U.S. ARMY REARMS? – NUKES Return to the Field!

The reassessment of land-based theater-range nuclear arms by the U.S. Army could be a strategic game-changer amidst growing global threats from China and Russia.

At a Glance

• The Congressional Research Service analyzed Russia’s nuclear posture in its recent report.
• Russia and China are expanding and modernizing their nuclear arsenals.
• U.S. Army’s past experience with nuclear deterrence during the Cold War.
• Potential strategic advantages of ground-launched cruise and ballistic missiles.
• Russia’s increasing use of nuclear deterrence as a foreign policy tool.

A Renewed Nuclear Threat Landscape

The modernization of non-strategic nuclear weapons by China and Russia is undeniable. This threat prompts a critical reassessment by the U.S. Army to potentially reintroduce land-based theater-range nuclear arms. The Cold War era saw these arms effectively deter threats, an approach that might be again relevant given today’s geopolitical tensions. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has highlighted the growing sophistication of Russia’s nuclear technology, including their SS-X-29 (Sarmat) and SS-27 Mod 2 (Yars) intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

President Putin’s regime has regularly utilized nuclear deterrence as a political lever, exacerbating global anxieties. The persistent nuclear threats and breaches of agreements, such as the New START treaty, underscore the need for the U.S. to bolster its defense posture. Concerningly, Russia dedicates an expansive 6.7% of its GDP to defense, fueling its nuclear capabilities.

Evaluating Strategic Deterrence

Reflecting on the past, the U.S. Army’s strategic operations during the Cold War heavily relied on various nuclear systems, including mobile ground-launched capabilities. The potential re-adoption of systems like Ground-Launched Cruise Missiles (GLCMs) and Ground-Launched Ballistic Missiles (GLBMs) bears significant strategic advantages. These systems allow for greater mobility, concealability, and survivability, with GLCMs proving difficult to detect and GLBMs delivering faster responses.

“if deployed, these systems would significantly complicate the detection and characterization of an incoming nuclear attack, thus hindering the United States’ ability to respond effectively.” – General Gregory Guillot.

Given the evolving threat dynamics, adapting the current U.S. nuclear deployment could mitigate risks and enhance deterrence in critical regions, particularly the Indo-Pacific. Intermediate-range missiles like GLBMs offer unmatched range and strategic versatility, making them suitable contenders for remedying basing challenges in the region. The Army’s involvement in the nuclear mission could align it alongside the Navy and Air Force, bringing a balanced deterrence posture.

Potential Path Forward

While the considerations are complex, proponents argue that the reactivation of the U.S. Army’s nuclear mission can significantly bolster strategic credibility and deterrence against adversaries. The introduction of nuclear capabilities to existing systems like the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) could further enhance deterrence. China’s accelerated nuclear expansion adds another layer of urgency for the U.S. to re-evaluate and possibly invigorate its nuclear positioning against burgeoning threats.

This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.

Evidently, the strategic environment has shifted dramatically since the Army axed its land-based nuclear systems post-Cold War. The current era demands informed reassessment and agile adaptation of military strategies to uphold national security. In actioning these recalibrations, the U.S. can convey a resolute commitment to countering authoritarian threats and protecting global peace.