US should plan nuclear-force expansion, says panel

US and allies need capability to fight China and Russia simultaneously, according to congressionally mandated commission.

The panel’s recommendations include expanding the number of B-21 bombers. Picture: Getty Images

The US must prepare to expand its nuclear forces in the years ahead to deter the twin threats from China and Russia, a congressionally appointed commission said Thursday.

“We will face a world where two nations possess nuclear arsenals on par with our own,” the panel said in a detailed report. “Modifications to both strategic nuclear forces and theatre nuclear forces are urgently necessary.”

The 12-member panel — made up of former officials and experts chosen by Democratic and Republican Congressional leaders — was charged with looking at security threats from 2027 to 2035.

Its recommendations come at a pivotal moment as the Biden administration is conducting its own review of future nuclear requirements. China is building up its military might, and the New START treaty, which covers long-range US and Russia nuclear arms, is set to expire in 2026. Meanwhile, the upheaval in the Middle East has placed new demands on US conventional forces as the Pentagon has sought to devote more of its resources to Asia.

President Joe Biden took office pledging to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in world affairs, but has had to contend with China’s ambitious weapons programs and the fraying of the arms control framework with Moscow.

National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said in June that a future US nuclear force didn’t need to “outnumber the combined total of our competitors” to serve as an effective deterrent.

But the White House has yet to spell out in detail how it plans to deter both China and Russia in the decade ahead if arms-control efforts remain frustrated and Beijing continues to expand its nuclear forces as the Pentagon has projected.

The commission — led by Madelyn Creedon, a former Energy Department and Pentagon official and Jon Kyl, the former Republican senator from Arizona — has sought to shape the debate.

Their report said that while some panel members believe that it is already clear the size of the US nuclear stockpile and the number of delivery systems will need to be increased, all members agree steps need to be taken now to better position Washington to deter Chinese and Russian nuclear forces in the future.

“US defence strategy to address the two-nuclear-peer threat requires a US nuclear force that is either larger in size, different in composition, or both,” it said. “Therefore, decisions must be made now to meet evolving deterrence requirements.” The panel’s recommendations include expanding the number of B-21 bombers, Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines and long-range cruise missiles that the US is planning to deploy.

It also urged the Pentagon to step up its research and testing of missile defence technologies, including against cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles, and to urgently deploy any capabilities that prove to be feasible. The recommendation follows intelligence briefings on emerging Chinese and Russian military conventional and nuclear capabilities and would be intended to “complicate adversary attack planning.”

As a hedge against delays in the U.S. nuclear modernisation program, the report urges the Pentagon to practice “uploading” more warheads on existing land-based and submarine-based ballistic missiles. The US, it said, should also develop contingency plans to convert B-52 bombers that carry conventional bombs so they can deliver nuclear weapons and modify Ohio-class subs to carry more missiles.

In a sharp critique of the Pentagon’s strategy, the commission’s report also said that the US and allied forces need the capability to fight two major wars simultaneously against China and Russia — which would require a substantial boost in defence spending.

Rose Gottemoeller, a commission member who served as the chief US negotiator of the New START treaty during the Obama administration, said that some of the projected nuclear steps might be avoided if future arms-control efforts succeeded in constraining the threats the U.S. faces.

“Obviously the report is very hard edged,” she said. “It is possible to turn away from these threats and these eventualities should the overall environment change.”

While commission members noted they had reached a consensus on their recommendations, their findings have become the focus of debate.

Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi, who serves as the ranking Republican member of the Senate armed services committee, hailed the panel’s findings as a sobering recognition that the current trajectory of the US strategic forces is “insufficient to deter the looming Chinese and Russian threat”.

But some arms-control groups said the report’s recommendations emphasised nuclear weapons programs over diplomacy and might backfire by fuelling a new arms race.

Expanding nuclear forces “would make it more likely that China would decide to deploy more nuclear weapons on an even wider array of delivery systems over the coming decade and prompt Russia to match any increases in the U.S. strategic force,” said the Arms Control Association, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit group.

The Wall Street Journal