scholarly journals Nuclear Policy Re(V)iew from the Periscope: SLBM and SLCM Policy Options for the 2022 Biden White House

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carla McKinley ◽  
Speero M. Tannous ◽  
Jake Hecla ◽  
Aaron Berliner ◽  
Morgan Livingston ◽  
...  

Advances in nuclear weapon technologies from – and the corresponding evolution in the threat landscape posed by – non-allied nations over the past four years underscores the exigency of the United States (U.S) in updating its stated national security policies. Here we review and suggest options for the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) regarding the low-yield submarine-launched cruise missile (SLCM-N) and submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) programs. The 2018 NPR called for programmatic changes to counteract the evolving threat environment and allow for greater deterrence flexibility. These programs include modernization of existing technologies and creation of novel weapons systems. Of these changes, two new programs were started to develop low-yield, sea-based, non-strategic weapons. These options are designed to counter any perceived gaps in U.S. regional deterrence capabilities. We enumerate several policy options likely to be considered by the Biden White House. Our proposed solution calls for maintenance of the W76-2 program and the continuance of the low-yield SLCM-N program; we present our argument along the axes of technical and cost considerations, service system preferences, tailored response capabilities, ensured support and defense of our allies, and prevention of escalation to war.

Significance The Vietnam analogy implies that President Joe Biden’s decision to leave Afghanistan will have deeply negative consequences for the United States. However, Afghanistan is not Vietnam and the Biden withdrawal needs to be considered within the wider context of his administration’s review of US commitments abroad. Impacts The White House will be pressured to clarify the future of other US military commitments, particularly in Iraq. Biden will seek to reassure allies, particularly those in NATO, that his commitment to multilateralism will not diminish. Biden may seek an opportunity for a military show of force, possibly in the Middle East, to refute accusations of weakness.


2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 219-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyle R. Brady

Abstract The ideation and execution of American homeland security has substantially evolved over the past fifteen years from a vague statement of principles to a very concrete, professional, and institutionalized field, with a cabinet-level department associated with various aspects of its practice. However, homeland security in the United States – defined as the protection of citizens, property, and interests beginning at international borders and expanding inward – is not yet fully developed or even secure in its own roles. As the evolution of both the theory and the practice continues, an important principle – analogous to one in the field of national security – must be sufficiently addressed and acted upon: the physical act of protecting sovereign territory.


2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 7-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael S. Gerson

The release of the Barack Obama administration's much-anticipated Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) concluded an intense, yearlong effort to revamp U.S. nuclear weapons policy to better address modern threats. Despite general agreement that the United States' nuclear policy and posture was in need of overhaul, there were strong disagreements over what kinds of changes should be made. At the core of these debates was the issue of U.S. declaratory policy—the stated role and purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons. Whereas some members of the administration advocated that the United States retain all of the flexibility and options afforded by the policy of calculated ambiguity, others contended that to fulfill President Obama's commitment to “put an end to Cold War thinking” and “reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy,” the United States should adopt a more restrictive nuclear policy such as no first use (NFU), perhaps in the form of a declaration that the “sole purpose” of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack. By not adopting NFU, the NPR missed an important opportunity to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. strategy. The traditional case for NFU hinges on the argument that the threat of nuclear first use is unnecessary for deterrence. Yet the continued U.S. option to use nuclear weapons first is not only unnecessary but dangerous. Given the size and accuracy of the current U.S. nuclear arsenal, and given the variation in the nuclear capabilities of current and potential adversaries, the first-use option risks creating instabilities in a severe crisis that increase the chances of accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate nuclear use. In a future crisis with a nuclear-armed state, the fear—whether real or imagined—that the United States might attempt a disarming nuclear first-strike increases the possibility of nuclear escalation.


2012 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 23
Author(s):  
Ashley Flint

Health care spending in the United States has increased rapidly over the past several decades. Medicare, the largest public health insurance program in the US, is a key component of these growing costs. While Medicare financing is expected to be stable over the next decade, the long-term solvency will be difficult to sustain absent congressional action. This paper analyzes three policy options for Congress to consider in addressing the problem of rapid cost growth in the Medicare program.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Loch K Johnson

The purpose of national security intelligence is to provide policy officials with an advantage in the making of effective policy, based on the collection and analysis of accurate information from around the world that can help to illuminate a decision. Foreknowledge is invaluable in the service of a nation’s security; and, in the gathering of useful information, technological innovations in the world of intelligence can result in a stronger shield to protect citizens against the many dangers that lurk across the continents in this uncertain and hostile world.  Despite all the marvels of modern espionage tradecraft, the governments that rely on them must still deal with the human side of intelligence activities. Unfortunately, arrogance, shortsightedness, laziness, frenetic schedules, and the corrosive influences of power (among other flaws) often lead policy officials to ignore or warp the advantages they could accrue from advanced intelligence spycraft, if they would only use these sources and methods properly. This article examines some of the problems that imperfect human behavior has created for intelligence in the United States at the highest levels of government over the past two decades.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-31
Author(s):  
Víctor Hugo Ramírez Lavalle

This article pays special attention to the genesis of relations and documents in the field of national security, which determine the relationship between Mexico and the United States, examines its framework and results, as well as the concept and constitutional foundations of national security and defense of Mexico.In this conceptual framework, it is noteworthy that in March 2021 the American delegation, headed by Roberta Jacobson, the former US Ambassador to Mexico, the White House Border Coordinator, arrived in Mexico. Both delegations announced that the talks would focus on ensuring orderly, safe and legal migration in the region and progress in implementing the Comprehensive Development Plan for the Northern Region of Central America, but in fact, the main subject of talks would was US national security. In other words, the regulation of migration flows from Mexico and the countries of the so-called Northern Triangle (Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador).The topics mentioned above are not new on the US-Mexico bilateral agenda, and in this regard, the government of President Biden seems to revise Donald Trump’s policy on migration, with a special focus on national security, using less aggressive rhetoric, without threats to continue the construction of the border wall, but, in turn, more rigid from a political point of view. In view of the above, it appeared appropriate to present the legal framework, set out primarily in the constitution, on which Mexico relies and which allows it to properly negotiate and at the same time have a clear vision on the current state of national security between the two countries.


Worldview ◽  
1972 ◽  
Vol 15 (11) ◽  
pp. 16-20
Author(s):  
Paul Ramsey

What are the imperatives for strategic thinking for the seventies? At the beginning of the seventies the United States adheres even more firmly to a policy of minimum or finite deterrence. Our power at all other levels of war and deterrence is increasingly challenged or outstripped. Even the possible vulnerability of our nuclear forces is tolerated for the sake of strategic disarmament treaties to come. It is difficult to tell the difference, for example, between editorials on strategic questions in the New York Times over the past two or three years and Dulles's “more bang for a buck” policy. The upshot seems clearly to be a i greater reliance on the most politically immoral nuclear posture imaginable, namely, Mutual Assured Destruction.


2001 ◽  
Vol 100 (648) ◽  
pp. 323-329
Author(s):  
Jack Mendelsohn

The Bush administration's national security policies, if fully and unilaterally implemented, will severely stress United States relations with Russia and China. … These policies would also deal a serious blow to the international treaty regimes developed over the past 30 years to control the spread of weapons of mass destruction and that continue to enjoy universal support and approval.


Significance Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was in Hanoi last month. In the Interim National Security Strategic Guidance document released by the White House in March, Vietnam was identified as one of Washington’s leading partners in the Indo-Pacific. Impacts Stronger Vietnamese-US relations may embolden Hanoi to initiate international legal proceedings over its maritime disputes with Beijing. Vietnam will urge the United States to do more to highlight the environmental impact of dam-building on the Mekong by upriver countries. Hanoi’s burgeoning ties with US adversary Moscow could have a negative impact on its relations with Washington.


Author(s):  
Pavel A. Aksenov

Over the past several years, the United States has taken a leading position in the world in attractiveness to foreign investors, largely due to the policy of favoring foreign investment and the absence of significant restrictions on incoming FDI. Currently the United States are trying to find a balance between openness to foreign investment and emerging issues related to the economy and national security. As a result of the adoption of the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act in 2018, the authority of the US Foreign Investments Committee was significantly expanded and the requirements for transactions were tightened, in particular, monitoring and verification of compliance with national security requirements. Despite the fact that these measures affected all incoming FDI in the United States, they are primarily an instrument of competition between the United States and China. Restrictions on outbound investment by China, as well as new requirements on the part of the United States, have significantly reduced the flow of FDI from China to the United States, especially in high-tech industries and infrastructure projects. Meanwhile, the US direct investment in China has remained stable over the past few years. In addition, there are some industry regulations on the share of foreign investors in the capital of energy companies, broadcasting companies, banks and others. Investment relations between the two countries, according to the investors, despite political and trade contradictions, remain quite close.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document