We don’t need nuclear cruise missiles at sea

Washington Post, By the Editorial Board, August 9, 2023

When the Cold War ended more than 30 years ago — and a coolheaded realism still existed in both U.S. political parties about the dangers of expanding nuclear stockpiles — President George H.W. Bush removed cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads from America’s ships and submarines. Bush’s move was a prudent step for nuclear stability. In 2013, President Barack Obama retired the nuclear cruise missiles permanently.

Or so we thought. This month, as House and Senate conferees begin to iron out differences between the two chambers on a nearly $900 billion Pentagon spending bill for next fiscal year, both the House and Senate armed services committees want to place a new generation of nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missiles (known as SLCM-Ns) back on Navy vessels. That would be a mistake……………………….

putting SLCM-Ns aboard attack submarines would complicate the mission of those vessels, which are charged with hunting enemy vessels. They would take up limited launch-tube space needed for anti-submarine warfare and require the Navy to recertify crew members for nuclear operations. Carrying nuclear cruise missiles would also limit the subs’ participation in allied naval exercises as well as their ability to make port calls and maintenance stops in countries that don’t welcome nuclear platforms in their harbors. This goes for surface ships as well and helps explain why the Navy opposes the missiles’ return.

Another reason to forgo SLCM-Ns: They are destabilizing. Cruise missiles fly low, under radars, and at much higher speeds than a generation ago. That combination reduces warning times to minutes and would force our rivals in Moscow and Beijing to match the capability. Returning these weapons to our arsenal would also lead other nations — Iran comes to mind — to hurry their development.

Then there is the cost-benefit crunch. A new generation of SLCM-Ns (and their warheads) would cost roughly $10 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and perhaps much more to make them operational at sea. Conferees should weigh that price tag against the three systems the United States already has in place to deliver tactical nuclear weapons……………………………………………………..

The Pentagon is set to undergo a broad modernization of its nuclear triad that is expected to cost $756 billion, if not more, over the next 10 years. The Editorial Board has said that some of those moves make sense while others could be slowed, or even halted, without endangering our security. But bringing back shorter-range nuclear weapons, especially those removed for good reason decades ago, would prove both expensive and dangerous. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/08/09/nuclear-weapon-sea-launched-cruise-missile-slcmn/