Kathianne
02-15-2023, 11:04 PM
At the same time our country is going broke-by choice:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/like-it-or-not-the-u-s-is-in-an-arms-race-with-china-weapons-icbm-missiles-beijing-war-pentagon-nuclear-power-915d8ae5?st=9rn4t0dg8mjl2sj&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Like It or Not, the U.S. Is in a Nuclear Arms Race With ChinaBeijing is on its way to parity and has tested technologies America has never had.
By Patty-Jane Geller
Feb. 15, 2023 5:40 pm ET
The Pentagon revealed this month that China now has more intercontinental ballistic missile launchers than the U.S. This is the latest evidence that China is well on its way to nuclear parity with—if not superiority over—the U.S.
In addition to the massive expansion of its ICBM force, China is cranking out nuclear warheads at record pace. With the recent addition of a strategic bomber to its arsenal, China now boasts a complete nuclear triad, which also includes submarine-launched ballistic missiles. And it is improving its arsenal of regional nuclear missiles that can reach Guam, a U.S. territory that hosts a critical military installation in the Indo-Pacific.
Beijing has also tested technologies that Moscow and Washington have never had, such as a fractional orbital bombardment system that can circle the globe before releasing a nuke that can glide through the atmosphere toward its target at five times the speed of sound.
The U.S. is unprepared to deter China’s growing nuclear threat. The current U.S. structure was designed more than a decade ago and is based primarily on the need to deter Russia. Back then, most believed that China would maintain only a couple of hundred nuclear weapons. The Pentagon now projects Beijing will have at least 1,000 weapons by the end of the decade.
...
America’s nuclear force isn’t large enough to take on Russia’s and China’s at the same time, which becomes more concerning when considering the potential for increased cooperation between the two countries.
To strengthen its nuclear forces, the U.S. must focus on three priorities.
First, the U.S. must increase the size of its nuclear arsenal. For deterrence to be credible, the U.S. must maintain enough nuclear weapons to hold at risk the assets its adversaries value most, including their nuclear forces. Given the hundreds of new Chinese missile launchers and other new weapons, the U.S. will need more nuclear weapons to hold these targets at risk. In nuclear deterrence, numbers matter.
To increase its arsenal’s size, the Pentagon should consider boosting procurement plans for nuclear modernization programs already under way, including for the Sentinel missile, Columbia-class submarine and B-21 bomber. It also should take steps to improve America’s ability to add more warheads to existing missiles as a viable option to boost the size of the arsenal in the near term. Right now the process to load warheads onto ICBMs, for example, can take months if not years.
Second, the U.S. must develop the right capabilities to deter the unique Chinese threat. The current mix, configured to deter Russia, might not be suitable to deter China. America’s adversaries value different things, and the situations in which they might resort to nuclear weapons differ.
At minimum, this means the U.S. should accelerate developing a nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile. This weapon would bolster U.S. nuclear capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region and give the president a more proportional—and therefore more credible—option to respond to limited Chinese nuclear use, such as a tactical nuclear weapon employed against a U.S. military base like Guam.
Last year Congress approved $45 million in R&D funding for the program, but Congress should provide at least $400 million this year with the aim of deploying this weapon by the end of the decade.
Finally, given the uncertainty of the Chinese threat and the dynamics of a new environment in which the U.S., China and Russia are nuclear peers, the ability for the U.S. to modify its nuclear forces increases in importance.
Today the U.S. nuclear program can’t respond to changes in the geopolitical environment in any reasonable amount of time. For example, the engineering phase for the future W93/Mark 7 warhead will take at least 12 years. And the U.S. will also be unable to produce plutonium pits—needed to make any additional warheads—until after 2030.
This state of affairs may have been tolerable before China embarked on its dramatic buildup, but today it represents perilous risk for the U.S. Strengthening U.S. forces might not be simple or cheap, and getting it right likely will require a long-term funding commitment. But the investment and effort are more than necessary given that nuclear war is at stake.
Ms. Geller is senior policy analyst for nuclear deterrence and missile defense at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for National Defense.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/like-it-or-not-the-u-s-is-in-an-arms-race-with-china-weapons-icbm-missiles-beijing-war-pentagon-nuclear-power-915d8ae5?st=9rn4t0dg8mjl2sj&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Like It or Not, the U.S. Is in a Nuclear Arms Race With ChinaBeijing is on its way to parity and has tested technologies America has never had.
By Patty-Jane Geller
Feb. 15, 2023 5:40 pm ET
The Pentagon revealed this month that China now has more intercontinental ballistic missile launchers than the U.S. This is the latest evidence that China is well on its way to nuclear parity with—if not superiority over—the U.S.
In addition to the massive expansion of its ICBM force, China is cranking out nuclear warheads at record pace. With the recent addition of a strategic bomber to its arsenal, China now boasts a complete nuclear triad, which also includes submarine-launched ballistic missiles. And it is improving its arsenal of regional nuclear missiles that can reach Guam, a U.S. territory that hosts a critical military installation in the Indo-Pacific.
Beijing has also tested technologies that Moscow and Washington have never had, such as a fractional orbital bombardment system that can circle the globe before releasing a nuke that can glide through the atmosphere toward its target at five times the speed of sound.
The U.S. is unprepared to deter China’s growing nuclear threat. The current U.S. structure was designed more than a decade ago and is based primarily on the need to deter Russia. Back then, most believed that China would maintain only a couple of hundred nuclear weapons. The Pentagon now projects Beijing will have at least 1,000 weapons by the end of the decade.
...
America’s nuclear force isn’t large enough to take on Russia’s and China’s at the same time, which becomes more concerning when considering the potential for increased cooperation between the two countries.
To strengthen its nuclear forces, the U.S. must focus on three priorities.
First, the U.S. must increase the size of its nuclear arsenal. For deterrence to be credible, the U.S. must maintain enough nuclear weapons to hold at risk the assets its adversaries value most, including their nuclear forces. Given the hundreds of new Chinese missile launchers and other new weapons, the U.S. will need more nuclear weapons to hold these targets at risk. In nuclear deterrence, numbers matter.
To increase its arsenal’s size, the Pentagon should consider boosting procurement plans for nuclear modernization programs already under way, including for the Sentinel missile, Columbia-class submarine and B-21 bomber. It also should take steps to improve America’s ability to add more warheads to existing missiles as a viable option to boost the size of the arsenal in the near term. Right now the process to load warheads onto ICBMs, for example, can take months if not years.
Second, the U.S. must develop the right capabilities to deter the unique Chinese threat. The current mix, configured to deter Russia, might not be suitable to deter China. America’s adversaries value different things, and the situations in which they might resort to nuclear weapons differ.
At minimum, this means the U.S. should accelerate developing a nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile. This weapon would bolster U.S. nuclear capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region and give the president a more proportional—and therefore more credible—option to respond to limited Chinese nuclear use, such as a tactical nuclear weapon employed against a U.S. military base like Guam.
Last year Congress approved $45 million in R&D funding for the program, but Congress should provide at least $400 million this year with the aim of deploying this weapon by the end of the decade.
Finally, given the uncertainty of the Chinese threat and the dynamics of a new environment in which the U.S., China and Russia are nuclear peers, the ability for the U.S. to modify its nuclear forces increases in importance.
Today the U.S. nuclear program can’t respond to changes in the geopolitical environment in any reasonable amount of time. For example, the engineering phase for the future W93/Mark 7 warhead will take at least 12 years. And the U.S. will also be unable to produce plutonium pits—needed to make any additional warheads—until after 2030.
This state of affairs may have been tolerable before China embarked on its dramatic buildup, but today it represents perilous risk for the U.S. Strengthening U.S. forces might not be simple or cheap, and getting it right likely will require a long-term funding commitment. But the investment and effort are more than necessary given that nuclear war is at stake.
Ms. Geller is senior policy analyst for nuclear deterrence and missile defense at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for National Defense.