By U.S. Senator Deb Fischer
Newsweek
Picture the day when China, Russia, and North Korea finally lay down their atomic weapons. The clouds part and rainbows fill the sky as these autocratic nations, one by one, dismantle their nuclear programs, finally succumbing to diplomatic efforts and calls for world peace.
Such a day is, of course, pure fantasy. A utopian dream where our power-hungry adversaries see the error of their ways and get rid of their nukes is just that: a dream.
Nonetheless, some—including among my congressional colleagues—push for the United States to operate as if that dreamworld could become reality. That’s foolish, naive, and dangerous. We need robust nuclear defenses not for the world we wish for, but for the world that actually exists—and that world is an increasingly perilous place.
Here’s the reality. China’s arsenal is growing at a breakneck pace, on track to amass at least 1,000 warheads by 2030—five times as many as it had in 2019. Russia possesses the world’s largest stockpile of nuclear weapons: 5,580. North Korea has at least 50 nuclear weapons, and it has the material to make up to 70 more. And then there’s Iran, the breeding ground for terrorist groups in the Middle East. If that nation’s leadership so chooses, Iran could have the material it needs for a nuclear weapon within two weeks.
Despite these growing threats, some argue that our land-based nuclear forces—currently Minuteman III, soon to be replaced by the Sentinel program—are unnecessary, dangerous, and too expensive. It’s true that there have been cost overruns. But is that a reason to get rid of our ground-based systems completely?
The answer is a resounding no. Our ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are indispensable. ICBMs can be launched by the president within minutes and can reach most targets within 30 minutes of the launch. They’re deployed in silos that stretch across several states. Any adversary considering an attack on the United States has to grapple with our ability to hit back forcefully and immediately. That significant deterrent would crumble without our ICBMs to back it up.
Land-based ICBMs, by virtue of their location in our heartland, are also unlikely to be targeted by enemy attacks. While our adversaries could destroy nuclear-armed planes and submarines in the field under the auspices of self-defense, attacking our land-based nuclear forces would provoke all-out war with the United States. For that reason, our ICBMs are the most hardened and final leg of the nuclear triad—the ultimate deterrent and guarantor of our safety.
We don’t develop our nuclear arsenal because we want to use nuclear weapons. We don’t even develop it just in case we have to. We invest in nuclear weapons because they underwrite every operation or negotiation undertaken by our nation. Effective diplomacy—especially with other nuclear powers—means nothing if it isn’t buttressed by a formidable nuclear deterrent. If you think China and Russia are too aggressive today, imagine how they would act if the United States reduced our number of deployed ICBMs.
Far from dismantling our land-based nuclear weapons, we should increase our modernization and production efforts. Even the Biden administration, which previously focused on nuclear arms control, is now considering expanding our arsenal.
Our best opportunity to do that is the National Defense Authorization Act, which we’re considering in the Senate Armed Services Committee this week. This year, I’ve introduced legislation that takes prompt, decisive action to transform our aging array of defenses and to renovate long-neglected industrial capabilities.
Right now, much of our nuclear command and control predates the internet, while other nations’ nuclear arsenals are brand new and growing. We have submarines built in the ‘80s and ‘90s, an air-launched cruise missile built in the ‘80s, intercontinental ballistic missiles built in the ‘70s, and a bomber built in the ‘60s.
My bill would require the secretary of the Air Force to develop a plan for procuring and deploying an additional 50 Sentinel ICBMs above the currently planned 400. The provision won’t commit our nation to procure additional ICBMs quite yet, but it will prepare us to do so in the future if necessary.
Most Americans don’t think about the threat of nuclear weapons on a daily basis and haven’t since the Cold War. That’s a reprieve granted by our nuclear triad, which includes ground-based systems like Sentinel. But if we surrender to calls for even partial nuclear disarmament, the American public will no longer have that luxury.
The reality is that we are not living in a peaceful, nuclear-free utopia—and we won’t be anytime soon. We cannot act like we are.
Deb Fischer is the senior senator from Nebraska. She is a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the top Republican on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which oversees nuclear forces, arms control, and ballistic missile defense.