SAC General Opposes Plan to Gut Nuclear Triad

Good for him!  He’s one of the few Generals left who are actually doing their job:  Protecting Americans from all threats, foreign and domestic.

I predict Our Dark Overlords will transfer him in 3…2…1…:


Key general opposes eliminating one arm of nuclear triad in next round of cuts
By John T. Bennett – The Hill

The general who oversees America’s nuclear arsenal made clear Tuesday he will resist efforts to eliminate one arm of the military’s nuclear triad of bomber aircraft, long-range missiles and submarines.

The Pentagon is implementing a $350 billion funding cut that will spread over a decade, and bracing for the bulk of another $600 billion in security cuts that would come if the congressional supercommittee fails to agree on at least $1.5 trillion in federal deficit cuts.

Because of the massive costs that stem from sustaining and modernizing the aging nuclear weapons fleet, some in Washington have said lopping off one part of the triad would produce big savings.

But Gen. Robert Kehler, U.S. Strategic Command chief, told reporters at a breakfast meeting he would advise Pentagon brass against such a bold move.

“I continue to stand by the need for a triad,” Kehler said. “I think, in the near-term, we need to sustain a triad.”

While Kehler acknowledged the nuclear triad should not be viewed as untouchable — especially in an era of declining Defense Department budgets — he said he has yet to “see anything that would make me think” one leg of the bomber-missiles-subs force could be terminated.

The nuclear arsenal is set to undergo a multibillion-effort that will upgrade — and in some cases, completely rebuild — many of its warheads and related components.

Kehler said decisions about going to a two-pronged nuclear force “is not a question for today,” and would occur in the future.

That decision will have several aspects, he said, including the nation’s future “strategic situation” and the “budget dimension.”

The StratCom chief also warned of cutting nuclear forces too deep.

“You can have a hollow nuclear force” by making decisions that leave inadequate resources to sustain the arsenal and eroding the military’s nuclear workforce, Kehler said.

One decision that must be made is by the Navy, he said, saying the sea service must decide when it will have to retire the first Ohio-class nuclear submarine.

That date must be set so Pentagon leaders know when a replacement program has to be far enough into its life so that the first replacement sub is ready to enter the fleet.

“We can’t have a gap,” Kehler said. But Defense officials must determine whether it needs to “match up completely” with the first Ohio-class retirement, he added.

The StratCom boss also addressed the most recent nuclear weapons treaty with Russia, saying: “I don’t know if we will come down below New START [nuclear weapons] levels — we’ll have to see.”

Talks with Moscow for that pact were begun under the George W. Bush administration and were finalized by the Obama White House. The pact limits strategic warheads at just over 1,500 and the number of missile launchers and bombers at 800.

In the meantime, Kehler shed new light on the performance standards his command submitted to the Air Force for a new bomber aircraft it is designing.

His organization told the Air Force the new bomber, to meet its missions, needs to have a range longer than fighter jets; be able to penetrate enemy air defense systems without being detected; and launch both conventional and nuclear weapons.

StratCom did not tell the Air Force it needed to be loaded with a sophisticated package of intelligence and surveillance sensors, though Kehler said the military came to value those things after a decade at war.

The Air Force has been trying to nail down performance standards for a new bomber for nearly a decade, and Pentagon leaders have squashed several tries at launching a new program because they felt the service lacked a clear idea of the plane it wanted.

As first reported by The Hill, Pentagon officials have cleared a service plan to buy between 80 and 100 new bombers that would enter the operational fleet by the mid-2020s.

Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman are expected to compete for what will be a lucrative contract to design, develop and build the new bombers.

The House-passed version of the 2012 Defense appropriations bill would add $100 million to the Air Force’s spending request for the bomber effort to accelerate development.

Explore posts in the same categories: Military

2 Comments on “SAC General Opposes Plan to Gut Nuclear Triad”

  1. tgusa Says:

    Given what I am hearing coming out of the mouths of so called military leadership I’m not sure I trust them with nuclear weapons any more. I guess we can debate it, should we scale down our nuclear stockpile or should we just wait for a homicidal maniac, allowed in and promoted through diversification policies to blow them in place? Can we really afford Ft Hood jihadists in missile silos? My survey sez, no.

  2. tgusa Says:

    I’m really tired of the Dr Phil nonsense regarding the islamist menace that seems to be sop in military leaderships circles and I had better see some change or I will lose all hope. Besides, if they don’t have the bomb no one will be able to blame them for it being an inside job when the bomb goes off. In the wake of 9-11 some Americans have stated that somehow our leadership was in league with jihadists but in the ten plus years since I don’t know where they got that idea.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: