US Weapons Lobby Shoots Down Opposition

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

“When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success. That is the way it was with the atomic bomb.” -- J. Robert Oppenheimer

Weapons Lobby Shooting Down Opposition

Intense lobbying by aerospace and defense technology giant Northrop Grumman resulted in the company being awarded an uncontested bid in September 2020 for the $13.3 billion engineering, manufacturing, and development phase of America's new $100 billion nuclear missile project.

This latest weapon is another ground-based strategic deterrent (GBSD), and it has a lot of critics. A new report out next week from the non-partisan think tank, Federation of American Scientists (FAS), says the US is building this Cold War-era nuclear missile based on a set of flawed and outdated assumptions, and without a clear sense of what it will achieve.

FAS argues the GBSD is being driven by intense industry lobbying and politicians from states that will benefit the most economically, rather than a clear assessment of the purpose of the new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). Currently, there are 400 Minuteman missiles spread over five states: Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming. All except Colorado have Republican governors. Many arms-control advocates argue that the ICBMs should not be replaced, but phased out entirely due to their vulnerability and instability. And as the report notes, "there has not been a serious consideration of what role these cold war-era weapons are supposed to play in a post-Cold War security environment."

The price tag for the new GBSD was deliberately made to look like it costs less than extending the life of the Minuteman III missile it would be replacing. An independent assessment suggests the actual price tag of a totally new weapon could be two to three times more. A 2019 congressional effort to mandate a study on the comparative costs was blocked with help from the industry lobby.

GBSD supporters cite China's rising military power as a rationale for building the new weapon. But FAS maintains that America’s ICBMs are irrelevant to deterring China, because any launch from the Great Plains and over the Arctic could be interpreted by Moscow as an attack on Russia, potentially widening an already catastrophic conflict. Former secretaries of defense and military commanders skeptical of ICBMs say in the event a nuclear attack against the US is confirmed, the better course for retaliatory action would be to use US nuclear bombers and submarine-launched missiles, the other two legs of the nuclear triad.

The Biden administration is preparing its first defense budget, which might reveal its intentions regarding the GBSD. Some critics support delaying funding to give the administration time to conduct a nuclear posture review. However, the administration isn't expected to rethink the triad, which has been US nuclear orthodoxy since early in the Cold War.

One former defense secretary worries the wrong decision will be made. "These arguments in favor of maintaining the triad have been so ground into us through the years it’s very unlikely they will find a way of rising above that.” (Guardian)