclear disarmament. [Even if the United States kept 60 strategic bombers with nuclear capability, any first strike from an enemy could eliminate much of the remaining airborne force unless maintained on alert or continuously airborne.] If the United States wanted to deploy all 1490 NSTA warheads with submarines alone, we could load the 12 Columbia submarines with 16 missiles and a maximum of 8 warheads a missile. That force would have almost 1024 missile warheads on alert if at sea 67% of the time, and 768 on alert warheads if at sea 50% of the time. The number of additional submarines needed would be 4-6 if at sea 50% of the time, costing another $52-84 billion for the submarines, (only available post 2042), and $18 billion for more D-5 missiles and $14 billion for more warheads. However, the US would have a zero upload capability. And be one technology failure away from unilateral nuclear disarmament. And with very little diplomatic leverage to seek effective and reasonable arms control limits. While the US would save the cost of Sentinel, $141 billion, it would require new submarines, D-5 missiles and D-5 warheads to be built costing near $110 billion. UPLOAD REQUIREMENT But maintaining the NSTA level of warheads reflects a 2010 strategic environment that has since changed markedly. China is projected to have 900 (150%) more warheads just by 2030. The New START treaty may be extended to February 2027, but while Russia is a party to the agreement, China is not. Russia has a very rapid upload capability to 2700-3200 warheads (which may already have been started) and a total nuclear warhead force that could easily reach a minimum of 4000 long range strategic nuclear warheads. The path to upload to our current capability but to do so only with silo ICBMs or sub SLBMs is very costly and would take decades longer than the currently planned nuclear modernization plan. For example, to deploy 400-1200 on alert warheads at sea to replace the four hundred Sentinel (each missile can hold 3 warheads) would require anywhere from an additional 600-2400 total SLBM warheads, on alert from 50%-67%, with 80-300 more D-5 missiles. That implies  building 5-18 more Columbia class submarines than currently planned, costing (in today’s dollars) $80-$240 billion in additional expenditures, plus $14 billion for the added D-5 missiles and $18 billion for more warheads. These added nuclear modernization costs of $272 billion are only offset by the $141 billion saved by jettisoning Sentinel. Letting Minuteman III atrophy saves relatively little---some $2 billion a year until the missile goes out of service. Alternatively, the United States could replace the required on alert SLBM warheads with only ICBMs. Assuming each Sentinel would carry 3 warheads, matching the maximum deployment with 2700 on alert ICBM warheads—matching the current combined upload capability of our ICBMs (1200) and SLBMs (1536)—would require as many as 900 ICBMs each with 3 warheads. The cost of such a force would be an additional $175 billion plus $30 billion for more warheads. The US on the other hand would save $160 billion in jettisoning 12 submarines and their associated D-5 missiles, for a net loss of $45 billion. But on the downside, the US would have a zero buildup capability, would be one technology failure away from disarmament, and with a relatively vulnerable nuclear force which would make a very tempting target for our enemies. CONCLUSION Strategies relying on only one key leg of the current nuclear TRIAD, whether sea based submarines or land based silo missiles, would maintain the status quo at an additional cost to the US Treasury of up to $150 billion while also significantly worsening US strategic deterrence. The consequence of the US sticking with an SLBM or ICBM force only means any future required increase in the US strategic deterrent would require hundreds of billions of additional defense dollars and decades to produce, all the while with the US facing a deteriorating strategic nuclear environment. In all cases, the United States would also be without an upload capability and thus unable to respond to a surge in Russian or Chinese nuclear deployments. The United States would also be perilously close to one technology failure away from unilateral nuclear disarmament while offering the President significantly restricted options available for deterrence. On the other hand, keeping the current TRIAD nuclear deterrent saves cumulatively some $740 billion compared to alternative strategies examined here, is very flexible in dealing with crisis stability, and allows the US to match our future deterrent needs quickly and effectively.Oct 12, 2025

Warrior Maven

The Land-Based ICBM Transition: Meeting America’s New Challenge

By Peter Huessy, Senior Fellow, NIDS The US land-based ICBM force is going through a transition from the current MMIII to the new Sentinel. The challenge to get this right is multifold and involves a complex operational requirement where two different systems have for some time to be on alert simultaneously even as one goes out of service and the other stands up. The scope of this has never had to be done before for any element of the US nuclear deterrent. The new Sentinel missile has met all its flight test parameters to date. The original plan was to place Sentinel into the Minuteman silos as the old MMIII missiles were taken out. But each of the 400 Minuteman silos potentially placed different geological, environmental and technical challenges before the United States Air Force. On top of the mixed missile force having different operating and NC3 protocols. Thus, it was decided to build new silos adjacent to or near the currently used real estate, also allowing unused missile fields in Montana and Wyoming to be available for new silos that would give the USAF some additional operational flexibility. The transition now will be more cost effective, efficient and simpler. Some members of Congress and their allies in the nuclear abolition community think we can forgo Sentinel and just keep Minuteman. In that case, the MMIII silos and missiles currently being used would be 130 years old if kept in the force as long as Sentinel is planned to be deployed. That obviously makes no sense and cannot be done technically. Continually relying solely on MMIII translates into a zero ICBM force down the road. And a force soon to be retired provides no diplomatic leverage in possibly securing a new arms deal. And without land based ICBMs, the US could deploy as of circa 2042 a maximum missile force of 1536 warheads, which is what a 12 submarine, 16 missile per sub, and 8 warheads per missile force would give you. And that force would be barely above the current 1550 New START warhead force level, leaving the US with a zero hedge buildup capability, just when we are facing a two peer nuclear challenge from Russia and China. Only after 2042 could we build additional Columbia class submarines (which we should definitely do in any case). Building Sentinel gives the US a deployment option of 800-1200 warheads over today’s nuclear force and saves the military at least $270 billion if we had to substitute sea-based warheads for those aboard Minuteman in the near-term and Sentinel through 2080. Alternatively, Sentinel makes great sense. The new missiles and silos will last until 2080 which translates into an annual RDT&E and Procurement cost of roughly $2.9 billion which is only some .3% of the currently planned FY2026 defense budget. And a new digital technology system could also probably save from 25%-33% of the current annual operational costs of the Minuteman III, which translates over the lifetime of the force a savings of upwards of $16 billion in today’s dollars. The JROC process or joint requirements work confirmed the land-based ICBM force remains critical to US deterrent requirements. The land-based ICBM force is upwards of 99% on alert, which implies without land-based ICBMs the United States would need to acquire a much larger submarine force as a substitute as the submarine force is 33%-50% less on alert than that of our land based ICBMs. New silos will also allow the USAF to pace the construction at whatever is most optimum without having to be paced by the extent to which MMIII silos can be refurbished to make them available for the new Sentinel. Including speeding up the military construction process to build the new infrastructure at more than one of the three ICBM bases. This added flexibility allows the USAF to take into account new wind farms, snow melt patterns and other encroachments where the new silos could be located. The full fidelity for the costs of the Sentinel system savings available compared to the previous program of record will be better known as the program goes forward. And the assumption that costs will only increase can be discarded. Over the lifetime of the current ICBM force the program costs varied considerably. The original build of 1000 silos/missiles occurred over 5 years, 1962-7. Boeing built the ICBM land based force expeditiously and very quickly. And then starting in 1970, with the simple addition of two warheads for each of 500 Minuteman missiles, the land based ICBM force of Minuteman missile warheads doubled during the SALT sanctioned buildup and at a relatively small cost. However, with the emerging change in the USSR/US correlation of power and the projected opening of a window of strategic vulnerability, the cost of the land based ICBM force increased as the new MX or Peacekeeper missile was proposed with initial R&D funding in the 1973 budget for a deployment date of October 1986. To get the Peacekeeper deployed, the Reagan administration pulled a neat trifecta. The Scowcroft Commission of 1983---coupled that same year with the liberation of Grenada, the Evil Empire speech and proposed SDI, must have had the Kremlin folks reaching for the liters of vodka quite regularly. While we deployed the first tranche of Peacekeeper missiles in silos, the second lot was approved by Congress if placed in a rail mobile configuration. The Reagan era strategic modernization program was across the board and persuaded Moscow the US meant business. With better diplomatic, economic and military leverage, the US got the INF, CFE, START I and II nuclear and conventional treaties. And for the first time in history, communist territory was freed when Grenada was liberated. In 1990, Solidarity won in Poland with the victory of Lech Walesa just as the year before in 1989 Vaclav Havel won in Czechoslovakia. The FMLN and Sandinistas were defeated in 1991-2, all combined to fracture the USSR. START II eliminated multiwarhead land based missiles and thus the United States both took down Peacekeeper and assumed the new 3500 warhead ceiling would go into effect and reduced its nuclear force accordingly. Minuteman costs were minimal including the REACT improvements, which later in the 1990s were joined by the Propulsion and Guidance Replacement Programs that have kept MMIII viable “through 2030” which was the Congressional requirement authored by Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND). Minuteman may remain in the force until 2045-50, giving added flexibility to the pace of Sentinel deployment. But the cost of land based ICBMs remains over time very reasonable, the STRATCOM assessment of the need for such ICBMs has been completed, and a new schedule and program outline is now moving in the right direction. The United States has to keep what we have and add new technology improvements, thus improving and sustaining its nuclear deterrent simultaneously. That is the only way to meet the new challenges of what General Tom Bussiere, the commander of the USAF Global Strike Command says, is a more dangerous world than he has seen in his multi-decade service to the United States.Oct 12, 2025

Warrior Maven

Making Nuclear Coercion and Blackmail Great Again

By Peter Huessy, Senior Fellow, NIDS At the beginning of the 20th century, especially after WWI, the US and its allies sought arms control solutions to what were political problems, most seriously the great power rivalries and conflicts of the time. Proposals such as a ban on war and restrictions on the size of Naval vessels and army divisions were adopted but eventually without affect. After WWII, both Japan and Germany became allies of the West while the USSR, an ally of the allies in WWII became a serious enemy of the West. Most importantly the USSR established in eastern Europe an alliance of nations under the Warsaw Pact. That initiated a decades long Cold War which only ended with the collapse of the USSR in 1991. It was widely assumed that the end of the USSR heralded in an era of global cooperation and the end of great power competition and conflict. Arms control had brought us the INF, START I and II and the CFE agreements. But now, as many military and diplomatic experts have concluded, the dangers facing the United States and its allies are more complex and more serious than perhaps any time since the end of WWII. And arms control deals still remain allusive. Nuclear conflicts are now at the top of such potential dangers, including proliferation of nuclear weapons, the pending end to formal strategic arms limits and the actual use of theater nuclear force arising out of existing conventual conflicts such as Russia’s war against Ukraine. To lessen such dangers and despite strategic realities, nuclear critics and abolitionists continue to proffer numerous arms control proposals. Six ideas are most common: (1) a policy of no first use of nuclear weapons; (2) adopting of what is described as a “minimum use” nuclear strategy; (3) the elimination of the land based ICBM force in the United States and significant cuts to the submarine based US nuclear deterrent; (4) a unilateral freeze of US nuclear force development; (5) an extension of the New START nuclear arms limits; and (6) abandoning any new theater nuclear forces such as the SLCM-N or the sea launched cruise missile. Unfortunately, all these strategies would harm US and allied security and make worse the strategic nuclear balance. The US extended deterrent has for 70 years rested on the option of using nuclear force to stop massive conventional attacks on US forces and allies overseas. Depending on the regional military balance, such nuclear extended deterrent options have been viewed by our allies as central to keeping their nation’s safe from Soviet and now Russian and Chinese aggression. Minimum use deterrent strategies assume the only retaliatory targets the US needs to hold at risk are an adversary’s cities where a few hundred nuclear warheads are all that is needed to deter. This doctrine assumes Russia and China will be completely deterred by the fear of losing large numbers of their civilian population. But this ignores the fact that historically to gain and secure power such regimes have murdered millions of their own people. Even worse, a minimum deterrent strategy would also leave in sanctuary the leaders of such nations as well as their nuclear and conventional forces with which they will commit aggression. Cutting out the land based ICBM the Sentinel and a third of the Columbia sea based submarine would unilaterally reduce the US strategic nuclear force to around 500 at sea on alert warheads. This would be only a third of the allowed New START treaty force, and lead over the next decade to anywhere from an 8/1 to 18/1 Russian and Chinese advantage in nuclear weapons. This would ensure that both nations frequently use nuclear weapons for coercion and blackmail. A freeze on US force development would be a deterrent disaster as the US has not yet fielded any portion of the three legged Triad whether the B21 (test planes have been built); Sentinel (not initially deployed until next decade) and Columbia (projected to come into the force circa 2030.) Russia has completed over 90% of its own rebuilding and China is well on it wat to tripling the size of its nuclear force over the next decade. Both by definition would not be part of a unilateral US freeze. An extension of New START sounds attractive but would be harmful to US interests. It would delay any needed uploading of US warheads. It would not affect or make transparent China’s breathtaking nuclear buildup. And without a sea change in Russian behavior, verifying current arms limits would still not been possible given the past five years of treaty violations by Moscow. The Strategic Posture commission report of October 2023 emphasized the urgency of rebalancing the current gap in US regional or theater nuclear forces. The SLCM-N and better theater air-based deterrence were key recommended upgrades, both of which would be ended by a number of these arms deals or strategies. It has been precisely this deterrent gap which Moscow has leveraged to limit US and allied assistance to Ukraine. The restraint these arms control ideas wish upon the US military assumes that Russia and China will reciprocate. But in the multiple decades after the end of the USSR, massive US restraint was eventually met with what Admiral Richard has described as a “breathtaking” Chinese build up and a near matching Russian modernization. As former Secretary of Defense Harold Brown once warned, “We build, they build. We stop; they build.”Oct 12, 2025

Warrior Maven