Key Takeaways
- The Sentinel program, a $140 billion project to modernize the land leg of America’s nuclear triad, is facing criticism and uncertainty about its future direction.
- Nuclear strategy experts are divided on whether the program should be accelerated, tweaked, or canceled, with some arguing that the current trajectory is misguided.
- The requirement for a minimum of 400 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) is seen as arbitrary by some experts, who argue that national security needs should drive the scale of the program.
- Alternative approaches, such as putting Sentinel missiles onto launcher trucks, are being considered as a cost-effective way to maintain or expand the land leg.
- The debate surrounding the Sentinel program highlights the need for a re-evaluation of US nuclear policy and the role of the land leg in the country’s nuclear triad.
Introduction to the Sentinel Program
The Sentinel program, a major initiative to modernize the land leg of America’s nuclear triad, is facing significant challenges and criticism from nuclear strategy experts. The program, which aims to replace the current fleet of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) with a new generation of missiles, has a price tag of $140 billion and is expected to maintain a minimum of 400 silo-based missiles until 2075. However, many experts are questioning the wisdom of this approach, arguing that the current trajectory of the program is misguided and that alternative approaches should be considered.
Expert Opinions on the Sentinel Program
Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, is one of the experts who is skeptical of the Sentinel program. He argues that the requirement for a minimum of 400 ICBMs is unnecessary and that the country’s nuclear bombers and nuclear missile submarines are sufficient to deter enemy attacks. Matt Korda and Mackenzie Knight-Boyle, nuclear researchers at the Federation of American Scientists, share this view, arguing that the mandate for at least 400 missiles is "arbitrary" and serves political interests rather than national security needs. They believe that Congress should stop requiring a minimum number of missiles and instead let national security needs drive the scale of the program.
Alternative Approaches to the Sentinel Program
Some experts, such as Kyle Balzer of the American Enterprise Institute, believe that the Sentinel program should be accelerated and that the country needs to "look at the reality of the situation and ensure that (Sentinel) … gets back on course, and we get 400 ICBMs." However, Balzer also sees 400 as a likely cap for silo-based missiles rather than as a floor, given the limited resources available. He argues that the country should also focus on building more Navy ships and expanding the B-21 Raider next-generation stealth bomber program’s goal from 100 to 200 planes. Bob Peters of the Heritage Foundation agrees, and also suggests that putting Sentinel missiles onto launcher trucks could be a cost-effective way to maintain or expand the land leg.
The Case for Road-Mobile Missiles
The idea of putting Sentinel missiles onto launcher trucks is seen as a potential solution to the challenges facing the Sentinel program. By using road-mobile missiles, the country could reduce the number of silos needed and make the system more difficult for adversaries to target. This approach could also help to reduce costs, as fewer silos and associated command and control centers would be required. Peters argues that "there’s potential to have reduced costs, right? If you have 50 fewer, 100 fewer silos and associated command and control centers and tunnels, maybe you can cut some cost."
The Future of US Nuclear Policy
The debate surrounding the Sentinel program highlights the need for a re-evaluation of US nuclear policy and the role of the land leg in the country’s nuclear triad. As the country moves forward with the modernization of its nuclear forces, it is clear that a range of options and approaches should be considered. By engaging in a thoughtful and informed discussion about the future of US nuclear policy, the country can ensure that its nuclear forces are effective, efficient, and aligned with its national security needs. The Nuclear Sponge project, a five-part explanatory series by USA TODAY, aims to inform readers about the strategic debate and costs of modernizing the land leg of America’s nuclear triad, and to provide a platform for experts and policymakers to share their views and ideas on this critical issue.