For almost 80 years, America’s nuclear arsenal has served as the ultimate guarantor of security for ourselves and our allies. But our missile systems are aging and are well past their programmed lifespan. Unless dramatic action is taken—and soon—it won’t be long before our adversaries can discount any threat from the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

Our antiquated nuclear deterrent is a relic of the Cold War, with systems desperately in need of replacement. The newest nuclear weapon in the arsenal is over 30 years old. America’s Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) were supposed to be replaced when Ronald Reagan was still president, and the Navy’s ballistic missile submarine fleet will soon be overdue for its own retirement.

The good news: A modernization effort is underway. All of these Cold War-era systems are being replaced—simultaneously—with next-generation missiles, warheads, bombers and submarines. The bad news: It’s moving much too slowly if we expect to keep us safe in the years ahead.

The next-generation ballistic missile submarine, for example, is years behind schedule. The Department of Energy says that America’s nuclear enterprise won’t be producing new plutonium pits or warheads at scale until the mid-2030s.

But the biggest problems are that America’s next-generation ICBM, the Sentinel program, is 87% over budget and behind schedule. This is because much of the infrastructure surrounding the rocket—the underground tunnels, the command-and-control systems, the computer systems, the wiring, the missile silos themselves—all need to be replaced, in addition to the missile itself.

In short, the United States has to rebuild the infrastructure we put in place during the Cold War.

Some have argued that the U.S. should simply “life-extend” the existing ICBM program, but the Air Force has certified that this is no longer technically feasible. Constantly switching out parts from a 1975 Cadillac and hunting for fewer and fewer specialized mechanics over time to keep it running can only last for so long before it’s cheaper and better to just buy a new car.

Tragically, the annual congressional appropriations process means the Cadillac is in a garage, slowly rusting. Limited increases in the defense budget have not resulted in additional investment in our nuclear deterrent. For far too long the congressional appropriations process has grown the Pentagon bureaucracy and funded questionable research and development spending that won’t help America deter our adversaries or win a war.

There is, however, another way. Congress should use the reconciliation process to establish a Triad Infrastructure Modernization Fund (TIMF) to modernize our nuclear weapons and enable America’s strategic deterrent for generations to come.

Reconciliation is a special legislative process that bypasses the Senate filibuster and allows simple majorities in both the Senate and House to enact multi-year spending. It can be used to modernize our nuclear deterrent without having to grow the rest of the federal government. Using reconciliation allows national security leaders in Congress to avoid the “I’ll give you more domestic discretionary spending if you give me more defense spending” trade that is so often found in annual spending bills.

What would the TIMF entail? It would pay for nuclear infrastructure modernization such as the construction of missile silos, submarine berths, tunnels, plutonium pit production lines, warhead design and fabrication capabilities, and the nuclear command-and-control centers built during the Cold War. The legislation would put very specific limits on what projects and programs would be funded by TIMF resources—and any projects not directly related to America’s nuclear infrastructure would not receive these funds.

Unlike the annual appropriations bills with short-term time limits, a reconciliation bill for nuclear modernization could be used for up to 10 years after being signed into law. It would enable smart long-term planning and fund $10 billion of infrastructure improvements a year—meaning that over the next decade, the United States would pump $100 billion dollars into nuclear facilities in Georgia, Washington state, South Carolina, New Mexico, Texas and the missile fields of the High Plains.

The TIMF would not be a permanent increase to the defense budget. It would not be about throwing money at a problem. It would meet today’s needs to maintain America’s strategic deterrent without cutting into the military’s combat capabilities of the future.

It would be a one-time effort that would cover the buy-in cost to build America’s strategic deterrent of the 21st century.

Given the threats posed by our adversaries in Beijing, Moscow, Tehran, and Pyongyang, America can’t afford to live in a world without a credible nuclear deterrent.

____

Robert Peters is the Nuclear Deterrence and Missile Defense Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

_____

©2024 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.