Posted on 11/24/2024 1:44:06 AM PST by EBH
The U.S. nuclear triad must be modernized to keep pace with changing threats in the future, the nation’s senior officer in charge of strategic forces said on Tuesday.
Air Force Gen. Anthony Cotton, speaking at a Center for Strategic and International Studies event, added “for the United States nuclear deterrence is baseline strategy” stopping adversaries from crossing thresholds because they know American capability to respond.
China, being a nuclear power and rapidly expanding its arsenal, changes the strategic equation from the Cold War with the Soviet Union, he said. Where there was little economic interaction between Moscow and Washington in the Cold War, Beijing is a major trading partner with the United States.
That “makes the whole dynamic a little different.” Later in the session, Cotton, Strategic Command’s commander, asked rhetorically, “what do we do to prevent conflict” before it can escalate to nuclear war.
“I hate the term Cold War II” to describe today’s strategic environment,” he said. “The adversary you’re talking about is a peer or a near-peer competitor].”
In the discussion, he noted Russia’s latest shift in nuclear doctrine. The New York Times reports the new doctrine allows Moscow to use nuclear weapons if an attack poses a “critical threat” to sovereignty or territorial integrity.
The U.S. nuclear triad must be modernized to keep pace with changing threats in the future, the nation’s senior officer in charge of strategic forces said on Tuesday.
Air Force Gen. Anthony Cotton, speaking at a Center for Strategic and International Studies event, added “for the United States nuclear deterrence is baseline strategy” stopping adversaries from crossing thresholds because they know American capability to respond.
China, being a nuclear power and rapidly expanding its arsenal, changes the strategic equation from the Cold War with the Soviet Union, he said. Where there was little economic interaction between Moscow and Washington in the Cold War, Beijing is a major trading partner with the United States.
That “makes the whole dynamic a little different.” Later in the session, Cotton, Strategic Command’s commander, asked rhetorically, “what do we do to prevent conflict” before it can escalate to nuclear war.
“I hate the term Cold War II” to describe today’s strategic environment,” he said. “The adversary you’re talking about is a peer or a near-peer competitor].”
In the discussion, he noted Russia’s latest shift in nuclear doctrine. The New York Times reports the new doctrine allows Moscow to use nuclear weapons if an attack poses a “critical threat” to sovereignty or territorial integrity.
Cmdr. Mike Kessler, commanding officer of the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine USS Louisiana (SSBN-743) blue crew, left, speaks with Gen. Anthony Cotton, commander, U.S. Strategic Command, during a routine visit and ship tour, June 3, 2024. US Navy Photo The announcement came a few days after President Joe Biden permitted Ukraine to fire longer-range Army Tactical Missile System weapons [ATACMS] into Russian territory.
Cotton also cited North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons and Iran’s continuing investments in building its own arsenal as changing the situation now.
“I have a legacy system” of manned bombers, land- and sea-based missiles and a communications system created for the Soviet threat.
He said several times the nuclear triad remains “safe, secure and effective,” as well its communications; but all must be modernized.
“It’s really hard to convince folks [that] you need to modernize” when the systems work. “I’m sorry we didn’t think about [modernization of the triad and communications system] 30 years ago, so here we are.”
He said in line with the Nuclear Posture Review, Strategic Command developed a road map of immediate goals, near-term [within five years] and future with input and buy-in from combatant commanders.
Cotton added artificial intelligence advances are incorporated in the planning “to take advantage of efficiencies,” not replace humans in decision-making.
“I need to have connectivity to the president at all times” to know when to shoot, that the order is authorized and when to stop. He also said “connectivity” not only with the president but regional combatant commanders was essential to handle future crises. “The program of record has to happen.” Cotton added, “we started talking about nuclear modernization in 2010, but the world has changed since then.”
Looking into the future, he said, “we need on ramps and off ramps” in the modernization program that can adjust to changing threats over time.
Cotton estimated the cost of the nuclear enterprise modernization program at 4 percent of the defense budget, but that cost extends out for decades. He paraphrased former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, “we can afford survival.”
When asked whether allies like Korea and Japan still believe in the U.S. providing “extended deterrence,” Cotton mentioned constant engagement reassures them that “we’ll be there.” He cited port calls at Busan by ballistic missile and guided missile submarines and air exercises with Korean fighters and B-52s as examples of this engagement.
“Gone are the days of thinking [North Korean attack] will never happen,” Cotton said.
China, being a nuclear power and rapidly expanding its arsenal, changes the strategic equation from the Cold War with the Soviet Union, he said. Where there was little economic interaction between Moscow and Washington in the Cold War, Beijing is a major trading partner with the United States.
That “makes the whole dynamic a little different.”
Nice. Ratchet up the threat level then ask for more money for even more weapons.
“Nice. Ratchet up the threat level then ask for more money for even more weapons.”
Ironic considering the same corporations who control our Military Industrial Complex are also funding China’s MIC. They are supplying both sides at the same time with MIC war funds.
The perpetual “Deterrence” scam is a win/win for these corporations.
exactly. A cycle that needs to be broken
Trump will take care of this, Biden did not undo all of president Trump’s increases in our nuclear weapons and submarines and currently some of our subs are being restocked with tactical nuclear cruise missiles after a 30 year absence.
“Under Trump, America’s nuclear weapons industry has boomed”
“While the country has been preoccupied with the COVID-19 pandemic, economic decline and the election, President Trump’s administration quietly and steadily steered America’s nuclear weapons industry to its largest expansion since the end of the Cold War, increasing spending on such arms by billions of dollars with bipartisan congressional support.
Overall, the budget for making and maintaining nuclear warheads has risen more than 50% since Trump was elected in 2016, substantially outpacing the rates of increase for the defense budget and overall federal spending during his presidency before the pandemic.”
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-12-23/under-trump-americas-nuclear-weapons-industry-has-boomed
Our ruling “elites”, want a war now, not in future! So, you go to war with the equipment you have, not what you want in future. And, there might not be a future, if we start launching nukes.
Tell that to president Trump, he believes in a strong military and a strong nuclear deterrent.
Here is 60 seconds of Trump.
Trump says he would stop Putin from saying the word ‘nuclear’ ever again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL17-2yi9wE
B-21, Columbia Class, and the Sentinel (I would’ve called those Minuteman 4’s) are the future of deterrence
“Nice. Ratchet up the threat level then ask for more money for even more weapons.”
Nice, preaching ignorance.
The recent intercontinental ballistic missile Putin hit Ukraine with is an advancement, a modernization that of the type, of numerous ones, that the U.S. has not produced and Putin has. Who is doing the “racheting up”.
Development requires motivation. So what do you think motivated Russia to create these missiles?
“Development requires motivation. So what do you think motivated Russia to create these missiles?”
Putin’s desire to continue to be an adversary, by choice, not by necessity.
Well that’s what happens with “Shock and Awe”. You want to show off to the world how strong you are and how devastating and precised your weaponry is and the rest of the world should what? Bow down?
“You want to show off to the world how strong you are”
So, by your thinking (or Putin’s??) that is ALL that the Gulf War was about, nothing else??? Idiotic.
No this is about NATO encroachment. Shock and Awe set off the weapons race
“No this is about NATO encroachment.”
What NATO “encroachment”??
Wow. If you can’t see the slow surrounding on Russia by an organization which is against Russia in it’s charter, then I don’t know how to help you.
“Wow. If you can’t see the slow surrounding on Russia by an organization which is against Russia in it’s charter”
You merely accept the Putin theory that calling things part of the Soviet Union was an error, a commitment to a Russian lie, that it was all along NOT Soviet exapansion across central asia and eastern Europe but really Russian expansion. That the Soviet Union was a myth and just a different name for the Russian Empire - which by the way is Putin’s beleief.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.