Chilton's 40-Year Vision: Nukes are Here to Stay
|
Posted
by Amy Butler at
11/10/2009 12:23 PM CST
|
USAF Gen. Kevin Chilton, who oversees the U.S. Strategic Command and the nuclear arsenal, says he acknowledges President Obama's hope for a nuke-free world. But, it won't come soon, and in the meantime, the U.S. had better pay attention to its nuclear weapons complex, Chilton says.
He gave the final speech of this year's National Defense University Foundation breakfast series at the Capitol Hill Club today. He says his vision of supporting the arsenal -- including the programs needed to keep the weapons safe and reliable -- is not "inconsistent" with the president's vision.
Though the general doesn't advocate restarting a nuclear weapons testing program, he says the U.S. should retain the ability to do so if needed. The nuclear weapons complex is "decrepit and inadequate," he says. Though funding has been provided for the stockpile stewardship program to monitor the health of the weapons, he says the program lacks a planning element.
Many U.S. nuclear weapons will be 60-85 years old 40 years from now, he says, and a funded strategy is needed to maintain the reliability and safety of these systems.
The general declined to address the Nuclear Posture Review and START re-up talks with Russia. The closest he came was an off-the-cuff remark. In thanking longtime NDUF breakfast series host Peter Heussy when he took the podium, Chilton acknowledged that this was Heussy's 1500th time hosting the breakfast, dating back to the 80s. "Sounds like a number I heard batted around lately," he said with a smile. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said he does not want to take the nuke stockpile below 1,500.
Following the end of the Cold War, Chilton says that "we've skipped a generation of thought" about nuclear deterrence strategies. There has been a "holiday away from thought, serious thought, about deterrence."
One new element of deterrence is missile defense. Chilton says missile defenses can be destabilizing if fielding many interceptors prompts an adversary to arm up to overmatch them.
He listed strengths of each leg of the triad:
SLBMs -- assurance -- they are most survivable
ICBMs -- "stabilizing"
bombers -- "credibility," he notes that the U.S. "crossed the bomber threshold" when it bombed Japan at the end of WWII. And, he noted that that gives bombers more credibility than the other legs.
But, he didn't go so far as to advocate directly for a new bomber. Only during Q&A did it come up. He says the B-2 is "no spring chicken" and the B-52s are older and limited in what they can do. He's prefer a new bomber to be nuclear capable. He says, however, that a conventional bomber can have a deterrrent effect as well.
In a perfect world I would give him the resourses he needs to insure a capable nuclear infrastructure and deterrent strike force.